The decision by the head of the NACC not to proceed with any further investigation into the Robodebt scandal was greeted with 900 complaints about the decision. 

The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, responsible for overseeing the agency’s operations and conduct, has declared that it will commence its own investigation into the matter due to the overwhelming and sustained uproar.

The Inspector of the NACC, “Ms Furness said she will make the findings of her inquiry public in due course.”

“Many of those complaints go so far as to allege corrupt conduct or maladministration by the NACC itself.”

* * * * *

Let me remind you of Commissioner Catherine Holmes’s words about these individuals involved in Robodebt.

Of the former Prime Minister, the Commission found that:

“It was Morrison’s pathological incuriosity that allowed the cabinet to be deceived.”

“Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry,” Holmes’s report says. “He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information.”

Of Minister Alan Tudge:

“Tudge, Holmes found, was motivated by a desire to “save face” both personally and on behalf of the Government. He wanted to “minimise public embarrassment” after he had publicly trumpeted the new era of debt compliance when he became minister the year before.”

“As a minister, Mr Tudge was invested with a significant amount of public power,” the report says.

“Mr Tudge’s use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.”

Of Minister Christian Porter:

“Mr Porter could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme on the basis of his general knowledge of the [new policy proposal] process, when he did not have actual knowledge of the content of the NPP, and had no idea whether it had said anything about the practice of income averaging.”

Minister Stuart Robert:

When Stuart Robert was appointed minister for Government Services, he was briefed on a Federal Court of Australia case concerning a Robodebt victim in which the Australian Government Solicitor had provided draft legal advice warning the scheme was almost certainly not lawful.

However, Robert:

“… denies being briefed on this advice in June 2019, but the Royal Commission does not believe him. This poses a significant problem for the former minister because it was another five months before the opinion of the solicitor-general was sought. This was the definitive, scheme-killing legal advice.”

Why was there such a long wait? Officials argue it was simply a long process:

“In the Commission’s view, none of this justifies the five-month delay in preparing and delivering the brief.

Further, Commissioner Catherine Holmes said also that:

“… elements “appear to exist” of the little-known tort of misfeasance in public office, in detailed findings that targeted various former Coalition ministers over a scheme she described as wracked by collusion and dishonesty.” 

The term ‘misfeasance’ means that the victims could sue the Ministers directly.

* * * * *

I’m seeking words to describe the NACC’s decision to walk away from Robodebt. Can you help?

When the concept of an anti-corruption commission was first muted, it was expected to be a powerful force against wrongdoing. However, as evident from its recent release, the NACC’s response to the Robodebt issue is as weak as a developing baby. This raises the question: What was the point of its establishment if it can do little more than a Royal Commission can? Why was it established if it could not investigate a government policy that was considered the worst policy failure in Australian political history?

The NACC evaluated six (mentioned above) individuals cited by the Royal Commission and decided not to pursue the investigation nearly a year later.

Rick Morton, a dedicated journalist who covered the Royal Commission from start to finish for The Saturday Paper, expressed his disbelief at the NACC’s decision, tweeting, “I dared not hope for more, but this is beyond belief.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the sorry saga as a “gross betrayal” of the Australian people and an example of great “human tragedy”.

In July 2023, Ms Holmes:

“… labelled the automatic debt recovery scheme as an ‘extraordinary saga’ of ‘venality, incompetence and cowardice’ when she released her final report into the scandal.”

The final report dubbed:

“Robodebt neither fair nor legal and has offered 57 recommendations.”

In my view, what the Commission is saying is this:

The Royal Commission did an exceptional job. Yet, despite being referred to matters, the NACC has chosen to refrain from diving deeper because it’s unable to offer any “remedies or sanctions”. It’s too much for us. Despite its powers, there is nothing more it can do. It’s a frustrating situation to fathom. The public couldn’t be blamed for thinking they had been conned and that our politicians have escaped yet again.

After a year of considering the six referrals, the Commission’s findings provide little solace to those affected by the Government and its Ministers’ decisions.

They also failed to address those who lost their life and others their life savings and failed those who sought to expose corruption by ministers and public servants.

The Commissioner’s flippant and uncaring approach to it is insulting, and his apparent handballing of the decision to an underling is pathetic. 

The NACC says the Royal Commission’s final report contains “lessons of great importance” for the public sector to consider.

The NACC is saying there was probably corruption involved, but there is not much we can do about it, so we will take note and learn from past lessons. We don’t see any point in having anyone prosecuted for the alleged crimes. 

This is what the statement said:

In a statement on Thursday, 6 June, “the Commission revealed it had received six referrals from Robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes SC after she delivered her reportto the government in July last year.

“The Commission is conscious of the impact of the Robodebt Scheme on individuals and the public, the seniority of the officials involved, and the need to ensure that any corruption issue is fully investigated,” it said.

“However, the conduct of the six public officials in connection with the Robodebt Scheme has already been fully explored by the Robodebt Royal Commission and extensively discussed in its final report.

“After close consideration of the evidence available to the Royal Commission, the Commission has concluded that it is unlikely it would obtain significant new evidence.”

“There is not value in duplicating work that has been or is being done by others, in this case with the investigatory powers of the Royal Commission, and the remedial powers of the APSC,” the Commission said.

“An investigation by the Commission would not provide any individual remedy or redress for the recipients of government payments or their families who suffered due to the Robodebt Scheme.”

In revealing its decision, the NACC insisted the Royal Commission provided “lessons of great importance for enhancing integrity in the Commonwealth public sector and the accountability of public officials.”

“The Commission will continue through its investigation, inquiry, and corruption prevention and education functions, to address the integrity issues raised in the final report, particularly in relation to ethical decision making, to ensure that those lessons are learnt, and to hold public officials to account.”

So, is this what it has come to? An exercise in nothingness. If the NACC has so little power, why were the six referrals made in the first place? They sat on that knowledge for a year. There would be no penalty for the crimes committed, not even a slap on the wrist.

Their words don’t ring true, and the opposite is likely authentic. You must be able to rinse out convictions from arguably the best-conducted Royal Commissions to have any chance from a lessor standard.

“… particularly in relation to ethical decision making, to ensure that those lessons are learnt, and to hold public officials to account.”

After assuring the public that the NACC would have more bite than a Pit Bull terrier on steroids, we ended up with a golden retriever in a hairdressing salon. It shows Labor as being weak and the Coalition pulling the strings.

Let me finish with the exact words I used in an article on this subject in July 2023:

Never in Australian politics did the Australian public so unintelligently elect a series of right-wing governments over a decade that were rotten, to the core, infected with hatred for the less well-off but happy with the burden they carried. So ignorant of its incompetence. So willing to break laws and trash conventions. They were so utterly corrupted by lying that they sometimes knew not when or why they were telling them.

They were so brutal toward those seeking a better life on the waves of empathy, so unsympathetic to those domestically needing help, and so full of ministers who didn’t care about the corruption that engulfed them. They were so unendowed with leadership that every decision passed through the cabinet uncaringly and unquestioned.

That so many remnants of that era still exist in the ranks of conservatives must surely remind our citizens of how badly they governed. This is a sobering thought when the current Leader sees nothing wrong with their ideology.