NACC’s non-public ‘Robodebt Six’ hearings failed us all

Reporting Robodebt reinvestigation The report published by the National Anti-Corruption Commission last week included scenarios exonerating Scott Morrison and Kathryn Campbell.

Independent media commentators Rick Morton We noted the level of incompetence that saw well-paid lawyers setting aside skepticism when accepting self-serving explanations for problematic behavior and the lack of ambition of a relatively low-level Social Services Minister who won brownie points after the $1 billion Robodebt “savings”. Replacing ill Joe Hockey as Treasurer of Australia In 2015.

At the same time, his less ambitious civil service friend appointed to the highest position in 2021 at the prestigious Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

While a degree of unprofessional naivety may explain the acceptance of witness accounts that challenge credibility, the overriding impressions left by the Deputy Commissioner on the vexing problem of the secret conduct of NACC hearings Kylie KilgourThe reinvestigation of ‘Robodebt Six’ has created confusion and confusion.

Deputy Commissioner Kilgour noted the following in his 445-page report: report which is the assumption here NACC Act Hearings are to be held in secret unless “exceptional circumstances” permit public hearings.

Based on this observation, he made three claims:

The law does not define “exceptional circumstances”;
The concept of exceptional circumstances is a high threshold that must be met; And
the Robodebt Royal Commission referrals did not meet the threshold.

Relevant part of the text NACC Act at public hearings part 3, subpart B, part 73 (subpart 3). This subsection sets out five issues that an NACC Commissioner may consider when determining whether public hearings should be held. These include: ‘Unfair prejudice to the reputation, privacy, safety or welfare of a person’ And ‘benefits of disclosure’ corrupt behavior to the public’.

Ms Kilgour added the following risk to the issues listed in the Act: ‘To prejudice any criminal prosecution that might arise if serious corrupt conduct is detected’.

While this risk is real, it is also present in the deliberations of other anti-corruption bodies from which the NACC can learn. NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). ICAC’s track record has revealed that this is not a big enough risk to prevent the conviction and imprisonment of high-profile public figures. Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald And Daryl Maguire — each had given evidence to the ICAC at public hearings prior to their convictions in court.

Ms Kilgour could have given equal weight to subsection (4) of section 73 of the Act had she wished. ‘subdivision (3) It does not limit the subjects to which the contract relates. Commissioner may be taken into consideration’ when deciding whether to hold public hearings.

This subsection seems to suggest that the “exceptional circumstances” threshold includes a degree of freedom available to a commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, for reasons well known to him, never used the discretion afforded to him to set the bar; It could have been set as high or as low as he decided to set it, but he seemed determined to keep it high. It seemed like a bar that carried more weight in his mind than the benefits of publicly exposing corrupt behavior, for example.

Regarding the issue of public hearings causing undue harm to a person’s reputation, it is worth noting that 39 witnesses were heard privately in the Kilgour re-inquiry. 4 of them consisted of 28 public officials. PwC employees, an ombudsman and six people named under seal in the Robodebt Royal Commissioner’s referral. The published report includes the names of each person and the office they served in during the Robodebt scandal, from its beginning to its end. Federal Court decision He said the plan was against the law.

Therefore, naming witnesses does not in itself tarnish their reputation, and commissioners have at their disposal ways to indicate that witnesses should be viewed merely as individuals called to give evidence – including whether they do so voluntarily or involuntarily.

In testing the threshold for a public hearing in his own mind, the Deputy Commissioner could well have used his discretion on the matter to consider the multitude of public complaints made to the NACC Inspector following the original decision in June 2024 not to investigate the sealed Royal Commission referrals at all – a decision which the Inspector found involved “agency mismanagement” and “officer misconduct” centering on the person of the NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton.

This finding involved conflicts of interest and a failure of transparency that seriously tainted NACC’s future work. Since then, the wounded NACC, whose reputation has been tarnished, needs help on both fronts. Interestingly, Deputy Commissioner Kilgour’s investigation steadfastly refused to take advantage of the opportunity to assist in rehabilitation.

In declaring that the issue of public hearings was under “continuous review” during the inquiry, Ms Kilgour may have used her discretion to give some weight to the scandalous failings of a public service culture through Australia’s Robodebt. ‘Costly failure of public administration’ in which ‘Extensive, devastating and ongoing’ Crimes have been committed against approximately 470,000 Australian citizens, a widely reported fact in Australia, and overseas.

The Deputy Commissioner insisted that throughout the investigation he ‘continues to examine whether exceptional circumstances have arisen and whether it would be in the public interest to hold the hearings in public’, but he made no statement about the developments that may have affected his thoughts on the subject during these examinations.

In this case, he completed his report In a sentence that draws attention with its transition to passive voice:

‘At no point during the investigation were these legal requirements met.’

This sentence reminds the reader that the legal requirements for public hearings have not been met; but he does this without informing the reader about the basis on which decisions were made or who Deputy Commissioner Kilgour actually made the decisions.

Paul Begley is a Melbourne writer who has worked in public relations roles for many years, most recently as general manager of government and media relations at the Australian HR Institute.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.