The ‘Robodebt Six’ and the NACC deception. What’s the scam?

Last month, NACC Deputy Commissioner Kylie Kilgour all but exonerated six people potentially facing prosecution by the Royal Commission. What is fraud?

The scam involved Kilgour claiming that the public had “misunderstood” what the Royal Commission had said, whereas it was the NACC that had misquoted what Commissioner Catherine Holmes had said, and the NACC stated in its March report:

“Royal Commission I didn’t (emphasis ours), as is commonly misunderstood, refer any person to the NACC for civil or criminal prosecution, as this is not a function of the NACC. “Criminal prosecution is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions”.

While this may be true, it is not the same as inferring what the Royal Commissioner meant when he distinctly offered his advice.

In addition to her list of 57 recommendations, Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes made an additional recommendation, specifically referencing one of the four paragraphs she wrote in her cover letter to the Governor-General:

“I have submitted to you an additional section of the report that is not included in the bound report and is sealed. It recommends that individuals be referred for civil or criminal prosecution. I recommend that this additional section remain sealed and not be tabled with the rest of the report. Not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil or criminal prosecution”(our emphasis).

Although Ms Kilgour was actually a bureaucrat with a law degree, she felt she had the authority to take on the matter that the DPP would usually decide. While it effectively exonerated four of the six men, it also ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal prosecution against the two individuals it found to be corrupt.

There will be no loss for the 470,000 Australian citizens targeted by false debt statements.

They once again saw justice elude them as due process of law was reversed.

Scomo is off the hook of Robodebt