The sole person responsible for policing internal corruption at the National Anti-Corruption Commission is refusing to say whether an actual “investigation” has begun into the Robodebt referrals scandal.
Thursday marked twelve weeks since NACC Inspector Gail Furness SC — after receiving almost 900 complaints — announced action over the NACC’s refusal to investigate six public officials referred to it by the Robodebt Royal Commission.
Despite revelations the NACC’s entire “final decision” to not investigate the Robodebt referrals is just two pages long, Furness has provided no updates – and won’t say whether or not she has launched an “investigation”.
Or even if she has made a decision to.
The NACC has been heavily criticised as being marred by “silence and secrecy”, which now appears to also extend to the NACC Inspector, an “independent officer” responsible for “detecting corrupt conduct in the NACC”.
“You can’t deter corruption by remaining silent,” former NSW Court of Appeal judge Anthony Whealy KC told the ABC regarding the NACC.
“I’ve had great hopes for it, but so far there’s been silence and secrecy surrounding it, and that’s not a good thing,” said Whealy.
The NACC Inspector’s complaints handling policy states the Inspector, having received a complaint, can take multiple avenues. They include conducting a “preliminary investigation”, conducting an “investigation”, referring the matter to another agency, or deciding to take no action.
“The Inspector aims to complete the assessment of most complaints within six weeks” – NACC Inspector complaints handling policy
The NACC Act states the functions of the Inspector include detecting “corrupt conduct within” the NACC; undertaking “preliminary investigations into NACC corruption issues”; and undertaking “investigations into NACC corruption issues”.
Importantly, a close reading of Furness’ June 13 statement — a week after the NACC announced it would not investigate the Robodebt referrals — shows she does not use the word “investigation” at all.
Instead, Furness states she will “inquire into” the NACC’s decision not to investigate the Robodebt referral. The term “inquire into” is used four times in the brief statement.
It says Furness, whose position is part-time, “anticipates she will make her findings public in due course” but does not stipulate whether those “findings” would relate to an “investigation” or some other action.
Appreciate our quality journalism? Please support us for as little as $10 a month
The Klaxon’s expose Saturday. Source: The Klaxon
The Klaxon asked Furness whether she had “completed a preliminary investigation” into the NACC’s refusal to investigate the Robodebt referrals, and if so, if she had decided to conduct an “investigation”.
We also asked whether there were any specific reasons for a protracted process — given a timeframe of six weeks is stipulated in the NACC Inspector’s complaints handling policy — and whether Furness expected to hold any public hearings into the matter.
None of our questions were answered.
Instead, Erin Jameson, director of Office of the Inspector of the NACC, replied: “The Inspector is currently making her inquiries and when they are complete, she anticipates she will make her findings public, in due course”.
That statement is the same as made by Furness on June 13.
Given the importance of the matter, we asked again, asking Furness to confirm that either an “investigation” had begun, or that a decision had been made that there “will be an investigation”.
Asking Furness for clarification, we noted: “As it stands, there is no indication that there is any ‘investigation’ underway, or indeed whether a decision has been made as to whether one will occur”.
Again, our questions were not answered — with Jameson providing the same vague, one-sentence response.
The June 13 Furness announcement. Source: NACC Inspector
The NACC Inspector’s complaints handling policy states “the Inspector aims to complete the assessment of most complaints within six weeks”.
Further, the Inspector is required to “assess and prioritise complaints” according to the “urgency and/or seriousness of the issues raised”.
“The Inspector is required to assess and prioritise complaints according to urgency and seriousness”
The NACC Inspector, who is picked for the role by the Attorney-General, is responsible for investigating corruption and wrongdoing within the NACC.
The Inspector “cannot deal with complaints about any agency other than the NACC” and is “not subject to anyone’s direction when performing their functions and exercising their powers”.
The Klaxon’s follow-up request for information from Gail Furness.
Under Robodebt, run by the former Coalition Federal Government, $1.7 billion in debts were unlawfully raised against more than 500,000 social security recipients, with some taking their lives.
In July last year Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes SC referred the six officials to the NACC, including for civil and criminal prosecution.
On June 6, almost a year later, the NACC sent shockwaves around the nation when it announced it would not investigate.
That was despite Holmes having extended the Royal Commission to be able to make the referrals to the NACC, which began operating on July 1 last year.
More from The Klaxon on the NACC & Robodebt:
31 Aug – NACC boss misled Dreyfus over Robodebt
29 Aug – Million dollar NACC boss freezes media as questions heat up
26 Aug – “Recused” NACC boss Brereton at Robodebt meeting
23 Aug – NACC’s year-long Robodebt decision: just two pages long
22 Aug – NACC boss breaks own integrity policy over Robodebt
12 July – NACC marred by “silence and secrecy”
8 July – NACCered: How Dreyfus fudged the figures to deliver a secret regulator
1 July — Brereton’s NACC cloaked in military-grade secrecy
Holmes, whose 990-page report was the culmination of hundreds of hours of evidence and almost a million documents, said the Robodebt scheme was an “extraordinary saga” of “venality, incompetence and cowardice”.
The six officials were in a “sealed” chapter of her report and have not been named.
“An extraordinary saga [of] venality, incompetence and cowardice” – Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes SC
Regarding the NACC’s refusal to investigate, Geoffrey Watson SC, a director of the Centre for Public Integrity, an influential not-for-profit created by top former judges, said he felt “disappointment” and a “sinking feeling”.
“I just felt as though this is their first great opportunity and the organisation’s failed,” said Watson.
Whaley, who is Centre for Public Integrity chair, said the reasons provided by Brereton’s NACC for refusing to investigate were “fatuous” and that the NACC had failed its “first test”.
Former Victorian Court of Appeal judge Stephen Charles KC said the NACC’s refusal to investigate Robodebt appeared to have been “infected by the bias” of NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton and, if so, it “should now be disregarded”.
Brereton is close personal friends with the most senior public servant responsible for Robodebt, Kathryn Campbell.
Paul Brereton (far left), former Governor-General David Hurley (third from left), and Kathryn Campbell (third from right) in 2022. Source: Facebook/Sydney University Regiment
As revealed by The Klaxon, Brereton made misleading claims to Dreyfus over his management of his conflicts of interest in connection to the Robodebt referrals.
Documents obtained under freedom of information show Brereton told Dreyfus he had told his NACC colleagues he would “recuse myself” from the Robodebt referrals, when in fact he merely told his colleagues that he would “delegate decision making”.
Charles KC said it would have been “unthinkable” for the person given that role, Brereton’s inferior, to “do otherwise” than reject the Robodebt referrals.
That made “pointless” Brereton delegating the final decision.
The Klaxon has also revealed Brereton did not adhere to the NACC’s own conflict of interest guidelines; that the NACC only issued its “Integrity Policy” after receiving the Robodebt referrals and more than two weeks after it opened its doors; and that the decision document stating the NACC would not investigate the Robodebt referrals was just two pages long. The NACC has refused to make the document public.
Last week we revealed the NACC claimed it could no longer answer media questions because of limited “resources”. In the same article we revealed Brereton has been paid almost $1 million as NACC head to date, including $73,226 for one month’s work before it commenced operations.
The Klaxon’s expose on August 26. Source: The Klaxon
On June 13 Furness said she had received “nearly 900 individual complaints” about the decision by the NACC “not to commence a corruption investigation.
“Many of those complaints allege corrupt conduct or maladministration by the NACC in making that decision,” Furness said.
“I also note that there has also been much public commentary. Accordingly, I have decided to inquire into that decision. I anticipate that I will make my findings public, in due course”.
The NACC Act states the Inspector has “complete discretion in performing or exercising” their duties and is “not subject to direction from anyone when doing so”.
The NACC Inspector’s complaints handling policy states the Inspector will “assess every complaint” about the NACC or its staff members.
The Inspector will determine “whether the conduct alleged could amount to corrupt conduct, maladministration or officer misconduct” and, if so, “whether it should be investigated”.
Some of the functions of the NACC Inspector. Source: NACC Act 2022
“The Inspector aims to complete the assessment of most complaints within six weeks,” it states.
“The Inspector will write to the complainant, notifying them of the outcome of their complaint, any action taken and the reasons for the decision”.
When conducting a “preliminary investigation” the Inspector can legally force parties to provide information or documents and “direct the head of a Commonwealth agency (including the Commissioner of the NACC) to provide information or a document or thing”.
When an “investigation” is undertaken the Inspector has broader powers, including to “hold hearings” and “enter and search Commonwealth premises without a warrant”.
“The Inspector can conduct an investigation in such manner as the Inspector thinks fit,” it states.
After an “investigation” the Inspector must provide a report, but this is only required to be tabled in parliament if “public hearings were held during the investigation”.
After the June 13 Furness announcement, Watson was asked for his view.
“Well let’s hope the Inspector’s not as timid as the NACC appears to have been,” he responded.
THE KLAXON HAS A SMALL FAVOUR TO ASK: As you can see from the above, truly independent, quality journalism is vital to our democracy. Please SUPPORT US HERE. Thank you!
Help us get the truth out from as little as $10/month.
Unleash the excitement of playing your favorite casino games from the comfort of your own home or on the go. With real money online casinos in South Africa, the possibilities are endless. Whether you’re into classic slots, progressive jackpots, or live dealer games, you’ll find it all at your fingertips. Join the millions of players enjoying the thrill of real money gambling and see if today is your lucky day!
The need for fearless, independent media has never been greater. Journalism is on its knees – and the media landscape is riddled with vested interests. Please consider subscribing for as little as $10 a month to help us keep holding the powerful to account.
