Login
Corruption watchdog reverses robodebt investigation decision
Just months after its commissioner was found to have engaged in officer misconduct, the National Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate six referrals from the robodebt royal commission.
Naomi Neilson
After months of criticisms over Judge Paul Brereton’s involvement in the original investigation decision, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said in a statement that it would inspect six referrals from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.
“The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether or not any of the six referred persons engaged in corrupt conduct,” NACC said.
The decision to investigate was made earlier this month by independent reconsideration delegate Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, who was brought in after an October report that found Brereton – who remains the head of NACC – engaged in officer misconduct.
Last June, Brereton said he would not investigate the referrals because the NACC was likely to duplicate the work of the royal commission and was unlikely to uncover new evidence.
However, Gail Furness SC discovered Brereton had a “close association” with one of the six referred people and this “might have impugned” on the NACC’s decision-making abilities.
Instead of stepping aside, Brereton referred the decision to a deputy commissioner who would have known about the conflict of interest and may have been influenced by the referred person’s exercise of powers during the robodebt controversy, Furness added.
“The strategy to manage the risk should have been not only to delegate but to remove the commissioner from related decision-making processes and limit his exposure to the relevant factual information. This was not done,” Furness said.
In response to Furness’ report, Brereton said mistakes of law were a professional “inevitability” and “judges of unquestioned competence, skill and integrity have made a mistake of law or fact”.
“Mistakes are always regrettable, but the most important thing is that they be put right. This mistake will be rectified by having the decision reconsidered by an independent eminent person,” Brereton said.
NACC said that consistent with its usual practices to avoid prejudicing an investigation or breaching confidentiality, the reason for commencing the investigation would not be published.
However, it did confirm arrangements have been made to ensure “the impartial and fair investigation of the referrals, as it did with the appointment of Nettle as independent reconsideration delegate”.
“The commissioner and those deputy commissioners who were involved in the original decision not to investigate the referrals will not participate in the investigation,” NACC said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
