Showing posts with label corruption findings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption findings. Show all posts

Friday, 14 June 2024

NACCered: a brief look at the immediate repercussions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission decision not to pursue Robodebt Royal Commission referrals but instead focus on ensuring lessons learnt

 

The public reaction to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) announced decision - to dismiss those referrals of corruption findings received from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme - was immediate and an intense mix of emotions dominated by shock, disbelief, distress, worry and anger.


The tone and wording of NACC's media release was frequently viewed as insulting, arrogant and divorced from reality.


These are the reasons originally given by the NACC for not investigating those six person referred to it by the Royal Commission.....


National Anti-Corruption Commission decides not to pursue Robodebt Royal Commission referrals but focus on ensuring lessons learnt


Media Releases

Published: 6 Jun 2024


On 6 July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Commission) received referrals concerning six public officials from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (Robodebt Royal Commission) pursuant to section 6P(2B) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth).


The Commission has carefully considered each referral and reviewed the extensive material provided by the Robodebt Royal Commission, including its final report, and the Confidential Chapter.


The Commission has become aware that five of the six public officials were also the subject of referrals to the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC).


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.


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 that was available to the Royal Commission, the Commission has concluded that it is unlikely it would obtain significant new evidence.


In the absence of a real likelihood of a further investigation producing significant new evidence, it is undesirable for a number of reasons to conduct multiple investigations into the same matter. This includes the risk of inconsistent outcomes, and the oppression involved in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations.


In deciding whether to commence a corruption investigation, the Commission takes into account a range of factors. A significant consideration is whether a corruption investigation would add value in the public interest, and that is particularly relevant where there are or have been other investigations into the same matter. 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.


Beyond considering whether the conduct in question amounted to corrupt conduct within the meaning of the Act and, if satisfied, making such a finding, the Commission cannot grant a remedy or impose a sanction (as the APSC can). Nor could it make any recommendation that could not have been made by the Robodebt Royal Commission. 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.


The Commission has therefore decided not to commence a corruption investigation as it would not add value in the public interest. However, the Commission considers that the outcomes of the Robodebt Royal Commission contain 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.


In order to avoid any possible perception of a conflict of interest, the Commissioner delegated the decision in this matter to a Deputy Commissioner.


The Commission will not be making further comment.


A brief look at the response to that decision on social media platform X more familiarly known as Twitter....


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


An example of media reporting of the developing situation, as reported by Crikey on Thursday 13 June 2024:


A NACC that ignores robodebt is no NACC at all


It took the federal anti-corruption watchdog a year to decide to do nothing on robodebt, and a few hours to realise it faced a public relations disaster. What it had failed to see was that its inaction would outrage more than just the direct victims of the Coalition’s illegal scheme, writes Michael Bradley. It would outrage any Australian fed up with a political system we no longer have any trust in.


Another example of mainstream media's account of NACC's response including a statement by the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as reported by ABC News on 13 June 2024:


The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked to explain why it refused to launch a fresh probe into the Robodebt scandal, after the watchdog's watchdog received nearly 900 complaints about the decision.


The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked with overseeing the agency's operations and conduct, has announced it will start its own inquiry into the matter.......


Inspector Gail Furness SC said her office had received nearly 900 complaints after the NACC made its ruling.


"Many of those complaints allege corrupt conduct or maladministration by the NACC in making that decision," she said in a statement.


"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."....



NOTE


Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission website as at 13 June 2024:


Roleof the Inspector

The Inspector’s role is to:

  • detect corrupt conduct in the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)

  • undertake preliminary investigations into NACC corruption issues

  • undertake investigations into NACC corruption issues that could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic. ‘Serious or systemic’ means something that is significant, something more than negligible or trivial but it does not have to be severe or grave. Systemic means something that is more than an isolated case, it involves a pattern of behaviour or something that affects or is embedded in a system

  • refer NACC corruption issues to the NACC, Commonwealth agencies and State or Territory government entities

  • investigate complaints of maladministration or officer misconduct by the NACC or a staff member of the NACC. The Inspector cannot deal with complaints about any other agency or its staff provide relevant information and documents to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC 

  • receive public interest disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

  • audit the NACC to monitor compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth

  • report to Parliament on the outcomes of the Inspector’s activities.
Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)