One millionaire developer within the West Yamba Urban Release Area had his latest Miles Street subdivision application refused by the Northern Rivers Regional Planning Panel. Will he now run to Macquarie Street crying foul?

 

Then Director Environment & Planning at Maclean Shire Council & now town planning consultant engaged by Kahuna No 1, Rob Donges, on the subject of the West Yamba Urban Release Area, in The Sydney Morning Herald, “Coming to this swamp – suburbia”, 19 March 2007

The Daily Examiner online masthead in use by The Daily Telegraph, 18 June 2024:

Developers have failed to convince an independent planning panel to give the go-ahead for a controversial multimillion dollar development for 248 residential lots in Yamba.

In making their assessments for the flood prone site on Miles St, the panel “considered the proposal through a risk based lens”.

The Northern Regional Planning Panel, an independent planning panel governing regionally significant development applications, denied the application for the controversial project from the developers, Kahuna 1, on Monday.

In denying the application, the panel cited flood mitigation as a major issue, including the additional fill required to develop the lot, the site being in “a high-risk flood catchment” and community concern and anxiety about the project including flooding issues, insurance costs and isolation from flooding.

The panel received a total of 57 unique submissions objecting to the development.

The panel was also not satisfied that an adequate Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan for the development had been supplied to the Clarence Valley Council.

The determination panel was not unanimous in refusing the application, however, with three voting against the development they outvoted Penny Holloway who voted against the decision.

Members of the community from Clarence Valley to Yamba, have reacted expressing relief and hope for the future.

Clarence Valley Council Councillor Greg Clancy, who addressed the planning panel as an individual, told The Northern Star the outcome was “a well reasoned decision”.

“I’m hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of flood plain development,” he said.

Medical issues, contamination and road openings

A member of Yamba Community Action Network, Ms Helen Tyas Tunggal, also expressed the panel’s decision was a sign of the tide turning for development plans on flood plains.

“What’s happened yesterday is history making,” she said.

“The panel have actually listened to the evidence given by the residents of Grevillea Waters, the people that are living right next door to where the development is proposed, who were cut off in the floods last year, and they’re all over, 55 a lot of them don’t drive and a lot of them need medical help.”

It is noted that the Kahuna No. 1 Pty Ltd Miles Street subdivision application was submitted to the Northern Regional Planning Panel with a Clarence Valley Council recommendation for "Approval", subject to the draft conditions of consent. Gordon Merchant as sole director & owner of this registered corporation may on that basis feel encouraged to challenge the regional panel's decision or submit yet another development application on the land in question.

Whilst ever Lot 46 and 47 DP 751395 (52-54 Miles Street Yamba NSW) retain a residential zone status nothing is resolved with any finality.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald ,19 March 2007:

FOR 250 kilometres, the Clarence River snakes through northern NSW before it meets the coast at Yamba.

There, during heavy rain and high tide, the estuary spills its briny current over a huge flood plain just west of the town. The 340 or so hectares of salt marsh, melaleuca forest and mangrove swamp act like a giant sieve, filtering the floodwaters as they make their way into Lake Wooloweyah to the south.

Now though, the Clarence Valley Council is one vote away from rezoning the West Yamba flood plain and turning it into a busy residential area.

In a monumental decision, the council has foreshadowed dumping 270,000 truck loads of fill on the area to raise it high enough to make it habitable....

But green groups say the proposal, first mooted in 1995, will put Yamba at risk from rising sea levels, and represents a dramatic threat to the area's sensitive wetland ecology.

And even the proposal's architect, the council's environment and planning director, Rob Donges, acknowledges it is out of step with today's planning regime.

"There are acknowledged problems there. It is flood-prone, low-lying land with a high water table," he said. "We have never hidden the fact that if we were to start the process of West Yamba today there would be doubts as to whether council would proceed."

The council has not yet received the findings of a flood risk management plan, commissioned to examine the effects of altering the area's natural drainage corridors, but Mr Donges has recommended the draft local environment plan go ahead anyway.

He insists the wheel has turned too far to stop now.

"It has a long history and commitments [have been] made by the council.".....

The original 127ha West Yamba Urban Release Area (WYURA) sits on a 690ha natural flood storage plain.

This was an established fact in the early 1990s when urban settlement of this area was first mooted. It was still an established fact in 1995 when the local council adopted its Land Use Strategy.

It remained an established fact when WYURA first came into effect in 2010 with amendments to the Maclean LEP 2001 allowing the amalgamated Clarence Valley Council to house between 2,000-2,500 people on flood liable land within a reduced 121ha urban release area.

It continued as an established fact in 2015 when Clarence Valley Council confirmed its ongoing intention to allow more dwellings per hectare via manufactured housing estates and therefore more people to be settled on this floodplain within the larger Lower Clarence River floodplain.

Something then Clarence Valley Mayor and now current NSW Nationals MLA for Clarence Richie Williamson called "good news for local development". Going on to say; "There's between 950 to 1000 lots and other land owners in the area will be moving forward with their developments. It's a massive development."

It was definitely an established fact in the years from 2015 to May 2023, during which Clarence Valley Council received at least 9 large scale and 2 small scale subdivision applications on this flood liable land. 

The proposed layout of the 52-54 Miles St, Yamba subdivision within the contentious West Yamba Urban Release Area in November 2023, then comprising 277 low-density residential lots, 1 medium density residential lot, a commercial development, drainage reserves and an open space area.

IMAGE: Clarence Valley Independent, 22.11.23

This is the second reiteration of the Kahuna No. 1 Pty Ltd attempt to overdevelop this flood prone land, a 287 lot DA Sub 2023/0001 resubmitted as a 284 lot subdivision in December 2022 (comprising 277 low density residential lots, 1 medium density residential development lot, 1 commercial development lot, 1 low density development lot, 3 drainage reserve lots, 1 open space reserve lot) refused by Northern Regional Planning Panel on 17 June 2024.

The first attempt being a 310-lot subdivision application withdrawn by the Kahuna No. 1 in September 2022, before it was set to be determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel.

AUSTRALIA STATE OF PLAY 2024: when repeated warnings are given concerning climate change-induced risk along vulnerable coastal shorelines and on floodplains but few in the three tiers of government appear to take heed

 

Almost two decades ago in 2009 the Australian Government's Dept. of Climate Change in a first pass assessment warned the nation:

"Over the last 6,000–7,000 years sea level around Australia has been relatively stable, which has generally allowed current landforms and ecosystems to persist without large scale modifications.

Since 1788 settlements have been built along our coast in expectation that sea level would remain broadly unchanged. Significant settlement of low-lying areas has occurred, and structures were designed and built to standards defined by a relatively narrow period of experience.

Those conditions are now changing. A new climate era driven by global warming will increase risks to settlements, industries, the delivery of services and natural ecosystems within Australia’s coastal zone."

At least a decade ago it was reported in the media that the Insurance Council of Australia considered that it would not be the high cost of repair to residential properties in the 7-10km wide coastal strip most at risk of inundation and/or land slippage which would make these homes uninsurable – it would be the fact that the land on which such housing was built had become worthless.

By 2011 Australian coastal local governments were acknowledging the issue of land valuation and future liability on residential lot owners.

"A number of respondents highlighted the potential risk to existing private homes and the possibility of future depopulation and disinvestment in exposed locations. Similarly, local planners expressed difficulties in evaluating decisions that may quarantine future development potential on private land.

“There’s a big social dilemma – how do you tell someone their land is worthless and they can’t develop it?” (local government participant, March 2011).

One climate change consultant described a bifurcation whereby site based assessments fail to consider issues of transport and services. This means that individual sites might be approved for development due to their elevation, but lack secure provisions for road access via existing or planned road reservations. It was suggested that servicing these sites may become a future liability for local government areas.

“The house might be safe but the road’s going to be underwater and it’s going to be unsafe for access. If local governments are going to accept development in the areas where this additional service cost to maintain access or service [will arise], they’ll have to have a strategy to suggest that they impose that additional cost on the residents who choose to live in these places, but that’s not yet been resolved” (private sector consultant, March 2011)."

[Syd Uni Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, Gurran, N et al in Report No. 4 for the National Sea Change Taskforce November 2011, "Planning for climate change adaptation in Coastal Australia: State of practice", pp 26-27]

Such warnings with regard to very real climate change risks to coastal urban areas have been repeated again and again in the years since.

In 2022 financial services and analytics firm CoreLogic announced that calculations based on 30 years of tidal & shoreline retreat data indicated $5.3 billion worth of properties were at very high risk within 800 metres of the shoreline, and another $19.5 billion were at high risk. With dramatic changes to vulnerable coastlines within the next 30 years.

By October 2023 the Australian Government National Emergency Management Agency and the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience had put their names to a warning that coastal properties with est. value of $25 billion were at "substantial risk" due to coastal erosion and inundation.

In particular noting: As calls from homeowners for greater protection from coastal erosion increase, the effects of bad decisions (e.g. building seawalls) will become more critical. Local governments needs to address coastal erosion adaptation and the equity between politics, private rights, environmental protections and public amenities of the beachfront.

Further noting: Australian coastal communities will become increasingly vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather events and many beachfront properties will become stranded assets due to loss of property values as well as insurance and banking sectors retracting from the coastal property market. The Reserve Bank of Australia modelled that the number of high-risk properties could grow by over 74,000 due to climate change (Bellrose, Norman & Royters 2021).

Despite these warnings state governments have stubbornly resisted meaningful changes to planning policy and legislation. While both state and local governments generally have further entrenched internal cultures highly resistant to curbing the ambitions of both small and large professional property developers and land speculators - particularly those in the approx.100km wide & 29,900km long mainland coastal zone (including Tasmania) with its est. 49 per cent of soft shore lines and associated coastal rivers, estuaries and flood plains.

Digital Earth Australia, Geoscience Australia-CSIRO mapping of incidence from 1988 onwards showing most pronounced coastal shoreline loss by m/year in gradients of pale pink to red.

When it comes to riverine or sea water inundation this latest warning is quite specific.

The Daily Telegraph, 15 June 2024:

The Going Under Report predicts the seaside holiday village, which was completely cut off during the floods in 2022, has a 56.63 per cent risk of becoming uninsurable by 2030.

The report analysed close to fifteen million addresses in fifteen thousand suburbs across Australia.

According to the report, by 2030 588,857 (or 21 one per cent) of Australian homes will ‘have exposure to some level of riverine flooding’ with NSW by far the most impacted.

An Insurance Council of Australia spokesperson responded to the report findings stating the current risk to 230,000 Australian properties is a five per cent risk “of catastrophic flooding each year”.

“More than half of these (123,475) are in New South Wales, with the bulk of the remainder in Queensland and Victoria,” said the spokesperson.

NSW's most uninsurable towns

In NSW, 206,622 individual homes were identified as being at high risk of becoming uninsurable by 2030. This compares with 382,235 homes in all other states put together.

While the Climate Council’s Nicki Hutley told The Daily Telegraph the report findings were a reflection of updated climate science, the University of NSW (UNSW)’s Climate Research Centre Professor Andrew Pitman disagrees.

“The science behind this report isn’t robust but that doesn’t mean there aren’t risks from climate change and an imperative to act according to climate science risk.” he said.

Grafton’s Clarence Valley Council Councillor Greg Clancy told The Daily Telegraph that options for towns like Grafton, built when the river was used for transport, include relocation....

While these are an option for river towns like Grafton with existing residences, Mr Clancy raised concerns about new developments in flood prone areas such as a controversial application for a $48 million 284 lot subdivision at Mile Street in Yamba.

The Going Under Report predicts the seaside holiday village, which was completely cut off during the floods in 2022, has a 56.63 per cent risk of becoming uninsurable by 2030.

This concerns Mr Clancy who personally opposed the “flood plain development” application which is currently being determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel, which assesses and determines regionally significant development applications.

“Basically, the developers would be creating islands, so the new houses are going to be on fill but will get cut off,” he said.

A spokesperson from the Insurance Council of Australia said that “in December 2022, National Cabinet tasked planning ministers to develop a national standard for considering disaster and climate risk and declaration that “the days of developing on flood plains need to end”.

“The ICA strongly supports the decision and has long been calling for governments to commit to stopping development in areas of high flood risk and commence work on planning reform with appropriate risk mitigation on flood plains,” the spokesperson said....

Coastal towns and villages on floodplains that empty into oceans are well aware of the triple threat climate change brings into their homes:

• the high volume concentrated rain dumps which create flash flooding, inundate low lying points within town/village boundaries and overwhelm the stormwater system;

• record breaking river flooding which stretches almost to breaking point both the community & local emergency services capacity to respond; and

• the dangers of a twin event where a strong sea storm surge meets a river flood front, forcing more water into the river or estuary at the same time the flood front unable to travel unimpeded out to sea spreads across coastal land increasing flood height and duration there.

Yesterday Northern NSW communities gave evidence at NSW Legislative Council's Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment Inquiry into the Planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities.

I listened via the live feed to the morning of that hearing day, as representatives of their communities from South West Rocks, Coffs Harbour, Yamba, Maclean and Evans Head spoke with authority and insight about the very real climate change-induced risks they already face, the increased dangers predicted to occur as the climate crisis deepens and, drew attention to the lack of political will within state & local government, absence of detailed strategic planning required to avoid or at least significantly mitigate against destructive changes to flood & stormwater behaviour frequently caused by inappropriate large-scale development and, need to cease further urban development on floodplains and in the immediate vicinity of vulnerable coastlines.

When the 17 June hearing transcript is posted on the NSW Parliament website, a summary containing the principal arguments and observations will be posted on North Coast Voices.

So how is agricultural production holding up in this new era of increased adverse weather disruptions to state & local supply

 

With the concepts of climate crisis and population resilience both becoming more frequently mentioned when discussing rural and regional Australia, perhaps a brief overview of aspects of the nation's agricultural inventory might be of interest as an indication of how the country is coping when it comes to food produce security.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Latest Release, 14 June 2024:

Australian Agriculture: Horticulture

Statistics on the production and value of a range of horticultural crops

Reference period

2022-23 financial year

Released

14/06/2024

First release

Key statistics

• The local value of Australian fruit production (excluding wine grapes) was $6.3 billion in 2022-23 with 2.7 million tonnes sold in 2022-23

• Local value of vegetable production was $5.8 billion with 3.6 million tonnes sold

• Local value of cut flowers, nurseries and turf sold was $3.4 billion

• Local value of nut production sold was $721.2 million

• Local value of wine grapes was $983.1 million with 1.3 million tonnes crushed.

*****

Key results for 2022-23 include:

Fruit:

• The local value of Australian table grapes was $918.6 million, with 233,000 tonnes sold

• Apples had a local value of $647.0 million with 285,200 tonnes sold

• Bananas had a local value of $583.3 million with 374,300 tonnes sold.

Vegetables:

• Potatoes had a local value of $1.0 billion nationally with 1.5 million tonnes sold

• Leafy salad vegetables had a local value of $736.5 million with 75,700 tonnes sold

• Tomatoes had a local value of $570.6 million with 321,700 tonnes sold.

Nuts:

• Almonds had a local value of $523.4 million with 103,400 tonnes sold

• Macadamias had a local value of $104.0 million with 48,400 tonnes sold.

*****

Macadamias experimental estimates

In 2022-23:

• Australian production was 48,400 tonnes

• Local value was $104 million

• Total crop area was 40,800 hectares

• The bearing area was 24,300 hectares.

In 2022-23, 60% of the national macadamia crop area was bearing. Queensland had the largest planting area 24,700 hectares, of which only 11,500 hectares (or 46%) was bearing. This reflects that there is a significant area of younger plantings in Queensland. New South Wales has the second largest planting area with 16,000 hectares of which 12,800 hectares (or 80%) was bearing.

*****

In 2022-23, Queensland produced 70% (34,100 tonnes) of Australia’s macadamias followed by New South Wales with 29% (14,200 tonnes).

In 2022-23, Queensland macadamia production had a local value of $73 million, followed by New South Wales with a local value of $31 million.

NOTE: Value refers to local value which is the farm gate value that farmers receive for their products. This is lower than the gross value which includes transport and marketing costs.

Queensland's production is highly concentrated in the Bundaberg region. In 2022-23 the two largest Statistical Area 2 (SA2) regions were Bundaberg Surrounds (North and South), which accounted for 44% of national production sold. In New South Wales, Lismore Surrounds and the adjacent Ballina Surrounds were the largest producing SA2s, accounting for 21% of national production.

*****

In the Northern Rivers region in 2022-23 macadamia produce by in-shell weight was:

Lismore Surrounds - 5,203 tonnes

Ballina Surrounds - 4,994 tonnes

Bangalow - 1,539 tonnes.

Lismore Surrounds came in at 3rd place in the Top Ten macadamia production areas of Australia, with Ballina Surrounds following at 4th place and Bangalow in 6th position.

Elsewhere BOM noted:

The value of livestock disposals declined one per cent to $23.3 billion in 2022-23. Cattle was the largest contributor at $13.9 billion, a drop of 2.4 per cent while poultry bucked the trend, increasing by 15.6 per cent to $3.6 billion.

At 30 June 2023 there were 29.9 million head of cattle, a 4 per cent increase on the previous year.

“This is the largest cattle herd in the past five years as rainfall and favourable conditions supported farmers rebuilding their herds....

In 2023 the New South Wales cattle herd estimates stood at 6.14 million cattle. With beef cattle comprising 5.87 million head and dairy cattle 268,000 head.

According to ABS local value of all NSW cattle disposals was $3.11 billion in 2022-23.

Lower rainfall through the early stages of 2023 reduced producer confidence and may have affected livestock disposals generally.

ABS does not publish herd estimates at NSW regional or district level so it is not possible to compare Northern Rivers cattle numbers.

However, a University of Technology Sydney (UTS) June 2023 report did suggest the possibility that beef cattle dominate agricultural gross value product (GVP) in two of the seven local government areas - Clarence Valley & Kyogle. With beef cattle agricultural GVP being a significant factor in Richmond, Lismore & Tweed local governments areas. While dairy cattle agricultural GVP also contribute to the agricultural GVP mix in four of the local governments areas - Clarence Valley, Lismore & Byron.

Yamba Community Action Network Inc to give evidence at NSW parliamentary committee hearing re Planning System and the Impacts of Climate Change on the Environment and Communities, Monday 17 June 2024. Live link via NSW Parliament website

YambaCAN protest banner

News release, 13 June 2024:

 

YAMBA CAN WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE ON MONDAY 17 JUNE 2024

The Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment has invited two representatives of Yamba CAN to give evidence at its next hearing for the inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities.

Date: Monday, 17 June 2024

Appearance time: 11.00 – 11.30 am

Location: Jubilee Room, NSW Parliament House

Yamba CAN welcomes the invitation and has replied to the Committee informing that our two representatives attending Parliament House shall be Lynne Cairns and Helen Tyas Tunggal.

Portfolio7 Committee hearings can be viewed live via the government’s website

To watch live, use this link https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Pages/webcasts.aspx .

Video recordings of previous hearings can be found on the NSW Parliament's YouTube channel here. [Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment: Planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities - YouTube]

Chairperson

Yamba Community Action Network Inc (Yamba CAN Inc)

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

David Rowe

First Dog On The Moon

Cathy Wilcox

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....

What they don't understand is how widely devastating will be the impact of this decision to do nothing. The point of an anti-corruption commission is to establish and maintain public confidence in accountability, which has instead been shattered. pic.twitter.com/YwCFbdgfkb

— marquelawyers (@marquelawyers) June 7, 2024

 

And the principal "lesson learned" ... is that no-one will be held accountable for this most shocking abuse of power. pic.twitter.com/oNFLSB4vDx

— Coalition Tea Lady (@ItsBouquet) June 6, 2024

 

The NACC concludes its media release with an assertion that it will make no further comment on abandoning its investigation of the Robodebt perpetrators.
This is an arrogant and ignominious statement and undermines accountability and public confidence. https://t.co/63m1yeueVV

— Doug Cameron (@DougCameron51) June 6, 2024

 

The only people to have been prosecuted over Robodebt are welfare recipients

— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf) June 7, 2024

 

Love the transparency of this new NACC. No public hearings or deliberations, just a unilateral statement that raises more questions than it answers, and ends with a promise not to give further info.
Also: what’s behind the weird statement about a *potential conflict of interest*? pic.twitter.com/CpcbhVbqlf

— Nick Feik (@NickFeik) June 6, 2024

 

NACC playing 'no speaks' after media release. One of functions of Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission is "reviewing, examining and inquiring into the performance of the functions of the Commissioner"
Email: nacc.committee@aph.gov.au
Go for it! https://t.co/2ZRiB5TpTh

— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) June 6, 2024

 

Yes Attorney General @MarkDreyfusKCMP should now consider releasing the sealed section of Robodebt Royal Commission report so the public can see the evidentiary basis for referral to @NACCgovau of identified individuals. No transparency? No trust. https://t.co/YIgRIOD9Eu

— Quentin Dempster (@QuentinDempster) June 9, 2024

 

Breaking:

There's been widespread anger, words, blood & tears spilled condemning the NACC's recent #robodebt backflip

There is a little-known complaint mechanism to complain about the NACC's conduct

Use your voice. Fill it in. Share this widely

👇🏽https://t.co/jioLuX2fu7 pic.twitter.com/SygzvUJ0Jk

— RonniSalt (@RonniSalt) June 8, 2024

 

Take the energy you've used on social media and do something - do it and share it

In your complaint, make sure you include 1 of these 2 points, in particular the arrowed one

Stick to facts. Complain loudly. Thousands of people can not be ignored #robodebt #NACCered pic.twitter.com/AVkTQEI27p

— RonniSalt (@RonniSalt) June 8, 2024

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.