The National Anti-Corruption Commission squibbed it.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In deciding not to investigate further any of the unknown number of cases referred to it by the robodebt royal commission, the NACC has effectively also decided not to exercise its power to do the one thing no other institution can do: make a finding on whether the actions of individuals involved in the design and implementation of robodebt were "corrupt" within the terms of the Commissions Act.
In the media release announcing its decision on the robodebt cases, the NACC said:
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).
The question of whether the conduct in question amounted to corrupt conduct is not just a side issue here, it is the issue.
No one other than the NACC can make such a finding. Without such a finding (whether confirming corrupt behaviour or not), it is going to be all the more difficult for the Australian Public Service Commission or the Australian Federal Police to make adverse findings within their jurisdiction and to impose or recommend consequences for those involved.
Indeed, the individuals whose cases were referred to the NACC could have reason for frustration at its non-decision, almost 12 months after referral.
They have been denied the possibility of their good names being at least partially restored by the NACC considering their actions and finding they do not meet the definition of corrupt behaviour under its Act.
As things stand, the community is left wondering.
We are all going to either continue to be unsure, or (more probably) we are going to draw our own conclusions on the basis of partial information (at least until and unless the sealed chapter of the royal commission's report is made public).
![The NACC's non-decision undermines the community's faith that wrongdoings can be addressed. Picture Shutterstock The NACC's non-decision undermines the community's faith that wrongdoings can be addressed. Picture Shutterstock](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/RXMuw2JbrrS7ELSxSY9rkR/96598331-735d-4d67-9102-f19d90a924cb.jpg/r0_424_5156_3334_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
This is a missed opportunity for the NACC. It could have established early in its institutional life a clear public sense of its role and how it will go about its business as the arbiter on corrupt behaviour of officials at the national level.
It could have contributed to robodebt victims' confidence that the system is, eventually, just and fair.
It could have helped other organisations, such as the AFP and APSC, do their work with greater clarity around the crucial question of official conduct in the design and implementation of robodebt.
Instead, right now we know from the royal commission that "robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal", but the NACC has declined to tell us whether any of the actions that led to its design and implementation were corrupt.
This situation is not only tragic for the victims of robodebt, it is dangerous for any hopes that the response to the scandal will go sufficiently far in addressing crucial institutional and organisation issues.
The process so far has understandably focused on individual culpability and some of the cultural and capability issues, but if we are to avoid such failures (or worse) in the future, then the structural and organisation factors need to be addressed, and soon.
The longer the processes around individual culpability take and the more uncertain their outcomes are, the less likely it is there will be an opportunity or will to address the systemic issues.
The NACC's non-decision has pushed that opportunity further away, for us all.
- Dr Russell Ayres is an adjunct associate professor at the University of Canberra.