Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) Gail Furness has said independence will be the test of the “eminent person” tasked with reviewing the NACC’s decision not to investigate robodebt.
Speaking to the joint standing committee on the NACC in its first public meeting, Furness said the eminent person should be able to make a determination using the original royal commission referral, and that how independence is preserved is a matter for the commission.
“My concern is … however they do it, there is no input from any of those involved in the decision-making process within the commission to that person,” she said. “The only material that person needs is the report and the sealed section and the letters. If that is the case, I don’t know what any briefing would look like.”
This followed Greens Senator David Shoebridge grilling NACC commissioner Paul Brereton over an “institutional conflict of interest” at the NACC. Under the act, the commissioner has the authority to appoint an independent reviewer, such as the eminent person.
This is undisputed on technical grounds, but Brereton disagrees the NACC is institutionally conflicted. He said in practice the appointment would likely be delegated to the CEO, chosen from a list supplied by the Australian government solicitor.
Furness was unconcerned about this arrangement, saying that, by definition, an eminent person would have to be of unimpeachable reputation.
“I can understand the point of view that those engaged in the first lot of decision-making not be involved in choosing the person,” she said. “[But] practically, for me, that person will inevitably be of such standing that I would expect that person to deliberately not engage with any one of the first decision-makers.”
“‘Eminent’ was their word, not mine,” she added.
The review of the robodebt decision took less than four months from start to finish in a new agency with about $1 million in total resourcing. The committee praised Furness’s speed and thoroughness in conducting the review. Furness, in turn, praised the chief financial officer of the Attorney-General’s Department.
Furness said that while her budget is small, she doesn’t expect resourcing will ever be an issue.
“I approached the [CFO] of the [Attorney-General’s Department] and he immediately said I’d have whatever I needed,” she said. “There’s no question of the Attorney-General’s Department, in particular the CFO, engaging with my staff and me.
“I have never felt, and don’t anticipate I will feel, any constraints in terms of having the resources I need.”
This was republished from The Mandarin.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
