The National Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate the six individuals referred to the body by the robodebt royal commission after an independent review into its initial refusal.
On Tuesday, the anti-corruption watchdog confirmed the six individuals – five public servants and one public official – would be investigated to “determine whether or not any of the six referred persons engaged in corrupt conduct”. The names of the individuals have not been released.
The independent reviewer, Geoffrey Nettle KC, made a decision in February, the Nacc said, but said it would not divulge its reasons for relaunching the investigations.
“The commission is now making arrangements to ensure the impartial and fair investigation of the referrals, as it did with the appointment of Mr Nettle as independent reconsideration delegate,” the statement said.
“The commissioner and those deputy commissioners who were involved in the original decision not to investigate the referrals will not participate in the investigation.”
In June 2024 the Nacc declared it would not pursue an investigation into six individuals referred by the robodebt royal commission, due to separate public service investigations being carried out into five of them.
The decision was heavily criticised, with the Nacc’s own watchdog, the Nacc inspector, Gail Furness, revealing she had received more than 1,000 complaints and would interrogate the decision further.
Furness released a report in October finding that the Nacc commissioner, Paul Brereton, was “affected by apprehended bias” and should have “removed himself from related decision-making processes and limited his exposure to the relevant factual information”. Furness said there was “no intentional wrongdoing”.
The report found Brereton had appointed a deputy commissioner as a delegate to decide on the robodebt referrals due to a perceived conflict of interest with one of the individuals who was “well known to him”, which he declared. The Nacc noted the report contained “no finding of intentional wrongdoing or other impropriety” while conceding the public’s disappointment in the decision was “regrettable”.
In August Guardian Australia revealed the “close association” related to Brereton’s service in the army reserve.
Brereton rejected calls to step down because of the finding, suggesting “an error of judgment” did not justify that.
“If every judge found to have made a mistake of law or fact resigned, there wouldn’t be one sitting on the bench in this country,” he told a governance forum in November.
Furness also found that the Nacc’s media statement was “misleading” because it claimed the Australian Public Service Commission “had remedial powers and could impose a sanction in relation to the persons referred”.
“In fact, it could not because five of the referred persons were no longer public servants and the sixth never was a public servant and the APSC could only impose a sanction on current public servants,” she said.
The APSC’s robodebt taskforce found 12 public servants, including the former department heads Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon, breached the code of conduct 97 times during their involvement in the robodebt program.
As a result of the conduct breaches, the four public servants still employed were due to face a range of sanctions from demotion to reprimands and fines. The two former agency heads did not face sanctions as they no longer worked for the public service but will have to declare the findings, if asked, for the next five years if they apply for jobs in the Australian public service or for work as a contractor.
Following the release of the Furness report, the Nacc announced it would engage an “independent eminent person” to reconsider whether the robodebt referrals should be investigated.
