At least the corruption watchdog's watchdog is showing some integrity on Robodebt

The national corruption watchdog suddenly finds itself being investigated for potential corruption – who would have thought?

It is beyond flabbergasting that the fledgling National Anti-Corruption Commission decided to drop the ball over public officials referred to it by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

Hardly a soul has been able to understand why the NACC decided not to investigate the six people Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC strongly recommended it should.

The NACC’s rambling, bureaucratic statement last week informed the nation that, as far as it was concerned, enough was enough. Nothing to see here.

Lucky then that someone in the whole legislation-creating process had the foresight to include in the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 the need for an independent inspector to question the NACC’s decisions and motives.

Enter Gail Furness SC.

The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is an independent officer of the Federal Parliament, established under the Act.

According to its own official website, the inspector:

• investigates National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) corruption issues that could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic;
• investigates complaints of maladministration or officer misconduct relating to the NACC, and
• audits the NACC’s operations for compliance with Commonwealth laws.

The inspector is not subject to anyone’s direction in performing those functions and exercising said powers but must prepare an annual report to be tabled in Federal Parliament.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC monitors the inspector’s performance and reports on such to the parliament.

In the few days since the NACC announced it didn’t think the illegal and tragic Robodebt scheme warranted its scrutiny, the independent inspector – Ms Furness – has received almost 900 complaints.

And so the watchdog’s watchdog has issued a “please explain”.

“Many of those complaints allege corrupt conduct or maladministration by the NACC in making that decision,” Ms Furness said in a statement on Thursday (13 June).

“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.”

That brief statement amounts to the first media release the inspector has issued – and it’s a doozy.

The inspector’s few and concise words express more integrity than the NACC’s epic weasel words epistle from last week.

The inspector undoubtedly will ask the NACC to explain these paragraphs from its statement: “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.”

One would have thought that the awful “impact” of the scheme and the “seniority of the officials involved” would themselves have been more than sufficient reason for the NACC to fully investigate.

Perhaps the inspector’s question to the Commission could go something like this: “Why did you decide to roll over and play dead?”

After the bewildering announcement from the NACC last week – which amounted to it trying to explain why it wasn’t prepared to do the very job it was created to do – the independent inspector’s quick response to the outcry is refreshing.

Ms Furness and her team now have a huge task to perform and will be doing so with the whole nation watching and anticipating the outcome.

The nation was anticipating the NACC’s decision and was left sorely disappointed.

Let’s hope the independent inspector can quickly get to the bottom of why the very entity established to investigate official corruption decided so emphatically to look the other way.