The National Anti-Corruption Commission has some urgent soul searching to do

The National Anti-Corruption Commission is terminal – at least it is under its current leadership.

With the findings of the independent Inspector of the NACC (thank heavens for Gail Furness) that Commissioner Paul Brereton had engaged in ‘officer misconduct’ in his handling of Robodebt referrals, the Commission will find it hard to recover without drastic internal repair.

Is there a clearer example of the bureaucracy closing ranks to look after its own than can be seen in what went down this year inside the NACC?

To be clear, ‘officer misconduct’ is a legal term and, as Ms Furness and the Commissioner himself have both pointed out, is not referring to an unlawful or corrupt act.

It is a result of a ‘mistake of law or fact’ that brought the Inspector to the conclusions she made.

But to be even clearer, the NACC Commissioner has such vast legal experience that it beggars belief he thought it okay to stay involved to any degree at all while the Commission deliberated over someone close to him.

There is no room for mates’ rates in an anti-corruption authority.

The person concerned was even allowed, through their lawyer, to change the wording of the NACC’s media statement in June, explaining why no one would be investigated over their roles in the illegal Robodebt Scheme.

That media statement was misleading in its reasons why the NACC couldn’t reasonably pursue investigations against any of the six people referred to it by Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes.

“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,” the NACC’s June statement said.

“This includes the risk of inconsistent outcomes and the oppression involved in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations.”

The investigation into that decision by the NACC begs to differ.

‘Nothing to see here’ is a mindset unworthy of an institution whose sole purpose is to investigate corruption in public office.

It goes to the elitist attitudes of the bureaucracy’s top echelons that even after the horrors of Robodebt have been well exposed, there remains scant understanding of and empathy for the public’s need for accountability.

The NACC has so far only blocked the healing process of a hurt nation.

The Commission is only 16 months old, having come into existence thanks to the dogged determination of those who recognised the need for such an important authority.

But it cannot be left to its own devices, as this sorry Robodebt saga has shown.

Nothing good thrives in secrecy.

The NACC should now be reviewed sooner than was scheduled, it should be made to hold mostly public hearings, and the independent inspector should play a role in all its decisions.

Otherwise, what is the NACC’s value to society?

If it can’t investigate something as wrong and as corrupt and as self-serving as Robodebt then we don’t need a federal anti-corruption commission.

The fledgling NACC – having failed massively at its first hurdle – must now swallow its pride and find another ‘eminent person’ to reconsider the whole Robodebt matter and decide whether indeed an investigation should be pursued.

Odds on, there will now be a thorough NACC investigation of the six people referred to it.

That is, of course, if the anti-corruption commission survives the shame it brought down on itself.

The only way it has a chance of regaining/retaining any morsel of public confidence in its role is with a new commissioner.

As stated, Commissioner Brereton has not acted illegally by any means.

But the optics could not be worse, and for those operating in the public realm, perceptions are sometimes everything.

Stepping aside now would be the honourable thing to do.