[Theme Music Starts]

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ashlynne McGhee. This is 7am.

When the final report from the Robodebt royal commission landed, it was scathing of the entire scheme – the individuals who rolled it out, and the government policy that enabled it.

The Commissioner went to significant lengths to refer six people to the, at that point, very fresh National Anti-Corruption Commission - the NACC.

But last week, the corruption commission said it wouldn’t be investigating further – essentially saying it had nothing to add.

So, what’s the motivation there? Why not take a swing at the architects of such a discredited and damaging scheme?

Today, The Saturday Paper’s senior reporter Rick Morton, on why no real people are being held to account, and the impact that that has on victims.

It’s Monday, June 10.

[Theme Music Ends]

ASHLYNNE:

Rick, around this time last year, you broke a story that the Robodebt royal commission made this huge call to delay handing down its findings. Can you take us back to that time and what you learned?

RICK:

Yeah, that was a pretty significant little tidbit, actually, at the time, because the Robodebt royal commission was having on an incredibly tight timeframe. They were still receiving documents from the Commonwealth by the truckload, essentially, while they were holding hearings. So they'd already been granted a delay or an extension of time, really, to finish writing the report.

Audio excerpt – Catherine Holmes:

“This commission has to inquire and report and an important part of the inquiry component is these public hearings, because it's the opportunity to explore evidence in a public forum.”

RICK:

And the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, wrote to the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, and requested another extension of time, this one by only seven days. So they were originally meant to report, then, on June 30th. This extension was asking for them to be able to report the following week, in the first week of July. Now, that was significant because the only reason Commissioner Holmes, I reported at the time, wanted that extension was because the National Anti-Corruption Commission did not take effect in law until July 1. At that point, she had formed a view, it seems, that she might potentially need to make referrals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and that's why she wanted that one week extension. It was the only reason she asked for it, I've seen the letter. And that's why it was granted.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“This morning, the government received the final report of the Royal commission into the Robodebt scheme. The government has publicly released this report as soon as it was tabled this morning.”

RICK:

So she's making referrals to, we know from the report, to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Public Service Commission and an ACT legal professional standards body.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“It recommends the referrals of individuals for civil action or criminal prosecution. I recommend that this additional chapter remain sealed and not be tabled with the rest of the report so as not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil action or criminal prosecution.”

RICK:

She ended up making six referrals of six people to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for them to conduct their own inquiries.

ASHLYNNE:

And so, a year on from those referrals Catherine Holmes made to the NACC, last week we learned what would ultimately happen to those people, those referrals. What happened?

RICK:

Yeah. So they said, nothing would happen. It's not a finding of no corruption. It's not, they've been doing work behind closed doors and decided there's nothing to say here. What they've decided is that they're not going to look into it, after 11 months.

Audio excerpt – ABC News:

"The National Anti-Corruption Commission has decided not to launch its own investigation into the actions of six public officials, referred to it by the Robodebt royal commission.

RICK:

So it's taken them as long to come out with this statement as it did for the entire Robodebt royal commission to conduct its inquiry and release a 1000 page report. So what they've said essentially is that we don't have any power, as the National Anti-Corruption Commission, so there'd be no value in us conducting an investigation when one was already conducted by the Royal Commission. We think the Royal commission did a bang up job. And there's really nothing else for us to do, noting that out of the six public officials that were referred to the NACC, five of them are currently the subject or have been the subject of a separate inquiry by the Australian Public Service Commission. So essentially they've said, that's now the most appropriate avenue for, you know, some form of remedy or sanction. And we don't want to actually use this word, which I found quite incredible, they were conscious of the risk of inconsistent outcomes and the oppression involved, the oppression, in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations. So they kind of threw up their hands and said, we're out. We're out of the race.

ASHLYNNE:

And so Rick, if the NACC has decided not to investigate further, why did Catherine Holmes think these referrals were so necessary? Why were they important enough, do you think, in her mind, to delay the entire royal commission?

RICK:

She formed the view that, given what she knew about the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation, given what she knew about their remit, and given what she knew about the conduct of the individuals involved in her inquiry, that the NACC was one of the body's best placed to deal with the individual accountability of people who were involved in Robodebt. Bearing in mind, of course, another thing that she would have known, which is the Australian Public Service Commission has next to no power to do anything of note. What they do do and have done so far, I might add, is investigate current and former public servants, but they can only really issue sanctions against current public servants, and none of those people have lost their jobs in the Australian public service. Something has been found against them and they continue to act in those roles in the Australian Public Service. Commissioner Holmes, no doubt. I don't want to speak for her, but no doubt saw that there was a need for the National Anti-Corruption Commission to value add to the investigations that were done elsewhere. And of course, people will wonder, quite rightly well, why didn't Commissioner Catherine Holmes just make these findings herself? Why didn't she, you know, say so-and-so did X and they're corrupt. And it's precisely because she's a very esteemed judge that she didn't do any of those things, because the Royal Commission has a very specific purpose in the Australian context, which is it's a fact finding thing. It is not the job of a royal commission, as much as we might wish it was, it is not the job in legislation for them to make findings of guilt or criminal misconduct or even civil misconduct in a corruption sense. It's their job to lay out the facts and to make findings about certain behaviours, which can then form the basis of other investigations and referrals, which is precisely what Catherine Holmes did.

And of course, now the NACC says, not only are they not going to look at it, but they're not going to make any findings. And of course, the prospect now for individual accountability is vanishing on the horizon.

ASHLYNNE:

Rick, you've been speaking to a whole lot of people since this decision from the NACC came out. How has it landed?

RICK:

Yeah, it's gutted people. I've talked to Jenny Miller, not long after the statement came out. She's Rhys Cauzzo’s mother. He killed himself after receiving a Robodebt that he never owed. She's been promised something at every turn. And she has fought and fought, and she's been proved right at every turn, right? Like, back when she was fighting in 2017 for answers to this, she knew in her heart of hearts that the Robodebt had something to do with it, because Rhys had put the debt letters on his fringe and she knew the money was weighing on his mind, and she was gaslit at every turn. And at every turn, finally, when somebody bent their will and, you know, announced a royal commission, or there's been an inquiry or some, you know, kind of fact finding mission, and she's been proved right, but then she's been denied justice. And it's happening again and again and again. And we've ended the week with an update from the Australian Public Service Commission that seven public servants have had findings made against them, and they're still employed.

What in this system, where... I mean, can somebody show me a single consequence of note? I can't see one. I mean, to me, this just looks like a flag that says, you can do a little bit of corruption, you can do a little bit of harm, you can do a lot of harm. And the worst that's going to happen in some cases is you have to resign from your $400,000 a year job.

ASHLYNNE:

After the break, the options available to the National Anti Corruption Commission, and why it didn’t take them.

[Advertisement]

Audio excerpt – Reporter:

“Can you tell us why, after a $35 million exercise, we don't deserve to see who's being referred? Does it include former ministers, for example?”

Audio excerpt – Bill Shorten:

“I understand your question very well, and when I first read the Commissioner Holmes’ letter, I had conflicting emotions because I know lots of people out there who feel that, will anyone ever get punished. But to put not too elegant a point on it to the people who are worried about that, there are adverse findings. There are bodies who are now being asked with a brief of evidence to look at these matters. There will be accountability. But I have to say, one of the big lessons of Robodebt is if you do things without proper process, you might end up inadvertently letting off some of the very people for whom we want accountability.”

ASHLYNNE:

Rick, the NACC has decided not to pursue investigations that were referred to it by the Royal Commission. But take me through what it could have done, what the options were, and also how it defines corruption.

RICK:

I think that's a critical question, right, because a lot of people seem to think that corruption is that old fashioned, brown paper bag, receiving cash under a tree, behind Parliament House kind of thing. That is not the definition of corruption that is used by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or that is enshrined in the legislation for the NACC. The commissioner has the following functions, right, this is section 17. Sorry to get really technical, but I think it matters. The commissioner has the function to detect corrupt conduct, to conduct preliminary investigations into corruption issues or possible corruption issues, to conduct corruption investigations into those issues that could involve corrupt conduct, that is serious or systemic, serious or systemic. So, to be perfectly clear, they can investigate conduct of any person that adversely affects a public official's honest or impartial exercise of powers or the performance of their official duties. They can investigate a public official that involves a breach of public trust. That's critical for Robodebt, I would have thought. They can investigate a public official that involves the abuse of office. The commissioner, Catherine Holmes', made findings that some politicians did abuse the power of their office, in her report. And finally the NACC can investigate a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of documents or information that they gained in their capacity as a public official. Those are the definitions, right? And they are required to report on corruption investigations, and any public inquiries they hold. And if they need to, they can refer corruption issues to Commonwealth agencies and state and territory government entities. So of course we've got the NACC saying, well actually, you know, it's better for the other agencies and investigatory bodies to do their investigations and we're kind of finished here. You know, the true, pure value of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is the value of actually making a finding of corrupt conduct. That is one of the key accountability measures in public life, is to make sure that when people do the wrong thing, their behaviour is labelled accordingly so that the rest of us can make decisions. And I think the NACC has completely put that to the side or they have not thought about it at all. But that is a crucial feature of what they meant to do.

ASHLYNNE:

And so what is this decision not to pursue this particular matter tell you about how the NACC sees itself and understands its role?

RICK:

I mean, it does baffle me, I must say, because this is their first public, kind of, stake in the ground saying this is who we are and who we are, apparently is a National Anti-Corruption Commission that is anti-corruption commissions. Like, they're essentially saying we don't have a role to play in detecting, defining, determining corruption. We don't have any power, and therefore we're not going to make any effort to look into this and actually do the thing that we're charged with doing, which is detecting corrupt conduct, defining corrupt conduct, and then putting it in the public arena to warn others against engaging in similar corrupt conduct. But without those entities, without those bodies, you don't have civic pressure on people who can do the wrong thing and do the wrong thing because they know they won't get caught.

I just… yeah, it boggles the mind, looking at that statement. It's kind of like, it's, I don't know, it's like a cattle farmer that won't sell cows. Like, what is your job, what is the point of you? They just… It doesn't make any sense to me.

ASHLYNNE:

Rick, it's really common to hear politicians, television presenters, all kinds of different people stand up now and call Robodebt what it was a cruel, illegal, betrayal of Australians that cost lives.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“It was wrong. It was illegal. It should never have happened and it should never happen again.”

Audio excerpt – Ben Fordham:

“Robodebt will go down as one of the worst policies in recent history.”

Audio excerpt – Bill Shorten:

“They were literally shaken down by their own government, by a government who didn't have the power to raise debt notices against them and in fact they did break the law.”

ASHLYNNE:

But now we're in this situation where we might not see a single person held accountable for that. Where are those voices now?

RICK:

So, people will still get up and say it was cruel and it was illegal, which it was. It was not consistent with the law. And they knew that it was illegal from the very beginning. And they will say that it was a betrayal that cost lives, more lives than we will ever know, which is all true. And I was thinking about it and I'm like, well, what do I say? Because, I don't think there's any value in me being over-the-top emotional about it, because people then will come back and say, well, let's think about this rationally.

So let's think about it rationally. You cannot have an illegal scheme that affected 460,000 people, and no people responsible. You cannot have a scheme that required literally hundreds of people, hundreds and hundreds of people to operate, dozens and dozens of people in decision making roles who knew at least partly, that this scheme was not just illegal, but mathematically inaccurate. You cannot have a scheme under all of those conditions, and with all of those people involved, and have no one actually held accountable. So, a lot didn't exist when Robodebt was happening but what we have now is a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC was set up for a purpose, which was to detect corrupt conduct and now doesn't seem to want to do that on one of the easiest cases it could possibly have. And one of the cases where it was the most necessary because, great, the Australian Public Service Commission is going to flog people with a lettuce leaf. That's not justice. That's the public service investigating itself.

You know, people will get up and say it was a great betrayal. And it was. But it's very hard to find someone like a politician or a senior public servant to get up and say, well, actually, the greater betrayal still is that we have a system that refuses to acknowledge that something went wrong, that wants to think that, you know, it was a few bad apples and everyone else is fine, but then neither wants to do anything about the few bad apples, nor change the architecture of the system in any meaningful way. In any meaningful way whatsoever.

ASHLYNNE:

Rick, thanks so much for your time today, and thank you also for your reporting on these over so many years, because you've given a voice to so many people on this story. And it's… your reporting has been critical. So thank you.

RICK:

Thank Ash, I appreciate that.

[Advertisement]

ASHLYNNE:

Also in the news today…

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak cancelled opportunities for journalists to ask him questions during his public appearances over the weekend, after it was revealed he decided to leave D-Day commemorations early.

Sunak left the memorial, marking 80 years since the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Europe from the Nazis, so he could be on time for a television interview where he made the case for his re-election.

And,
Four hostages taken from the Nova music festival on October 7 have been freed and have been reunited with their families, after an Israeli operation in Central Gaza on Saturday night, local time.

Airstrikes and ground assaults in the area during the operation killed between 100 and 210 Palestinians, according to statements from local health authorities.

That’s all from the team at 7am for today. My name’s Ashlynne McGhee, thanks for your company and I’ll see you again tomorrow.