David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak to the annual report of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It was extraordinary that the first time we have really had to call upon the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, under powers that, thankfully, the Senate gave the inspector with amendments moved by the Greens, resisted by the government, was into the inquiry into the scandalous dealing of the robodebt fiasco by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

This month we saw the Inspector of the NACC deliver a brutal assessment of the NACC's decision not to investigate the robodebt scandal. The inspector concluded that the head of the NACC, Commissioner Brereton, engaged in officer misconduct in how he dealt with it and that the robodebt scandal needed to be reinvestigated by the NACC. As we speak, the NACC is doing somersaults trying to find some way that isn't ridden with conflicts of interest in which they can now appoint somebody to review the conflict-ridden decision that the NACC made not to investigate the robodebt scandal.

Before looking into the mess that happened inside the NACC, it's worth remembering that this wasn't just any corruption referral. The robodebt scandal was referred to the NACC by hundreds and hundreds of individuals as well as by the royal commission into the scandal. The royal commission sent the NACC a large body of confidential evidence concerning six people who it concluded may have engaged in corrupt conduct regarding robodebt. This was not the standard referral to the NACC. The inspector found that Commissioner Brereton failed to remove himself from the NACC's handling of the robodebt matter, despite his admission—and he said it in multiple different ways—that one of the six people referred by the royal commission was, in his words, 'well known to me'. I think he also said later that he had a 'close personal association' with her.

The inspector's report details how Commissioner Brereton declared that conflict of interest, purportedly delegating the final decision on robodebt to a deputy commissioner, and then remained deeply involved in every aspect of the NACC's consideration. Because of the detail in the inspector's report, we now know that Commissioner Brereton led the key discussions about robodebt inside the NACC, sought internal legal advice about it and even settled the minutes of meetings held about it. He then topped it all off by authorising a misleading media release trying to explain why the NACC was doing nothing. The inspector concluded that this conduct was in breach of the legal obligations of the NACC and that a 'fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the NACC commissioner's involvement might have impinged on the impartiality' of the decision-making process. Thank goodness for the inspector!

As a result of the blowtorch applied by the inspector, we're now going to get another review by the NACC, which none of the existing senior staff can take part in, to see if it should investigate robodebt. That's already falling into scandal, as we saw from a report this weekend in the Saturday Paper. Since the release of the inspector's report, we've had both Labor and the coalition rushing to the defence of Commissioner Brereton, saying that the inspector's brutal correction is proof the system is working and that the public had total trust in Commissioner Brereton. If only that were true.

What we saw from not only the NACC inspector's report but also the independent review that Alan Robertson, a very highly regarded senior counsel, did for the assistance of the NACC inspector was that Commissioner Brereton led the key discussion at the meeting on 19 October 2023 where the NACC effectively decided not to investigate the robodebt scandal. The commissioner has been telling people that he was only there for policy reasons. Let's hear what Alan Robertson SC said:

The Commissioner's involvement in the decision-making under section 41 was comprehensive, before, during and after the 19 October 2023 meeting at which the substantive decision was made.

The views of the Commissioner expressed at the meeting on 19 October were not limited to policy questions concerning the referrals generally as the policy questions had a strong factual element specific to, amongst others, [Referred Person 1]—

being the person with whom Commissioner Brereton had declared a conflict—

The discussion was framed by the issues raised by the Commissioner. The Commissioner settled the minutes …

Not only that, but the commissioner then let the referred people settle his misleading media release. I can tell you now that there will be a further investigation of Commissioner Brereton this coming Friday by the parliamentary joint committee. Maybe that will get to the truth of this scandal. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.