NACC boss defends Robodebt bungle

The chair of the federal anti-corruption watchdog Paul Brereton has defended his decision not to fully remove himself from the decision to not investigate the referrals from the Robodebt royal commission and rejected claims this led to “widespread disquiet” and criticism of the body.

The National Anti-Corruption Committee’s independent inspector Gail Furness in October found Mr Brereton should have entirely excluded himself from the decision after he declared he had a close association with an individual who was referred to the NACC.

During a parliamentary inquiry in the commission on Friday, Mr Brereton said he “accepted” his judgment was “found to be mistaken through the prism of the law relating to apprehended bias”.

However he said he believed his absence would have created “very significant resource implications for the commission”.

He told the inquiry he had to “strike a balance between my responsibility as a leader” and “avoiding the perception that my prior professional relationship could affect the decision”.

“Considered that it would have been irresponsible and negligent for me, as a leader of the organisation, to abandon any involvement in them, provide no guidance, walk away, say it was not my problem and leave everyone else to their own devices,” he said.

While he delegated any decision related to that individual to assistant commissioner Nicole Rose, the report found he should have fully excluded himself from the decision and said his involvement was “comprehensive”.

While the bombshell report, published in October, led to calls for Mr Brereton to resign. The decision not to continue with investigating the Robodebt referrals is to be reconsidered by an “eminent, independent person”.

Under tough questioning from Greens senator David Shoebridge, Mr Brereton denied there was “widespread disquiet” around how the NACC had handled the Robodebt scandal.

“I accept that there is disquiet in some areas. I’m not prepared to accept that it’s widespread,” Mr Brereton said.

Mr Brereton said the NACC’s decision not to further investigate the Robodebt referrals was also in part due to the “resources required” for the investigation which would be similar to what was required of the royal commission.

“If we investigated Robodebt, that would likely be a large investigation that would use and require the dedication of a significant part of our resources,” he said.

Assistant commissioner Nicole Rose also said the NACC didn’t want to duplicate the investigation which had been undertaken by the resource-intensive probe.

“We knew how much time, money and effort, of course, the Royal Commission had put into it, and … there’d be many things that would have duplicated what the royal had done and done very well,” she said.

Previously, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the government had planned to table and publish sealed section of the final report into the Robodebt Royal Commission, which contained the names of six individuals recommended for further criminal and civil action.

However, the decision by the NACC to review its decision whether or not it would investigate had delayed the release of the names.

“The government will now seek advice from the NACC decision maker, once appointed, on whether the tabling of the confidential additional chapter would prejudice any current or future decision of the NACC,” Mr Dreyfuss said earlier this month.

The NACC has received more than 4200 referrals and is currently undertaking 35 preliminary investigations and 29 corruption investigations.

Of those, six relate for former or current parliamentarians, three relate to former or current parliamentary staffers, five relate to contractors or consultants, and 11 to senior executive officials.

However, Mr Brereton said it was “important to remember that most corruption investigations do not result in the finding of corrupt conduct”.