NACC refuses to investigate corruption in the Robodebt scheme: Is accountability in Australian politics at risk?

If NACC is to be an effective instrument of justice, capable of maintaining public trust and holding power to account, it requires a significant reset.

In a highly contentious decision, the National Anti-Corruption Commission has decided that it will not pursue corruption investigations into six public officials implicated in the scandalous Robodebt scheme between 2016 and 2020. This decision marks the NACC’s first significant public announcement since its inception, and it has been met with widespread criticism and disappointment. The NACC’s rationale for this decision hinges on its desire to avoid duplicating the efforts of the Australian Public Service Commission and the findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission, however, this reasoning has not quelled public outcry nor addressed the expectations of rigorous accountability that were central to the establishment of the NACC.

The Robodebt scheme, implemented by the former Coalition government, has been one of Australia’s most damaging social policy failures in recent memory, if not ever. Its design, which involved the automated tallying of welfare debts that erroneously and aggressively targeted vulnerable Australians, has had disastrous consequences. Lives and livelihoods were disastrously impacted, leading to immense financial and emotional stress among affected individuals. The subsequent Robodebt Royal Commission was scathing in its critique, not only of the scheme’s operational failures but also of the government’s oversight, describing the initiative as not just flawed but “terrible and awful and evil,” designed to exploit the most vulnerable layers of society.

Against this backdrop, the “sealed” section of the Robodebt Royal Commission’s report named 16 individuals suspected of corrupt practices linked to the scheme’s administration, and six of these were directly referred to the NACC by Catherine Holmes, the head of the Royal Commission, marking a critical test of the NACC’s resolve and effectiveness—or so we were told at the time. The public and political expectation was that the NACC would act as a robust mechanism of accountability, particularly given the grave nature of the allegations and the societal impact of the scheme. However, the decision to not pursue investigations into these referrals has cast serious doubts on the NACC’s commitment to its fundamental purpose of investigating corruption.

The NACC’s reluctance to initiate its own investigation highlights a potentially troubling approach to accountability. While it is rational for a new entity to consider resource optimisation and efficiency, the gravity and public sensitivity of the Robodebt scandal necessitate a more assertive stance. The optics of this decision are particularly damaging; it appears to contradict the very essence of why the anti-corruption body was established.

The argument that existing inquiries by other bodies might cover the same ground does not adequately address the unique investigative powers and mandates that the NACC holds, and an independent investigation by the NACC could potentially uncover new evidence or provide a more focused exploration of corruption-specific dynamics that broader inquiries might not sufficiently address. The decision raises an important question about the effectiveness of multiple oversight bodies operating in parallel; it suggests a potential reluctance to engage in investigations that are politically sensitive or that involve high-level officials.

As the political ramifications of this decision unfold, there is a broader implication for the Labor government, which campaigned on the promise of effective governance and robust anti-corruption measures. The handling of this issue could significantly impact public trust and voter confidence in the government’s willingness to enforce accountability, especially in high-stakes, high-impact cases such as Robodebt. If the NACC’s decision stands as a precedent for future actions, it could also undermine the body’s credibility and effectiveness, turning a potentially powerful tool for transparency into a symbol of bureaucratic hesitancy and inefficiency.

The fallout from NACC’s decision

The decision strikes a chord of deep frustration and betrayal among the Australian public, and is particularly poignant given the immense human cost associated with Robodebt—highlighted by the reported 2,000 deaths linked to the stress and financial hardship imposed by the scheme. The label of the “most disastrous public policy ever implemented in Australia,” as described by numerous observers including the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, highlights the gravity of the scheme’s impact and the purported role of the NACC in addressing such profound governmental failures.

The unfolding controversy around the NACC’s refusal to investigate is compounded by the expectations set by the Robodebt Royal Commission—the deferral of its final report by Holmes, explicitly to align with the NACC’s operational commencement on 1 July 2023, was a clear indicator of the Royal Commission’s trust in the NACC’s capacity to pursue justice and accountability rigorously. The subsequent decision by the NACC to sidestep this responsibility not only confounds the public but also raises serious questions about the commission’s autonomy and its willingness to confront powerful political figures and entities.

This issue is not only administrative but deeply political. The NACC was a cornerstone of the Labor Party’s platform in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, which likely influenced their election success—the party’s commitment to establishing a robust anti-corruption framework was seen as a direct response to the previous government’s failures, of which Robodebt is perhaps the most glaring. As a result, the inaction on such a high-profile case undermines the credibility of the government’s commitment to reform and accountability and suggests a disconcerting continuation of past apathy towards systemic issues within the government’s own machinery.

This situation also has broader implications for the political landscape in Australia. The electorate’s trust in governmental institutions and mechanisms designed to ensure accountability is crucial for the healthy functioning of democracy. When these institutions fail to act on clear mandates, particularly in cases involving extensive public harm and governmental malfeasance, it erodes public trust and dampens civic engagement. For many Australians, the NACC’s inaction on Robodebt might confirm their cynicism about the effectiveness of governmental reforms and anti-corruption efforts, which could have lasting impacts on public confidence and future voter turnout.

In the context of political fallout, it’s essential to consider the broader spectrum of promised reforms that have not been effectively implemented by the Labor government. The lack of progress on key issues such as AUKUS, and the continued incarceration of high-profile whistleblowers such Julian Assange, David McBride and Dan Duggan—locally and abroad—compounds the sentiment of disillusionment and this pattern of unmet expectations raises fundamental questions about whether the issue at hand is one of inexperience or points to deeper issues of a lack of political will.

The government needs to demonstrate not only a capacity to govern effectively but also a willingness to stand by its principles of transparency and accountability. Failing to do so could jeopardise its mandate and its future at the next federal election, due before May 2025.

A downward spiral of public trust in our institutions

In 2023, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Government Services Minister Bill Shorten expressed strong condemnation of the Robodebt scheme, emphasising its unlawful nature and the severe impact it had on vulnerable Australians. Their words painted a picture of a new government ready to take decisive action against not only the failings of its predecessors but also the structural injustices that allowed such a scheme to flourish. Yet, the recent silence from these leaders following the NACC’s announcement contrasts sharply with their earlier vigorous critiques, suggesting a retreat from their commitments to accountability and justice for vulnerable Australians.

This silence is particularly jarring given the context of the Robodebt scheme’s consequences—financial ruin, severe emotional distress, and tragically, the numerous deaths that can be attributed to the scheme. It was a system that, as the Royal Commission pointed out, operated not just outside of legal boundaries but in a manner that was manifestly unjust. Taking these factors into account, the expectation was not only for an acknowledgment of these failures but for a robust response that could prevent such a catastrophe from recurring.

Critics now argue that the NACC’s refusal to act, coupled with the government’s lacklustre response to this decision, signifies a broader reluctance to engage with the systemic issues revealed by the Robodebt saga. The comparison with the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption is telling: ICAC’s history of vigorous investigations, which have led to high-profile resignations and reforms, starkly contrasts with the NACC’s tentative beginnings, and this comparison raises uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness and independence of national anti-corruption efforts in Australia. Indeed, ICAC’s first major case in 1992 resulted in the resignation of the NSW Premier Nick Greiner: in 2024, the NACC can’t even proceed with a case where the corruption has clearly been identified.

The failure to investigate, as voiced by victims of the Robodebt scheme and echoed in public forums, paints the NACC as an institution lacking the courage to confront powerful interests or to address corruption in high places. This perception undermines the very purpose of the Commission and could have long-lasting implications for its legitimacy and the public’s trust in governmental institutions more broadly.

The broader implications of this are significant. If the public perceives that even the bodies explicitly designed to combat corruption are toothless or unwilling to tackle substantial issues, the damage to the civic fabric could be extensive, and it may lead to increased public cynicism about the political process, lower voter engagement, and a weakening of the democratic accountability that is vital for a healthy political system.

A need for drastic reform in anti-corruption measures

The hesitant approach to tackling issues such as the Robodebt scheme—as well as the subsequent decision to not investigate corruption within Tourism Australia over incidents related to the misuse of travel expenses—suggests that there may either be legislative difficulties or competency issues at NACC—headed by Paul Brereton—and this is a stark departure from the more assertive and proactive stance of other anti-corruption bodies around Australia, which have set a high bar by actively pursuing corruption within governments that established the respective commissions, demonstrating a commitment to integrity over political loyalty. This vigorous approach historically has highlighted a crucial ethos: anti-corruption agencies must operate with an unwavering dedication to transparency and accountability, irrespective of the political sensitivities involved.

The decision by the NACC to not investigate the Robodebt or Tourism Australia scandals, as well as the weak reasons provided for not pursuing the investigations, not only undermines its credibility but also sets a concerning precedent for future governance. This was the NACC’s first round of major public announcements and conveys a message that political and bureaucratic machinations can potentially shield individuals from scrutiny and accountability, regardless of the scale of wrongdoing. This perception is damaging to the public’s trust in government and its institutions, suggesting that there are limits to accountability when facing politically sensitive or high-profile cases.

The implications of this decision extend beyond immediate political repercussions; and suggests a systemic reluctance to enforce accountability. This is especially troubling in light of historical patterns seen in New South Wales and South Australia, where government interference has occasionally sought to undermine anti-corruption efforts through strategies like funding cuts when investigations got too close to core political interests. The example of former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, whose administration interfered with ICAC funding during ongoing investigations, illustrates the perils of such interference and highlights the need for anti-corruption bodies to operate without fiscal or political constraints.

It is obvious that the NACC’s approach needs a fundamental recalibration. To restore public confidence and ensure robust accountability, the operations of the NACC should be transparent, especially once investigations reach a point where the public has a right to understand the processes and outcomes involved. Transparency not only safeguards the investigated but also ensures that the public can see justice being served, reinforcing trust in the system’s ability to handle even the most politically sensitive cases. For those found guilty, public accountability is essential—it demonstrates that no one is above the law, reinforcing the principles of justice and equity foundational to democratic governance.

In the immediate aftermath, the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Gail Furness SC, has received nearly 900 individual public complaints about the decision by the NACC to not to commence a corruption investigation into the Robodebt Scheme, and will now perform her own inquiries into the decision. This is to be welcomed but the issue remains that it should never have got this point and the NACC has failed in its first major test.

The NACC’s tepid response to the Robodebt scandal should serve as a wake-up call for all stakeholders involved and it presents an opportunity to recalibrate its commitments to an uncompromising and transparent fight against corruption. If the NACC is to be an effective instrument of justice, capable of maintaining public trust and holding power to account, it requires a significant overhaul—a reset that repositions it as a truly independent and fearless custodian of integrity in Australian public life.