Freedom at last for the Robodebt Six, thanks to the NACC |
The Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Oliver Cromwell, is not one of my favourite figures of history, but once gave one of my favourite pieces of advice to men convinced they had no alternative but to do something of which he did not approve. Writing to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, he said "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Login or signup to continue reading
I use this as my text as I prepare to admit that I must walk back on some of the unkind words I have said about people whose conduct in the robodebt disaster was said to be corrupt, disgraceful and blameworthy. The behaviour of six was said by a royal commission to possibly amount to corruption under the national anti-corruption legislation.
Four of these initially unnamed people - including Scott Morrison, one-time social security minister and later prime minister, and Kathryn Campbell, former secretary of human services and later social security - were found after an inquiry by a Deputy NACC Commissioner, Kiley Kilgour, to deserve exoneration from this allegation. Two others were found to have acted corruptly, but they will not be charged because the commissioner does not believe that criminal charges could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They are thus as free as the other four, apart from the stain on their reputations.
I was gobsmacked by the result because I had expected that there was ample material capable of supporting the allegations. Indeed, I was angry that the anti-corruption commissioners, minus the one who conducted the hearings, had initially shied from holding hearings at all, on the quite false grounds that all matters had been dealt with already by the royal commission. That decision was overturned, and the Chief Commissioner Paul Brereton was found to have committed a NACC corruption offence after he recused himself on the ground of acquaintanceship with Ms Campbell but subsequently sought to involve himself in deliberations about how cases were to be investigated.
At the time the NACC decision not to hold an inquiry was reversed, I urged that the NACC not be allowed to pick up on its mistake and visit again their initial predispositions on the matter. I said a new person should be chosen to do it, away from a commission which had already lost the confidence of the public. Kiley Kilgour, up to a point, fits that bill, and was assisted by former High Court justice Geoff Nettle. Kilgour comes from the Victorian broad-based commission against corruption, which operates secretively on NACC lines, and has a public profile and record like the NACC.
Fact finder extraordinarily naive in understanding of how govt works
We now have a 400-plus page "judgement" - the first from the NACC. Albeit after closed hearings so that no one could establish the zeal, if any, with which inquiries were pursued. Judging by the quotes in the judgment I doubt many witnesses were stretched.
I repent my rush to judgment, the more so because I now tend to agree with some of the commissioner's conclusions. At least based on the evidence that I now know. In general Ms Kilgour is more inclined to think the behaviour of the six (and another few dozen who appear equally blameworthy) was not dishonest and corrupt. Rather it was the product of a giant stuff-up in which the minds of various of the actors were not properly on their jobs. A complete stuff-up, not a provable conspiracy, in short.
So, should we treat the accused folk somewhat in the manner of folk acquitted of felony? Champagne all round after a horrible ordeal? Profuse apologies from people such as myself, and an entitlement by them to walk henceforth with heads held up high?
Not quite, because the source of doubts entertained by Ms Kilgour came mostly from the fact she was less than completely satisfied of corrupt purposes, even though there was evidence pointing to it. Her bar was very high.
But against such evidence were signs of incompetence, lack of attention to detail, a chain of correspondence and decision-making, stretching over years, that made following the evidence a bit confusing. And the stout denial of most of the parties that they ever had in mind the deception of the cabinet, the government, or the broader public. (Some of the........