ACOSS welcomes the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Anti-Corruption Commission Inspector Gail Furness SC’s finding released this morning calling on the NACC to appoint an independent, eminent person to review its decision to not investigate the six people referred to it by the Robodebt Royal Commission, as the decision was affected by ‘apprehended bias’.
“The Robodebt scandal harmed hundreds of thousands of people and their families yet no minister has ever been penalised,” said ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie.
“This is a disgrace and sends a message that governments can get away with breaking the law and causing substantial harm to its citizens.”
The Inspector’s report includes that the Deputy Commissioner who was responsible for making the decision was satisfied that each of the referrals ‘raise a corruption issue in relation to each of the Referred Persons’, but decided there was ‘no public value in the Commission commencing an investigation into the conduct of any of the Referred Persons’.
“There remains deep public concern that there has been no justice for the people harmed by Robodebt, no real consequences for the politicians and public servants involved, and a lack of progress on the changes needed to ensure this never happens again,” said Dr Goldie.
“There is clear public value in ensuring that justice is carried out for those responsible for Robodebt, including proper investigation into the corruption issues raised.
“It is shameful that those who are responsible for Robodebt and who ignored its harm have been subject to very little accountability, if any.
“Robodebt victims and their families deserve so much better.”
The Royal Commission found that Robodebt was “was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms”, that “made many people feel like criminals”.
ACOSS calls on the Federal Government to implement the Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations in full as quickly as possible, including reinstating the statute of limitations on debt recovery.
ACOSS also urges the Federal Government to do all it can to improve decision-making in social services to ensure policies and legislation do not cause harm or exacerbate the difficult circumstances faced by people receiving income support payments.
