News about Australia

[Alexender NoahParticipant]

NACC CEO grilled over commissioner’s $1.138m mistake

The boss of the federal anti-corruption watchdog was grilled over a colleague’s mistake that resulted in a costly secondary investigation.

Greens senator David Shoebridge has accused the chief executive of the federal anti-corruption watchdog of billing tax payers $1.138m to reassess a decision to investigate the six individuals identified in the sealed section of the Robodebt royal commission report.

In February this year, former High Court justice Geoffrey Nettle urged the National Anti-Corruption Commission to reassess whether the body should backflip on its decision to not progress the investigation after it was revealed NACC commissioner Paul Brereton failed to adequately manage a conflict of interest, and remove himself from the decision-making process.

Mr Nettle is currently reassessing whether to progress the Robodebt referrals to a large-scale investigation, and will continue working with the NACC until February 28, 2026 on a total contract value of $1.138m.

Grilling NACC chief executive Philip Reed at Senate estimates, Senator Shoebridge said Mr Brereton’s decision not remove himself from the initial investigation resulted in Mr Nettle’s secondary investigation, and the resulting costly hit to taxpayers.

“The only reason you’ve had to enter a $1.138m contract with Mr Nettle is because Commissioner Brereton failed to properly deal with a conflict of interest,” he said.

“As identified by the inspector that has turned out to be at least a $1.138m mistake by Commissioner Brereton.”

Mr Reed denied Senator Shoebridge’s assessment and said the NACC had agreed to a recommendation made by NACC inspector Gail Furness for the decision to be reconsidered by someone who was not associated with the original decision.

While Senator Shoebridge said this was because the NACC had “mishandled the Robodebt inquiry,” Mr Reed rejected the assertion and said “we just have to live with fact” that the decision had to be reconsidered.

“The inspector didn’t find bias by the commissioner and made no findings against the Deputy Commissioner that made the decision,” he said.

0

0

[Author]

Posts