Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Robodebt was the largest failure of public administration in Australia's history. Two weeks ago, on 11 March 2026, the National Anti-Corruption Commission released its investigation into Robodebt. Unfortunately, the clearest takeaway from this investigation is that our federal integrity commission has been a profound disappointment and that steps have to be taken as a matter of urgency to restore public trust in our most public facing anticorruption agency.

The origins of the NACC's investigation into Robodebt only reinforced that disappointment—disappointment in the effectiveness of the NACC, in its integrity and its transparency and in its leadership. In 2023, the Robodebt royal commission referred six individuals to the NACC to determine whether they engaged in corrupt conduct. At the time, the commissioner, Major General Paul Brereton AM, declared a conflict of interest. Recognising that he should not be involved in decision-making, he delegated his powers to his deputy commissioners and appeared to recuse himself from the inquiry. Nearly a year later, the NACC made the extraordinary decision not to investigate the 'Robodebt Six', suggesting that the conduct of the individuals involved had been fully ventilated by the royal commission. That decision prompted more than 1,200 public complaints, including many from the electorate that I represent, many highlighting the lack of accountability and the breach of public trust that this finding represented. In the wake of a royal commission which effectively and with transparency exposed dishonest, secret and unlawful conduct, the NACC's decision sent a woeful, incredibly disappointing message to the victims of the robodebt scheme. Worse still, the NACC inspector later found that the commissioner, despite his prior declaration of a conflict of interest, had been involved in this decision. In doing so, the supposed custodian of public trust had himself engaged in officer misconduct.

Unfortunately, the commission's leadership continues to be marred by controversy. Just last month, it was announced that the office of the inspector would undertake a second investigation into complaints of officer misconduct in relation to Mr Brereton's involvement with the Australian Defence Force.

The NACC is not delivering on its promise. Public confidence has been eroded, and its credibility has been weakened. This is not the National Anti-Corruption Commission that Australia envisaged when, in 2022, I and other Independents who had called for it and advocated for it were elected. My constituents still believe that the NACC can be an institution for public good, that it can be the strong and independent watchdog that Australians were promised. But that's not going to happen if we don't restore confidence in its leadership and if we don't significantly change how it interfaces with the Australian public.

Mr Brereton was appointed as a commissioner for a five-year term. That should not be a shield from accountability. When public trust has been so clearly damaged, this parliament should not just wait for time to pass and hope that that confidence will return.

Section 250 of the NACC Act 2022 provides for the termination of a NACC commissioner for misbehaviour or incapacity. I call on the government to consider this. I also call on the government to consider reforming section 250 of the NACC Act to ensure automatic removal of a NACC commissioner in the event that he or she is found to have engaged in corrupt conduct. And I call on the government to legislate so that future such investigations of the NACC are, by default, undertaken with open hearings. The act currently allows the commissioner to determine whether hearings are held in public or in private based on a broad public interest test. This discretion has been overwhelmingly exercised in favour of privacy. That has to change. The first and most important reform is structural. We have to have a legislative presumption in favour of public hearings, with private proceedings reserved for specific and genuine exceptions. There are legitimate reasons which we've discussed in this place many times—national security, witness protection, active law enforcement operations—for some proceedings needing to be held in private. But they should be the exception, not the default.

The power of sunlight is not just symbolic. Research consistently shows that transparency in public integrity bodies increases deterrence. When the highest profile, most publicly anticipated matter before the commission was heard behind closed doors—despite the victims, the advocates and journalists calling for transparency—that sent a message to those affected by robodebt. It sent a message that that commission is not so different from the other government institutions that they very justifiably mistrust.

The NACC has to become more outward facing. Its website, its referral processes and its public communications should be designed for the public, not for lawyers. And it has to have a greater interface with and acceptance of referrals from whistleblowers.

The failures of the NACC leadership have diverted time and attention away from the matters that it was established to investigate. For almost three years, 56 pages of the robodebt royal commission's final report were kept secret as the NACC stalled on the need for further investigation and possible referrals. Now the final NACC report has found insufficient evidence to prove unlawful behaviour beyond reasonable doubt. Those findings of the NACC are beyond disappointing. Of the robodebt six, two were found to have engaged in misconduct. But the others, despite being intimately involved in the design and implementation of robodebt, were effectively exonerated. Commentators have suggested that they demonstrate a failure of the NACC to apply rigorous standards.

Corruption—as we saw in public office, as we saw in the case of the illegal robodebt scheme—is not a victimless crime. Robodebt was not victimless; there were many victims. The real cost of the NACC's inability to investigate effectively is being borne by those Australians whose lives were destroyed by robodebt: families who were wrongfully pursued, individuals who were left financially and emotionally traumatised, and citizens whose trust in government was shattered. The NACC's failure to hold those responsible to account leaves those Australians without justice and leaves the broader public with a troubling message that those in our seats of power are afforded more procedural fairness than everyday Australians.

Those concerns are now being compounded and escalated by the government's increasing use of automated assessment tools in aged care and disability care. We're seeing it again. The government seems to have learnt nothing from this very recent lesson, and it seems inevitable that without change we are doomed to repeat those errors of the past. We need to legislate guardrails for how our Public Service uses automated decision-making tools before we cause the same sort of harm to Australians in the disability and aged-care sectors that we've already inflicted on them with robodebt.

We can't allow the legacy of robodebt to be one of grief, silence and impunity. The victims of that scheme deserve recognition, accountability and redress. Any institution that claims to protect public integrity can never lose sight of the individuals that it exists to serve. That is why I'm calling on the government to institute new leadership of our integrity watchdog and to review very carefully the legislative settings around the NACC, to increase the extent to which it's outward facing and to increase its transparency. We have to restore faith in this critical body, and we can do that only by demonstrating real commitment to its transparency and its effectiveness. Sunlight is still the very best medicine, and we need the NACC to provide sunlight on the dealings of our government and of our Public Service.

See this speech in context