Two years after the Robodebt Six were referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission by the Robodebt Royal Commission for investigation for potential corrupt conduct they are finally being investigated.
Yet the NACC did not issue a media release announcing this nationally significant news. Instead, it avoided mainstream media coverage by including it amongst other items in its standard monthly update*.
Despite the NACC’s promise to “ensure” an “impartial and fair investigation” of the referrals, it has kept the investigation in-house, appointing one of its deputy commissioners, Kylie Kilgour, to lead it.
The issue is not Ms Kilgour’s professionalism: it is the all-important perception of potential bias.
Eminent retired judges and integrity experts expressed alarm when Undue Influence broke the news in late May that the NACC appeared intent on appointing Ms Kilgour to the investigation, given her months-long participation in the NACC’s earlier flawed decision-making process not to investigate the six public officials.
The experts said that all three of the NACC’s deputy commissioners were “arguably tainted” by that decision and that none should be involved in the investigation.
The Centre for Public Integrity has repeatedly called for a “truly independent person” to conduct the Robodebt investigation to avoid any possible hint of bias, particularly given the “substantial damage” the decision not to investigate the referrals from the Robodebt Royal Commission has already done to the NACC.
The relevant segment in the NACC’s July update states the following:
Update on Robodebt referrals investigation
Following the Inspector’s report last year, we appointed former High Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle KC to reconsider the decision not to investigate the Robodebt Royal Commission referrals. In February, he decided we would investigate.
That investigation is now underway, led by Deputy Commissioner Kylie Kilgour, with Mr Nettle as Chief Adviser. The Commissioner and other Deputy Commissioners who were involved in the original decision not to investigate the referrals are not participating in the investigation.
The only new information in this minimalist ‘update’ is the 17-word sentence we’ve highlighted in bold. The first paragraph of information and the remainder of the second paragraph were both published by the NACC in a media release in February.
While the NACC’s wording (“now underway”) suggests the investigation has only recently begun, its chief adviser Mr Nettle is already three months into his nine-month contract.
Mr Nettle’s contract commenced on 7 April 2025 and ends on 31 December. There is provision for it to be extended twice if needed, to a maximum end date of 31 December 2026.
This indicates that the NACC’s Robodebt investigation started in early April.
The NACC has not disclosed that around the same time it hired Mr Nettle, it also hired two additional barristers: Gary Hevey and Jennifer Croxford. Their contracts both began on 4 April 2025 and also end on 31 December. These two contracts have also been published on Austender, the Australian Government's procurement information system. It is likely the two barristers are also part of the NACC’s Robodebt investigation team.
The cost to taxpayers of these three contracts, to 31 December this year, is more than $1.1 million.
The NACC has released no information about how it is running the investigation. Nor has it provided any detail as to what Mr Nettle’s role as ‘chief adviser’ entails and how it dovetails with Ms Kilgour’s role as investigation leader.
On 26 May we contacted the NACC with questions for an earlier article, including asking whether the Robodebt investigation had begun, whether Ms Kilgour would be involved, and requesting a summary of the overall process and key arrangements the Commission had put in place to ensure the impartial and fair investigation of the Robodebt referrals.
We now know that we sent our questions to the NACC seven weeks after Mr Nettle’s contract as chief adviser had already begun, yet the NACC refused to respond to us in May, despite its investigation already being underway.
The NACC is also mute on whether any other senior personnel or more junior staff are, or will be, involved in the Robodebt investigation. For example, in addition to the commissioner and three deputy commissioners, six senior executives are also members of the NACC’s Senior Assessment Panel, some of whom were involved in that capacity in the NACC’s decision not to investigate the Robodebt referrals.
* On 30 June, the NACC issued the Kingscliff report into corruption in the department of Home Affairs, widely picked up by mainstream media, and a second media release about a former immigration officer at Home Affairs who had been sentenced for abuse of public office. The following day, 1 July, on its 2-year anniversary, the NACC first published a statement about its first two years. It next released its July update, which opened with another two-year anniversary message, after which came the segment reproduced above about the Robodebt investigation. In media parlance, this is called ‘burying’ the Robodebt news.
The above footnote was added a few hours after publication of this article.
Thanks girls; appreciate your work.