“Something to hide”: NACC stonewalls
By refusing to respond to questions on its Robodebt investigation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is avoiding accountability.
For the first time since we began reporting on the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s Robodebt failure 11 months ago, the NACC has refused to acknowledge, let alone respond to, questions we put to it.
“This is such a bad look for an anti-corruption body,” said Chris Douglas, a long-term investigator with decades of experience investigating money laundering and other organised crime.
Mr Douglas said that the NACC’s actions were “clear evidence that it is intending to avoid accountability”.
For our most recent article, Undue Influence emailed a series of questions to the NACC’s media team; copied below.
The NACC’s media policy says it aims to respond within 24 hours. Undue Influence gave the NACC 42 hours to respond.
The NACC’s media policy also says it will accept phone calls from media. However, when we rang the media team to follow up, after its failure to respond to our email, it refused to accept our call.
Transparency International – a global anti-corruption organisation working in more than 100 countries – has emphasised the importance of anti-corruption agencies remaining transparent, accessible and accountable to citizens.
It says in its Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Strengthening Initiative:
As public institutions funded by taxpayers’ money to combat corruption, ACAs must be transparent, accessible and accountable to citizens.
It’s vital that they operate with the utmost integrity, maintain a reputation of objectivity and professionalism and demonstrate effectiveness in their duties.
“One of the NACC’s roles is to build and enforce public sector accountability; therefore it should lead by example,” Mr Douglas said. “The media plays a major role in combatting corruption. It should not be alienated by integrity agencies.”
Mr Douglas worked for the Australian Federal Police for 31 years in intelligence and operational units before going on to advise domestic and foreign governments on their money laundering, fraud prevention, and anti-bribery and corruption programs.
He said his experience with foreign anti-corruption bodies showed that “those that ignore or try to muzzle the media are either controlled by the state, have something to hide, or don’t like being held to a similar or higher standard than the bodies they are investigating”.
The United Nations, in its Global Programme against Corruption: UN anti-corruption policies, has emphasised the importance of ensuring that anti-corruption agencies are open to media scrutiny:
A free media is a powerful instrument, not only for exposing corruption and holding those responsible legally and politically accountable but also for educating the public and instilling high expectations of integrity. (p37)
The highest possible degree of transparency in all aspects of government is essential to promote integrity and to fight corruption. The media, civil society and the private sector are indispensable partners for government in this endeavour. Governments should adopt, widely publicize and enforce legislation and procedures that provide the public and the media in the best possible way an optimum degree of access to information relevant to fighting corruption. (p112)
Australia signed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption as soon as it was available for signature, on 9 December 2003, and ratified it two years later.
Undue Influence will continue to scrutinise the NACC because Australia must have a strong and fearless anti-corruption agency given decades of corruption concerns in the area of defence procurement.
Questions submitted to the NACC
By email, Monday 26 May, 2:08pm
Dear NACC Media
Below are questions regarding the Robodebt investigation. I request your response by 9am Wednesday (28th) for deadline.
QUESTIONS
1. The NACC’s 13 December media release said it had appointed Mr Nettle to consider whether – and, if so, how – the Commission should deal with any corruption issues arising from the Robodebt referrals. Please provide a summary of Mr Nettle’s advice as to ‘how’ the investigation should be undertaken by the NACC.
2. Please outline the overall process and key arrangements the Commission has put in place to date to ensure the impartial and fair investigation of the Robodebt referrals.
3. Has the Robodebt investigation commenced?
If so:
on what date did it commence?
who is leading the investigation?
is deputy commissioner Kylie Kilgour participating – or will she participate – in the investigation? If so, in what capacity?
If the investigation has not commenced:
please outline the reasons why not.
Thank you and regards
Michelle Fahy
A corrupt anti corruption commission. I can solve this equation. They are a corrupt commission.
Great work ….as ever .