THREAD: WILL THE LAST NON-CONFLICTED NACCSTER TURN OFF THE #ROBODEBT LIGHT Aside from #NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton, at least one other Senior Commission Staff (very likely a Deputy Commissioner) also had a conflict of interest.

This nugget is contained in a new FOI request which sought access to the conflict of interest material lodged by the Deputy Commissioners (and senior leadership team) in relation to the #Robodebt referral.

The five documents are: * the minutes (drafts and final) of 3 July 2023 (3 documents) * correspondence dated 7 August 2023 * a Conflict of Interest Declaration of 31 October 2023.

According to the mostly redacted minutes (obtained from an earlier FOI) only 5 people attended that meeting: Brereton, the 3 Dep Commissioners and the CEO. So it appears - at least - one other person's conflict of interest was flagged at the meeting.

The additional conflict of interest was NOT mentioned when the NACC announced its decision to not investigate the #Robodebt referral.

In particular the NACC was concerned that the release of the documents, would through a process of deduction reveal the identity of the NACC Dep Com who took the Robodebt decision.

As my FOI request did not seek the name of the Dep Com who was the decision maker, it would appear that the name (last person standing) could be deduced by revealing the remaining NACC senior staff who did have a conflict of interest.

In short, the privacy of the senior Commission staff who had conflict of interests are/is being protected, together with the Dep Com who made the decision to not proceed with the NACC referral. Fair enough, I guess - but as we know #Robodebt victims received no protections.

We know Brereton declared a conflict of interest and followed an idiosyncratic form of recusal - where he still got to see documents and sit-in on meetings (and only via FOI did this become public).

Of course it raises even more questions - Did the NACC Dep Comm/senior staff wholly recuse themselves? Was it a half-arsed recusal where they still partook in meetings but made no decisions? How was the conflict managed?

Identifying the Robodebt Deputy Commissioner decision-maker would put them “at risk” of “harassment and threats”. This would so “burden” the NACC that it could harm its “core operations”, the NACC claims. Extraordinary stuff… theklaxon.com.au/robodebt-confl… Michelle Fahy Anthony Klan

Anthony Klan Jommy Tee 🌐 @LizMinter_ Michelle Fahy Aren't public officials supposed to be accountable to the public?

Anthony Klan Jommy Tee 🌐 @LizMinter_ Michelle Fahy Completely unacceptable as the Australian people demand transparency with matters where people died as a result of government incompetence. Robodet was wilful misconduct swept away to die quietly. We didn’t accept convenient findings then and we don’t accept it now.

Stewart James Jommy Tee 🌐 @LizMinter_ Michelle Fahy Precisely. The whole point of justice. Imagine a judge refusing to disclose who they are having made some decision. This Deputy Commissioner is paid more than most judges.

Well, well, well. Somebody else very senior at the NACC also had a conflict of interest over #Robodebt. Did they too sit in on the decision making in refusing to investigate Robodebt referrals?

Bryan Willis Michelle Fahy @LizMinter_ Jommy Tee 🌐 Any prosecution would have had a much higher chance of success with some meat being put on the bones by the NACC In other words, the NACC would've been able to flesh out the incidences and specifics that could have been criminally prosecuted (which was not within the RC's remit)

Ronni🧂Salt Considering a gift of a Bottle of Wine can take out a NSW Premier at the NSW ICAC. I would suggest that the #NACC staff wouldn’t last 10 minutes in front of them.

theguardian.com/australia-news…

“Combined with the failure of the NACC to undertake investigations at all, [the APSC report] leaves the public with cause for grave concern about the processes of accountability for this fiasco.” johnmenadue.com/the-apscs-robo…