Latest news with #Robo-debtroyalcommission
Sydney Morning Herald
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Anti-corruption body wastes time with a triviality
On the eve of its second birthday, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was able to celebrate by announcing its first finding of misconduct against a public official. But do not get excited – it is pretty low-level stuff: a senior public servant (their name has been concealed) inappropriately placed her sister's fiance into a job. This is pretty ordinary work, and not an especially spectacular start for Australia's premier anti-corruption body. It is the kind of matter commonly dealt with by the Australian Public Service Commission, not an anti-corruption body. It really looks well beneath the role of the NACC. There is real work to be done, but the NACC is distracted by dealing with comparative trivialities. The first two years of the NACC have been a real disappointment. There is negative feel to it, as though the NACC's leadership team are unwilling to flex their muscles. Even the decision to conceal the names of those involved in this incident is puzzling – they did wrong, so why not expose them? The NACC emphasised that it regarded the matter as serious and pointed out that the principal miscreant was in a senior position. The evidence collected showed the breach was deliberate and flagrant. It was a misuse of public power, a misallocation of public money, and it meant that a person who deserved to get the job missed out. Yet the NACC seems to be more concerned to protect the wrongdoers than to expose the wrongdoing. This is a dispiriting position to be adopted by the agency charged with overseeing transparency and accountability in the public sector. The public is denied transparency; those breaking the rules escape accountability. Loading We should not be surprised. Everything we have seen so far from the NACC suggests it is not up to the task of tackling serious corruption. The NACC's decision not even to open an investigation into the six persons referred to it by the Robo-debt royal commission was an early sign that something was not right. That decision, which was an awful error, needed to be corrected by Gail Furness SC, the statutory inspector of the NACC. Ms Furness' report exposed that the NACC commissioner himself was unable to manage a basic conflict of interest – yet he is the person to whom public officials should turn to get guidance on their conflicts of interest. That misjudgment by the NACC commissioner led to a finding of 'officer misconduct' on his part – so, ironically, the first finding of misconduct about the NACC was a finding against the NACC.
The Age
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Anti-corruption body wastes time with a triviality
On the eve of its second birthday, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was able to celebrate by announcing its first finding of misconduct against a public official. But do not get excited – it is pretty low-level stuff: a senior public servant (their name has been concealed) inappropriately placed her sister's fiance into a job. This is pretty ordinary work, and not an especially spectacular start for Australia's premier anti-corruption body. It is the kind of matter commonly dealt with by the Australian Public Service Commission, not an anti-corruption body. It really looks well beneath the role of the NACC. There is real work to be done, but the NACC is distracted by dealing with comparative trivialities. The first two years of the NACC have been a real disappointment. There is negative feel to it, as though the NACC's leadership team are unwilling to flex their muscles. Even the decision to conceal the names of those involved in this incident is puzzling – they did wrong, so why not expose them? The NACC emphasised that it regarded the matter as serious and pointed out that the principal miscreant was in a senior position. The evidence collected showed the breach was deliberate and flagrant. It was a misuse of public power, a misallocation of public money, and it meant that a person who deserved to get the job missed out. Yet the NACC seems to be more concerned to protect the wrongdoers than to expose the wrongdoing. This is a dispiriting position to be adopted by the agency charged with overseeing transparency and accountability in the public sector. The public is denied transparency; those breaking the rules escape accountability. Loading We should not be surprised. Everything we have seen so far from the NACC suggests it is not up to the task of tackling serious corruption. The NACC's decision not even to open an investigation into the six persons referred to it by the Robo-debt royal commission was an early sign that something was not right. That decision, which was an awful error, needed to be corrected by Gail Furness SC, the statutory inspector of the NACC. Ms Furness' report exposed that the NACC commissioner himself was unable to manage a basic conflict of interest – yet he is the person to whom public officials should turn to get guidance on their conflicts of interest. That misjudgment by the NACC commissioner led to a finding of 'officer misconduct' on his part – so, ironically, the first finding of misconduct about the NACC was a finding against the NACC.
