<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <docID>332081</docID> <postdate>2024-10-30 11:33:37</postdate> <headline>Robodebt corruption watchdog referral reconsidered</headline> <body><p><img class="size-full wp-image-332082" src="https://citynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20230703001816862387-original-resized.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p> <caption>A review has found Paul Brereton should have recused himself from the commission's decisions. (Mick Tsikas/AAP PHOTOS)</caption> <p><span class="kicker-line">By <strong>Dominic Giannini</strong> in Canberra</span></p> <p><strong>The national anti-corruption watchdog head has been found to have engaged in misconduct when the body decided not to investigate six people associated with the illegal robodebt scheme.</strong></p> <p>The inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission reviewed its decision not to pursue six people mentioned in the robodebt royal commission report, finding commissioner Paul Brereton didn't recuse himself after a conflict of interest.</p> <p>A review of the decision not to investigate the robodebt referral should be done by an appropriate person, the watchdog's inspector Gail Furness recommended.</p> <p>Mr Brereton declared he knew, and had a close association with, one of the people but failed to appoint a delegate and remove himself from the decision-making process, the inspector said.</p> <p>As part of the review, a retired judge opined the decision "was affected by apprehended bias".</p> <p>It means a reasonable person may think the decision wasn't made in an impartial manner.</p> <p>No suggestions of actual bias and no findings of intentional wrongdoing or other impropriety were made.</p> <p>"In light of the conflict of interest, the NACC commissioner should have not only designated a delegate but removed himself from the related decision-making processes and limited his exposure to the relevant factual information," the inspector's report states.</p> <p>"This was not done."</p> <p>Mr Brereton involved himself in the decision in a "comprehensive" manner, the inspector found.</p> <p>This was an error of judgment and the commissioner engaged in officer misconduct, which was defined as not being unlawful but arising from a mistake of law or fact, the inspector said.</p> <p>Between 2016 and 2019, the former coalition government's scheme recovered more than $750 million from almost 400,000 people.</p> <p>Many welfare recipients were falsely accused of owing the government money and robodebt was linked to several suicides.</p> </body>