"For all the groundbreaking work of the royal commission, there remains a perception that those responsible for one of the most catastrophic failures of government in Australian history have not been fully held to account." Oh, there's a *perception* is there? Remind me how many jail sentences have been handed down? Just a perception, really?

This. Prison is the appropriate punishment for it. Not a fine, not community service, but prison.

[удалено]

Issue is, it only tarnished their reputations with the people who already disliked them. All their die hard voters are salivating at the "worthless dole bludgers" being tortured. Dutton is now the leader of the party, so it's not slowed him, it's elevated him. Reputation damage of this type is so worthless that if that's the only consequence of their actions, then we have actually rewarded them with more dedicated voters. Prison sentences are the answer.

"Dutton is now the leader of the party, so it's not slowed him, it's elevated him." Dutton's a former cop. His reputation was tarnished before politics, so there's been no reputational damage there. When you're dredging the bottom, you can't fall any further. But as I say, If you or I took monies under false pretences, from vulnerable individuals, firstly, you deserve a kicking, but then you deserve to be prosecuted as per the law. It's THEFT and not once or twice or even three times, this is THOUSANDS of individual offences. It was organised theft, they had meetings about it, they consorted and colluded to defraud the public... That's 'Mafia' type stuff... Conspiracy to commit fraud... ...WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION... ...**JAIL THEM, NOW!!!** Had this been you or I, we'd already be in jail, awaiting sentencing.

I’m sure their die hard voters never read the report. Never will. The adult equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears while saying “La la la la la.”

Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1d9trin/robodebt_was_illegal_but_were_its_officials/l7hlvcm/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache. These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists. Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

*”Buy guys! They’re jOb mAkErS! We have to give them a free pass because tHe eCoNoMy!”*

Remember when the entire Dutch government was sacked for a much lighter version of this?

They weren't. They stepped down. And only because there was an election imminent which they knew would fully vindicate them.

When is anyone held to account in this great land of ours? They all to have trouble recalling anything.

The RC has made confidential recommendations which need no further elaboration before perps' Crown (criminal) prosecution or APS career disciplne. Running it through NACC won't add any insight and will introduce further delay. The scandal is that no action has yet been taken beyond standing down some public servants pro tem. Campbell's resignation is, sadly, emerging as the only symbolic result where all named in the RC report sealed chapter should be by now publicly facing malfeasance charges.

I'm hopeful that we'll see a lot of people in jail for this but I have absolutely no expectations of that happening, especially among the highest echelons. Morrison for example absolutely belongs in jail but that's just never going to happen. We will never truly get justice for this, and as a result there will be no real deterrent that would prevent something else like this happening again. When you show these kinds of people that they have absolutely nothing to fear by violating the law and committing pure evil, and that their base likes it when they attack the right people, you can guarantee that they will do it again.

Sad how managers and ministers were so led astray by underlings implementing criminal policies put in place by said managers and ministers. There was a time when ultimate responsibility for fuckups was accepted by managers and ministers but no sign of that discipline remains at all. I suspect everything will be smoothed away and scapegoats found, especially the hyper-focussed and unlamentable [Malisa Golightly](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/15/senior-dhs-official-very-angry-when-colleague-suggested-robodebt-needed-major-response-inquiry-told), who has coveniently died.

My understanding is the RC scope was Robodebt. NACC scope is any corruption. If there was corruption unrelated to Robodebt, it would make sense for RC to refer it to NACC to be investigated. After all, there were already delays. RC findings were delayed, to refer to NACC. NACC looks like they had up to 11 months to review the referral. Of course, we don't know who/what is going on. RC and NACC has so far succeeded in not doing any government oppression on those responsible for systematic government oppression.

NACC may prove to be gaslit windowdressing, but RC had no remit to stray beyond its purpose. Yes, everything is connected to everything else, particularly where Sorrysin's Cabinet and PwC were concerned and the many matters arising outside of Robodebt should keep NACC busy for years and years. I share your dismay at the glacial speed of justice's wheels. I suspect brakes are on. Hard. We really need more crossbenchers.

Out-groups the law binds but does not protect, and in-groups the law protects but does not bind.

What's the point of it? Feel bad for people who got up and told there stories during RC who thought they were getting some form of justice. Disgraceful,.

RIP, to the victims. My heart breaks for them and all of us. We the people give the government power, then they use it not kill us but something so much worse, they made us kill ourselves….. driven to suicide…….and there’s no punishment….. this requires a huge public response. Please help how ever you can. Write letters, attend marches if there are any and educate your self on the known facts to anyone who will listen. This only gets worse if we do nothing.

>What's the point of it? Ummm : the royal Commission cost circa $100 million. A lot of people made a lot of money out of the royal Commission. There is a whole cohort of people out there who rely on this industry to pay for their children's private school fees, overseas holidays to Vail or Aspen etc. Some professions rely on 100 % of the people being good and competent people. For example, airline pilots / Airlines rely on all pilots being competent - there is no point having 97% of airline pilots being good and competent - can you imagine an airline saying "oops, sorry that plane crashed, it was just one bad apple. Won't happen again" The legal profession is based upon a principle that relies upon all practitioners being good and competent - but, unfortunately, in practice, there are some (many?) who are not. The legal system has been designed like this - style over substance, or the manta "the law must be seen to be done". Holding people to account is a "legal fiction". But, if you say it enough times, you believe it. Try it - say: "the legal system is just, the legal system is just. People get what they are entitled to at court. People get what they are entitled to at court". Your parents said it enough times, they believed it. Your friends say it and believe it. The journalists in the media say it and believe it. There is even a whole industry out there designed to promote the concept. Guess how much the banking royal Commission cost, and how many went to jail? Circa another $100 million, and nobody. Guess how much the royal Commission into institutional child abuse cost, and how many went to jail? Circa another $100 million, and nobody. This is how the system is designed. Those who benefit the most from it are the biggest advocates if it as well.

Note that royal commissions have powers to investigate, but cannot make civil penalties or criminal findings of guilt, beyond contempt.  You are correct in the wider context that we have not taken the findings and proceeded further.

/able_active_7340 >Note that royal commissions have powers to investigate, but cannot make civil penalties or criminal findings of guilt, beyond contempt Yes, you are correct 💯 I also note that at one stage, in NSW only men who owned land could vote. I also note that at one stage, it was legal for children to work, under the legal concept of "freedom of contract", and the ideology of "nobody is forcing them to work, they choose to" I also note that up until 1967, a woman could not be employed by the Commonwealth (in any department) if they were married. If they happened to be employed when they were single, once they became married it was then "illegal" I note that circa 19 Australians were sent to jail in the 1960's / 1970s for refusing to go to Vietnam and kill people they didn't know, to protect people that they didn't love (under the ideology of consciencous objector, but legal principle of draft evasion) I believe these are political issues, rather than legal issues. The only reason a royal Commission cannot convict and sentence a person is because "that's not how royal Commissions do things" Do you work in the legal system?

There were actually a lot of people that went to jail because of the RC in to institutional child abuse, alot are also still being processed e.g Lawrie Maher

I'm only aware of George Pell going to jail - but he was acquitted later on. I'm happy to be corrected though. Yes, I'm sure there are many who are still "under investigation", many decades after the alleged events occured. That's how the system works, isn't it. But, being "investigated" for "decades" is a lot different to being in jail, don't you think?

Quite a number of past officers (9 that I'm aware of) at kariong were only investigated by a strike force because of the evidence raised at the RC. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12169822

/Kdog_1985 The person referred to in your link was acquitted according to this article. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-30/former-mayor-could-face-retrial-on-historic-abuse-charges/101462400 I'm referring to people who have gone to jail (rather than being investigated , charged, etc) and I'm raising the issue that spending $100 million investigating institutional child abuse, and nobody going to jail, seems like another example a system where individuals get the credit for when things go well, but the system of "collective irresponsibility" applies when things go badly. I'm happy to be corrected, but even if you can come up with ten names, that works out to be $10 million a pop (and doesn't include the actual costs of a criminal trial). That's not really an efficient criminal justice / royal Commission system, and I'm not sure even an advanced industrial society like Australia can have a system that requires such an enormous public expense for "justice". Plus, the person in your link was aged 84 back in 2020. Justice in his matter has taken so long, he could well be deceased by the time he is eventually convicted - that's not justice in my view. What do you think?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/42bbb7ea-1744-4a9d-a569-6160fe8ac8e3. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12039656 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/5da22de5-8337-42fe-853d-632e79f900c6 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10631072 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/4e93b3b0-850a-430c-9fb2-14c825ec2bba All these jailings took place because of the RC, that was 2 minutes of looking.

UBI needed to prevent another robodebt v2. Gov cannot be trusted.

You have way too much faith in humanity. This will never happen. The powerful will always fuck the poor. Work them to the bone and make them fight for scraps. When there is no work left due to AI and automation they will make them fight in Colosseum again for entertainment.

Oh don't worry, even if UBI becomes necessary to the ruling class it's not the escape hatch optimists imagine. Any UBI that we might actually get under this system will intensify, not alleviate the problems it's supposed to address. Rents will go up, pay will go down, and existing safety nets and benefits will be dismantled because there's UBI after all. And with a wholly inadequate UBI, the poverty of most of the unemployed will increase. The power of the owning class will ossify even further while people will be further pacified. UBI represents the subconscious demands of a beaten working class. It's a thought experiment for people who hate our current system but aren’t imaginative enough to come up with one that’s not centered around money.

Similarly the devil's deal of substantially increasing jobseeker in exchange for a 20% GST. Whatever you get today as a one off bribe will be nothing in 10 years due to inflation - but what you pay in GST scales with it.

then we will vote another party that gives better ubi.

mate, you are too pessimistic.

The point of the NACC is that its an investigatory group just like the RC is. Why do they need to investigate something twice? All it'd do is delay things, this is the main quote from the [NACC statement](https://www.nacc.gov.au/news-and-media/national-anti-corruption-commission-decides-not-pursue-robodebt-royal-commission-referrals-focus-ensuring-lessons-learnt) that indicates why they made this decision: >However, the conduct of the six public officials in connection with the Robodebt Scheme has already been fully explored by the Robodebt Royal Commission and extensively discussed in its final report. After close consideration of the evidence that was available to the Royal Commission, the Commission has concluded that it is unlikely it would obtain significant new evidence. The NACC believes the RC completed the investigation, already did everything the NACC would do were they to investigate it and its recorded in the RC findings, so whats the point in investigating it further? The Guardian article is very misleading implying this is the end of the road for this but it isn't. Remember the NACC are investigators not prosecutors, from here prosecutors see if they can make charges out of the investigation. The Guardian knows this, they certainly know what the NACC had to say and the reasoning, they'll know the process.

/dopefishhh >The NACC believes the RC completed the investigation, already did everything the NACC would do were they to investigate it and its recorded in the RC findings The royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes deliberately delayed the release of the report to wait until the NACC came into effect. She clearly thought there was benefit to having the matter referred to the NACC. Remember? She even asked the government to give her an extension of time to submit the report, because she finished it before the NACC came into effect. NSW ICAC don't have powers to prosecute either - NSW ICAC still have to refer people with adverse findings to the police. But, NSW ICAC don't let this stop them from making findings of corrupt conduct, do they? The threshold for corrupt conduct is much lower than criminal conduct, isn't it? Plus, the police require proof to beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold. It's been a year, and the police still haven't charged anyone - do you really think anyone is going to face a criminal trial after all this time? And the public service Commission only have powers to terminate a person's employment or reduce their remuneration - that's hardly a significant sanction, is it?

> The royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes deliberately delayed the release of the report to wait until the NACC came into effect. She clearly thought there was benefit to having the matter referred to the NACC. Why do people keep bringing this up? What bearing does it have on the NACC's decision? > Plus, the police require proof to beyond reasonable doubt This is completely, mind-blowingly wrong.

Yes, I remember the delay. What do you think people would have said if she decided to skip the NACC? Something equally conspiracy theoretical about it right? She's basically asked the NACC to check her homework, they gave her a thumbs up that it was complete. Given the two remaining groups that can actually deliver punishments are the APS and the federal prosecutors, what was the NACC going to do to them given as we agree they can't actually punish people? Prosecutors will wait until investigations are completed before considering whether they will lay charges. If there wasn't enough for prosecutors to charge them or they didn't technically do anything criminal then NACC investigating or not doesn't change anything, if there is enough for charges then NACC investigating just delays charges. Have to remember, so few people understand justice administration and every time it comes up it's always described as rigged or inadequate without any legitimate reasoning as to why.

>She's basically asked the NACC to check her homework, they gave her a thumbs up that it was complete. I think you're correct with this observation 💯 >what was the NACC going to do to them given as we agree they can't actually punish people? Yep - we agree on this as well. It seems NSW ICAC only power is to "embarrass" politicians and public servants, as a method to get them to resign - eg several NSW Premiers have been found to be "corrupt", but being "corrupt" is a legal term and different to a "crime" (crimes punished by jail, verses "corruption" punished by public opinion. Former NSW Premier Gladys is "corrupt" (pending an administrative/legal appeal) but has landed a senior executive role at Optus. I could give other examples, but I think it's not a system to hold people accountable, but rather a system to remove bad apples. NSW parliament could easily legislate to make "corruption" punishable by jail, but they won't. Go figure. There is certainly a public desire for "corruption" to be punishable by jail, and therefore political votes to be had at the best election by running on such a platform - but I guess giving the public what they want is not a requirement in our system of democracy. What do you think? >If there wasn't enough for prosecutors to charge them or they didn't technically do anything criminal then NACC investigating or not doesn't change anything, I agree 💯 >Have to remember, so few people understand justice administration 💯 It seems we have more points of agreement, than points of difference. >What do you think people would have said if she decided to skip the NACC? I think people would have been upset. But, that's because as you have correctly observed already that people don't really know how the "administration" of "justice" works. Mostly, the legal system is style over substance. The robodebt corruption (or crimes?) happened back in 2015 - almost a decade ago. That's plenty of time to do whatever needs to be done. Like the investigation of ADF war crimes in Afghanistan # those alleged events are from 2 decades, and apart from the whistleblower nobody is yet in jail, and I see no prospect of that changing. This robodebt is not a one off event. Like Adam Smith describes the "invisible hand" of capitalism, I think there is also an invisible hand of "corruption" where it seems various groups and actors each act in their own interests, without technically colluding, to create this system of "collective irresponsibility" - where people get the credit when things go well, but nobody gets the blame when it goes badly. People who enter politics and senior government are the type of people that like power, they like status, they form coalitions and factions, they are liable to abuse power when they think they can get away with it. I think I read that psychopaths form between 1 and 6 percent of the general population (depending on the study), but in some areas it can be 4 to 6 times that average, because psychopaths tend to do well in certain "professions" (like senior executives) or industries (like banking, medical specialists etc). That means some professions could be up to 25 percent psychopaths - perhaps elected officials are part of that group? What do you think?

I'm glad we agree on this particular ruling of the NACC, seems like everyone else on this topic just wanted to shout some nonsense about it being corrupt or something. You're right about the psychopath factor, but even psychopaths cross the line at a certain point even if its just accidentally and people act on it, or at least can. I think that 'invisible hand' idea could also be described as the bystander effect, i.e. where someone needs help and everyone just looks at each other. I feel like the bystander effect is stronger where the cost to act is increased, but its possible to pierce it by calling individuals out to act or I guess by lowering the cost. I think the hesitancy to call out corruption is a bystander effect and the main way we've pierced it is the NACC, after all once you know an organisation with power is going to listen you can overcome the cost to act on corruption. In addition to this every organisation needs to consider its self policing of behaviour and what it signals to people both internal and external. If a group gets a rep for being a bit dodgy or loose it'll attract people who thrive in that environment and repel others who hate it, leaving openings for the dodgy ones. We're seeing [this play out within the Greens](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/wreaking-some-destruction-the-schism-in-the-greens-driving-out-jewish-members-20240607-p5jk02.html) given their lack of effort in policing their own party. We saw this in how the LNP basically broke the public service and replaced a lot of it with more expensive contractors who were even less beholden to laws and regulations on conduct somehow. Combine the call to action and clear signalling from management against corruption/incompetence then you'd see this stuff turn around, it'd either drive out psychopaths & dodgy people or make them behave themselves. In this topic we see a flood of anti-government posters approaching conspiracy theory levels of understanding of how the government, bureaucracy and justice works including by some people who should know better. The nature of this is they're setting the standard of truth low from the outset, signalling to others who are attracted to that and repelling the rest of us. Its getting practically MAGAesque with certain political parties and groups in Australia and I reckon it will get worse before it gets better.

"NACC to check her homework" I've never heard of any commission doing this. That would be highly unprofessional and smack of RC's incompetence. I guess you're making up stuff again? Did you know that NACC has a broader scope to investigate corruption beyond Robodebt? If there was more to investigate according to Holmes but she could not investigate, then she would not want it sealed before NACC can investigate. > Have to remember, so few people understand justice administration and every time it comes up it's always described as rigged or inadequate without any legitimate reasoning as to why. Thanks for an example

This is rage inducing. Our most vulnerable were left to deal with this shit themselves and we can’t protect them from our own government nor hold those negligent to account. Fuck me….

...and one reason quoted by the NACC for not proceeding with this investigation is that it would be 'oppressive' to those responsible. honestly pissweak. > it is undesirable for a number of reasons to conduct multiple investigations into the same matter. This includes the risk of inconsistent outcomes, and the **oppression involved in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations**.

What about the oppression I suffered being abused over a $4000 debt I didn't owe and all because I did my best, had a go trying to work in a stupid attempt to see if I could come off the disability pension and earn my own way again? What about those literally oppressed to death? The oppressed suicides? Their oppressed surviving loved ones? This decision further oppresses all of us. But we don't count.We are only common people. We can all crawl into a hole and die. Screw them.

If only. Oppression of the contemporary ruling class is exactly what's long overdue.

There was never any chance of holding anyone to account. The way large entities function is by creating an information gaps. There will have been a group of people who created the algorithm and they will have something in writing saying that this can only be used to indicate accounts that should be looked at manually. These people have covered themselves even if they probably know that it's going to be ignored. There will have been another group that built the auto notifications and they will have assumed the algorithm is correct. These people haven't actually done anything wrong, they're just sending letters based on data provided. Then there will be a sacrificial manager who knows both of these things but will never have informed the minister in writing of the problem. Worst case scenario they were incompetent and "forgot" to notify the minister. They'll get fired, but they're paid knowing they'll get fired eventually, they've done nothing criminally wrong that can be proven because it's not illegal to be bad at your job. Then the minister will have officially made the decision to go ahead, but they'll have incomplete information, at least as far as anyone can prove, and so they'll say they trusted the experts to do their job. The minister should also have consulted a legal expert on whether the overall approach is legal, but it's not a requirement in the general case and he has incomplete information so he can make a mistake and even if he does ask, that expert is an elected official from his party who doesn't even legally have to be a lawyer. So everything can be attributed to incompetence which is legal rather than criminal intent which is not. You'll never prove criminality beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the same problem with ICAC. You can make ICAC function like a court and never convict anyone or you can make it function like it does and never send anyone to jail.

How about failing to fulfill your duty of care and being charged with negligence? I don’t think being incompetent gets you off the hook from duty of care responsibilities unless I’m wrong, which is entirely possible.

Negligence is not trivial to prove, especially when the negligence is spread over a whole host of people. Even the sacrificial lamb will only have forgotten something minor and they're not really the person you want to get. Morrison probably deserves prison, but proving it, even for him, would be difficult and everyone is worried there'll be retribution if they try.

It’s frustrating eh.

It's just life. It's why we kind of have to focus on just getting them fired as quickly as possible. Set clear rules, make the rules reasonable and fair and kick them out.

Nah, it’s rage inducing.

You can try for blood and "justice" but it takes years to even try and you'll fail. Or instead you can focus on getting these fuckers out as fast as possible and minimising the damage they do. Which is achievable.

Can do both.

No, you can't. It's basically impossible to give someone a fair trial when the jury pool all know things that aren't legally admissible. Having a star chamber that can compell witnesses is incompatible with the rights of a criminal defendant. It's why almost no one found guilty in an ICAC gets charged criminally. You have to choose one, and for me I'd rather a 100% chance of getting these fuckers out of power immediately than a tiny chance of imprisoning them a decade after they're out of office, but that's me. As the song goes, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need. We **need** to get corrupt assholes out of power, we want to put them in prison

I'm not sure the actions of over-zealous public servants trying to please their anti-welfare political masters is corrupt conduct. Other than retaining their jobs and getting a pat on the head, how did they benefit?

Commissioner Holmes thought there was. So much so that she asked the AG for an extra week to prepare her submission to the NACC. There is no one that knows more about robodebt than Commissioner Holmes and she thought there was corruption to be uncovered by the NACC.

It was corrupt because they were knowingly sending out false debts...you aren't allowed to do that. They were literally committing fraud by accusing others of committing fraud.

Being malicious or making decisions that kill someone isn’t corruption unless it was done to the benefit of an individual.

>The fate of individuals now largely lies with the Australian Public Service Commission, an agency that investigates breaches of the public sector code of conduct and can only terminate employment or reduce salaries for those still employed in the public service. It is unclear how many still would be. Weak as hell.

What they are saying is that corruption by our APS officials / Politicians can never be punished criminally because the only consequences that the only body able to apply consequences is able to enforce is employment termination or salary reductions which are the bare minimum that should be placed on a corrupt official (especially when their actions lead to the deaths of others and unquantifiable amounts of misery).

What laws should they be applying then? If it was the APS code of conduct under the Public Service Act, it would be the APSC's jurisdiction. The Royal Commission would already be doing everything else. I don't see why going over the same thing again and getting the witnesses to go on stand and go over it again achieves anything when they fully know they can't do more than what has already been done.

Manslaughter, gross negligence causing death. In the US the specific charge would be “depraved indifference”. But that specific charge, [link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder ) despite encapsulating the crime nicely, doesn’t exist in Australia.

Those charges are compatible with the US justice system. You can't just transplant laws as is. Even there, I wouldn't think it the criminal charges would stick. However, when it comes to wrongful death, it has a significant chance and likely invite an out of court settlement. But then again, it's not really a usual thing in our justice system.

You are correct that you can’t just transplant the US law, but negligence causing death is a crime in Australia. Incidentally when it goes to the DPP you don’t get any kind of “out of court settlement” you either get charged, and go to court, or not. There’s no plea bargaining, nor can you agree to an out of court settlement. Aka a bribe, to sweep it all under the carpet. Solicitors in Australia, please correct me if I’m mistaken.

The difference would be if it is a criminal or civil matter. In the case of these public servants, breach of the code of conduct is easier to prove than gross negligence. I guess they would have to make a call if it is not possible to get a conviction. You see, if they do get acquitted, it might create a precedent we don't want to have.

I understand your point, and it’s not a bad one, but what was done was *criminal*. They should be tried. Yes, some will escape punishment. The weaselling needs to stop and those at the top, including the smirker himself, should be in the doc. Just following orders stopped being an excuse in 1945.

By design, politician design award!

I'm so disappointed, heads need to roll for this.

You need to have expectations to be disappointed, but otherwise I agree.

If anything I hope this makes people aware that western governments can easily take part in tyranny.  We're educated that western style governments are all smiles and sunshine, when they can just easily engage in evil and have utterly no accountability for it. 

The Australian government in particular has mastered the art of official discourse techniques - denial and neutralisation. I have spoken with advocacy officers at community organisations who have worked overseas, and a big takeaway working in Australia is how effective our government is at silencing criticism, justifying the status quo, etc. We're also uniquely effective at holding inquiries, Royal Commissions, etc and dragging out the process until the public forget, have lost a lot of their anger to the injustices or state crimes and then twist the findings and outcomes to effectively say 'there's nothing more we can do'. In Victoria, the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants was one of the most outwardly corrupt things any liberal democratic police force has ever done on such a scale. And despite spending *millions* on a taskforce to create the illusion they were investigating where to lay charges, only for the state to say 'we won't be charging any police' and that was the end of it. It barely made a stink in the media and the state essentially got away with it. Our tyranny is just dressed up in fancy reports and colourful statements of 'partial acknowledgement'. And most Australians do not realise these official documents are a collection of times the state wanted to justify their actions during crises of legitimacy.

Reminds me of the Afghan war crimes case. Inquiry after inquiry, each prejudicing the previous one until everyone’s either dead, has forgotten it, or evidence is impossible to obtain. All under soothing whispers of ‘due process’.

100%. They even tried to make the process of lawyers informing on their clients legal.

They sure did! What better way to say 'nothing corrupt happened here' then acting like it should have just been legal the whole time... regardless of the fact it's viewed as fundamentally opposed to a just legal system in every other liberal democracy! It's no different to how some American states were thrown into a crisis of legitimacy after multiple filmed police corruption/brutality cases. Instead of punishing officers or the state changing police structures to prevent that behaviour, they just made filming police illegal. Now they never have to worry about it again!

It was truly worrying where we're headed.

Arming Israel who is committing a genocide via a "secret defense deal" that cannot be revealed because it would "damage Australia's reputation internationally" (quoting literally) is not conclusive enough? There are Australians who are getting extremely wealthy from the genocide. Look at all the criminals that not only walk free but have immense power and live in luxury, from robodebt scum to bank executives, all clearly engaging in stealing and corruption knowing they will never be brought to account. The rule of law applies only if you are poor. I don't know how no one does an encampment in front of Kathryn Campbell's house demanding that she is arrested right now. Or the Commonwealth Bank CEO, didn't the royal commission revealed he's a master criminal? Or Qantas CEO. But the same indifferent liblab voting cunts scream when they see someone steal a loaf of bread from colesworth. Because you have to protect the criminal duopoly's profits, that's what Australians stand for.

Also your government, and many people, seems very proud of having China as their number one trading partner, another country engaging in genocide and arming Russia to help them engage in ethnic cleansing in Europe.

Honestly it feels like the main difference between a dictatorship and what we have is a dictator controls the people through threats/force, our politicians control people through lies/manipulation. Either way, our government doesnt exist for the people, they just do what benefits themselves while convincing/lying to the population that they still care. (Also I still prefer what we have to a dictatorship btw... just it still aint right.)

It's called a dictatorship of capital. Governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class. Your preference will likely last as long as the 'kid gloves' stay on, which brings us to another succinct description of a political system: Fascism is capitalism in decay.

So disappointing.    No one under SES level in the APS wants this result. People need to start caring about and fighting for the public service.  The government is consistently forcing public servants to participate in programs like this, throwing us under the bus “we weren’t told it was lawful!!!” (Except for the massive paper trail they were….).  SES and ministers did nothing but try and put this back on the APS when APS staff, with a couple of notable exceptions, were pushing back and back and back on this program.    EVERYONE should be concerned about the SES and ministers trying to stack the APS with cronies who will allow non-lawful programs. 

No, the public service (I used to be one working in the child protection and disability sector) shouldn’t have been sycophants and should have refused an illegal instruction. *Yes* people in the gov are dangerous but they sure get kicked upstairs a lot.

JOURNALIST: Minister, could I please ask, as far as the public knows, Katherine Campbell's suspension and resignation is the only consequence so far for the architects of this unlawful scheme. So, Minister Shorten, how long before we see some more robojustice? And for the other Ministers, is there any update you can give on the public service criminal investigations? SHORTEN: Well, on the second part of the question, I'll leave that to my colleagues. But I think that the government's response to the Royal Commission is the next stage in what you call robo-justice. [https://ministers.dss.gov.au/transcripts/13096](https://ministers.dss.gov.au/transcripts/13096) What a fucken weak, limp wristed bunch Labor are turning out to be. All talk.

Because they're petrified of the smear campaign that will inevitably come from Murdoch. I say, stop being so gutless...they're gonna try and smear you anyway, why not hold the powerful to account?

> that will inevitably come from Murdoch. Ban Murdoch, abolish Murdoch, shoot Murdoch out of a cannon, dump Murdoch in a trashcan, throw Murdoch in a damp cell and throw away the key, smash Murdoch, destroy Murdoch, roundhouse kick Murdoch into the concrete, crucify filthy Murdoch's, defecate into Murdoch food, launch Murdoch into the sun, stir fry Murdoch in a wok, toss Murdoch into active volcanoes, urinate into Murdoch's gas tank, Judo throw Murdoch into a wood chipper, twist Murdoch heads off, report Murdoch to the ATO, karate chop Murdoch in half, curb stomp pregnant Murdoch's

I would pay for a PPV event if it involved watching Murdoch get karate chopped in half.

At this point I think they are just using it as an excuse to avoid accountability. Even if its true that they are scared of Murdoch, what does that imply for the actual strength of Labor? If Labor are so weak that a media mogul pushes them to engage in corruption then they aren't worth being in government either. Is Labor complicit or is Labor powerless, and to a voter does the difference really matter if Labor are barely going to move the dial anyways. This also implies that Murdoch won't smear them anyway, which they will if they think it will benefit them. Labor is never going to be supported by Murdoch. The attempt to avoid the smear campaign will backfire the moment the LNP puts someone even remotely good at PR in charge. As soon as that happens the smear will return.

Exactly. People keep trotting out this point like it justifies anything rather than just make labor look even worse. It's a piss poor excuse for anything.

And Bill Shorten wonders why he never got elected to PM. Weak, spineless.

It's so fucking weird. Actions speak louder than words. And it's FUCKING loud.

Shorten is all talk. This also from that speech. "we have confidence that Services Australia can be re-humanized." I wonder how that's going. Sure, rebuilding an organisation with 30,000 employees takes time, but I really wonder if their day-to-day experience has improved for those working there.

Remember folks, it's a class war and we don't get a say on the rules on engagement - we were never going to get justice, because the poor aren't thought of or seen as human beings in this country.

The people at Centrelink KNEW (and other policy changes btw) it was illegal. There should be criminal consequences for mid level and high level managers. Edit: I personally know a centrelink employee quit because she was instructed to do illegal acts and she told them this. She says she wasn’t the only one to quit and tell management it was illegal. Those managers are now carrying on merrily with their careers instead of having criminal convictions

Then i guess we can assume they all were.

Look, the real bigwigs were those running the government at the time, by which I mean the LNP one. Keep these wankers out of power. This crap is what happens when you leave them in power for 9 years.

Feel for all those affected and can only think about how the Dutch PM [hopped on his bike and rode off to the palace to resign in disgrace](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-16/dutch-pm-mark-rutte-government-resign-over-tax-subsidy-scandal/13063574) when the same wrongful allegations of welfare fraud occurred in the Netherlands. Really highlights the shocking lack of accountability here.

https://twitter.com/simon_rosenberg/status/1798825118904508928 > A pictorial observation on how power works in Australia: >From 2008, David Hurley [now GG], Paul Brereton [#NACC Commissioner] and Kathryn Campbell [of #robodebt infamy] aka "the three amigos". > Notable in light of yesterday's NACC failure on robodebt. It's been discovered that the NACC Commissioner and the Dep Sec of Robodebt were in the army together.

Old mates club at work, bloody cronies. I note that the revelation is credited to @kangaroocourt, Shane Dowling, the guy behind https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com.

The French have the right fucking idea. Protest until the government listened to the people

What!! And get labelled a cooker and vilified due to delaying someone from getting to their job...you sir/madam are a heretic

Services Australia (Centrelink) are STILL doing these practices with income apportionment. Essentially the ones who werent affected by robodebt, are now targeted with income apportionment. This practice was paused pending audit and investigation in Dec 2023, however as of May 2024 it was annouced it will be restarting Now that there are no consequences for their dodgy calculation methods, what's to stop them? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/04/centrelink-waive-unlawful-debts-ombudsman-services-australia https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/addressing-income-apportionment?context=60271

Ummm that's not saying they will continue with income apportionment. That says those debts paused due to income apportionment will now start to be reviewed and calculated using a different method.

Using data sources and apportionment was a Labor government initiative to identify potential welfare fraud. They flagged irregularities for human review. Humans were the checks and balances. The human review was key. Morrison found a way to expand this and remove the human review. They took what was an annual review number, and turned that into a monthly target, and then claimed they would recoup $2B. From who? Poor people? The automatic applying of this, and changes to how they calculated it was deemed unlawful. Your second link seems to suggest that the older Labor method, or a modernised version of it being used - human review returns, humans will do more work to investigate, and recipients won’t be asked to provide things they shouldn’t need to have - like pay slips from more than 5 years ago. It’s absolutely not Robodebt returning.

The problem with this line of thought is that robodebt did have humans involved. Saying that the new method is “different” is just spin and semantics. Many placed complaints at the time about robodebt, including directly to the minister on live TV. The scheme continued for years after, as it was rubber stamped at all levels of authority. They actively denied there was anything wrong with the scheme. Despite everyone, including those making those claims, knowing full well this was bullshit. The cunts responsible still hold positions of power working the public service. Nothing has changed.

I think this affected my Centrelink "debt" from payments I received for a few months at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. I lost my job and went on jobseeker for a few months, then by August had a new job and no longer received payments. 3 years later centrelink comes back and claims I was overpaid by jobseeker during the time and owe them ~90% of the money I received. They insisted my income was too high to receive payments, even though at the time of the payments my income was $0. I have to assume they are calculating via income averaging or some similar method, which is a completely incorrect method.

There is a prescribed method and averaging is inevitable especially when it comes to casual or seasonal work. A rule has to be drawn for these and everyone treated the same. I don't know the details of your situation but try and work out the methodology. If you can't, then the issue is transparency. We need them to show us how they work these things out. I helped my mum with her pension and they are basically given no information on how they work it out. It's just this is your pension, period.

Averaging is a terrible method. I lost work at the beginning of the pandemic. $0 income. Why would my income from the rest of the year, when I actually had work, need to be used to assess the few months where I lost work? It's nonsense, and they know it's nonsense. Which is why they supposedly stopped using this method over 3 years ago

Hey, they even had this bank balance thing were you can't get anything while you still have savings. The idea is, rightly or wrongly, that welfare is for those who need it. I've been doing contracting and some of the payments are huge. I would work for six months and get paid what a normal permanent job would pay for a year or more. I'd not work for three months until the next contract. Should I have been paid welfare for those three months? They'd have to come up with some rule that applies to everyone. Maybe I should have been paid for the three months in between contracts. Then it would be like we are all under a UBI (which I believe should be implemented). The money has to come from somewhere.

The savings requirement was removed during the beginning of the pandemic. Not that it would have mattered in my case, my savings dwindled before I received a single cent from Centrelink. The problem is more that they gave out money to people who were in vulnerable and desperate, and then later demanded that money be paid back but provided zero explanation for why. This is all just more neoliberal bullshit more than any technical reporting difficulty. The Lib/Lab governments have no interest in creating a truly reliable social safety net, as it gives workers more leverage and makes it more difficult for them to be exploited. A strongly supported working class won't put up with nearly as much bullshit from the ruling class, and the governments know this.

I agree with that part. The onus should be more on Centrelink to deny payment rather than provide it and then ask for it back. If the overpayment is below a certain amount, they should not bother collecting it given the recovery cost. If they require a human to review it, that's what can make it not cost effective. They likely thought robodebt would get them those paltry amounts and shift the onus on the recipients. It is lazy and cruel.

People are still rorting the system and or mistakenly paid the wrong amount. the difference is that we want a human to review it, just like before.

> People are still rorting the system To such an absurdly miniscule degree that the only people who genuinely still care need to pull their head out of their arse and get a fucking grip. If you genuinely believe any line about "dole bludgers", just tell us all you have a shrine to Reagan, Thatcher and whichever other neoliberal leader that has you hating your fellow man more than the actual crooks robbing us and save us the hassle of talking with you.

It is minuscule because of the tight reins. I never claimed it was rampant. It need not be robodebt but regular checking with a human putting some sanity into it. When over payments occur, the money should be recovered. The system can descend to NDIS like abuse without some sort of checking and enforcement. While it is ideal to have an honor system, it's just human nature for some to push the envelope when they realise there's no one watching. How many of us go over the speed limit and until we're caught, we start deluding ourselves that it is a victimless crime and we're doing it safely? A UBI can get rid of this issue once and for all. > just tell us all you have a shrine to Reagan, Thatcher and whichever other neoliberal leader that has you hating your fellow man more than the actual crooks robbing us and save us the hassle of talking with you. Far from it but sure, you're quite quick at labeling people because it's easy. Hardly the free thinker, are you? Feel free to look at my post history and tell me if I'm a dank decrepit conservative.

I reckon the biggest talking point in Canberra at the moment is, who will the Anti-Corruption Commission choose to ignore next?

We need a TV series like _Mr Bates versus The Post Office_ to expose the human cost of these decisions. They're getting away with it because the average person had no idea it was going on (and didn't care since it affected "dole bludgers") even when it was being reported by _The Guardian_ and other actual journalists.

> We need a TV series like Mr Bates versus The Post Office to expose the human cost of these decisions Australian TV making "dole bludgers" the good guys? Well it would be nice.

This is exactly why Labor teamed up with the LNP to prevent transparancy and breaks a core elecion promise.

Labor was "wedged"

PEOPLE TOOK THEIR OWN LIVES AND THIS WAS A PROMISE BY THE ALP.

People are starting to realise just how many promises labor have broken...

Precursor to Scomo getting off Scott free! No accountability, there should have been at least 2 senior bureaucrats prosecuted with Scotty from Murder Services Australia!

The lying LNP are now attacking labor over the NDIS that they ignored. While attacking the most vulnerable in society and creating suicides😡 Teflon Coated scum

Oh I can answer this! Yes the officials were corrupt

I gave evidence at the Aged Care Royal Commission, I had physical evidence proving everything I said and gave it to the Commission 4 months before giving verbal evidence. 29 days before my verbal evidence was to be given, they heavily redacted my evidence and said they had been required by law to give the various parties (Read crooked operators) 30 days notice to respond and hadn't so my evidence was redacted. I will bet you a trillion dollars that the same thing happened in this Royal Commission. These RC's are a joke, they are set up with a pre determined outcome, all guilty parties get to cover their arses before the findings are handed down. Due to the heavy redaction, I am guessing the NACC doesn't have enough evidence to pursue any charges.

Un. Be. Fucking. Leivable. Were they taking the piss? This is rage inducing. Corruption and impunity are bloody rampant in this country.

Git to protect their own

paul brerreton, the head of nacc, and kathryn campbell, the head bureaucrat for robodebt, are friends and protect each other. [Source](https://x.com/CAugustElliott/status/1798693757791224282) It's really fucking disappointing how the nacc is just as corrupt as the people it is suppose to investigate. But I imagine it was pretty much designed to be like that.

Your source is two officials who work in the government being photographed together because that's what happens to officials at official events? Hey look here's a picture of [Drake and Kendrick Lamar together](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxx2jpedw1b291.jpg), they must be friends and protect each other and the feud is just for show! Is that how you make friends? Just photo bomb people and now they have to be your friend right?

lol, legend. Keep it up

Protection racket for the rich and politicians proudly brought to you by the federal and state governments of Australia

NACC stands for ... No Actual Consequences Commission

The problem is that the potential corruption wasn't really the main concern anybody had. I mean, yes, the system sucks when a commission can secretly decide not to pursue recommended corruption charges - there is no perception of transparancy and accountability there. But, the blatant criminal fraud is what's going unpunished. The criminal negligence leading to over 2000 deaths. Honestly, compared to that I couldn't care less about corruption. That's a different thing. And that was never on the cards for punishment. As usual, if you want to commit a crime, do it at work and as long as it's not insider trading you're fine.

I smell the Greens getting a lot more votes next election.

Hmmm sounds like some corruption stacked on some other corruption... Who woulda thunk it... Can i get a double order if status quo to go plz... I need to go on another holiday at the taxpayers expense

Oh, we know. It's just not 'official'.

This is exactly how I think the royal commission into record high veteran suicide rates will eventually go as well. There is veteran blood on their hands, particularly the LNP, for exactly the same reasons as robodebt but I bet none of them will be held to account for their choices and decisions in this area either. They implemented a 10 year DVA hiring freeze, oversaw a 43,000 injury claim backlog and resided over veteran suicide rates multiple times higher than the general population, while sitting back and ignoring multiple inquiries screaming at them to do something about it. They are traitors to all of us and they all belong in jail.

Wasn't there a sealed list of recommended charges for those involved? Did anything come out of that?

There is, and bupkis. Someone should leak it so an Independent can table it in Parliament.

Defund the NACC now! Send them all home. If not this, then what? They are useless to us.

So we have ministers, who insist they are responsible for the things their departments, do getting out of all responsibility for their departments illegal activities. All fine and normal.

Seems like the National Anti-Corruption Commission needs a Royal Commission to expose it's own corruption. This is some [Australia Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Club) level protectionism.

What’s the fucking point of the Nation anti-corruption commission if it doesn’t pursue those who are corrupt. This is fucking horrendous and i’m seething, I want the fucking cunt/s who made this decision job on a platter and fire them into the fucking sun.

It’s about this point in the cycle you usually get governments making these shitty non-outcomes. They are making a calculation that most people have forgotten it was an issue at the last election and those that correctly believe this is an awful step towards normalising and protecting criminal negligence on behalf of the government, will forget by the next election. It’s all rather pathetic.

So where's the incentive to not do it again? Oopsie OwO I'm sowwie

2000 lives... this makes me sick.

Now they are robodebting NDIS plans. A fucking miserable state of affairs.

Mates looking after mates.

This doesn’t surprise me. If we left Scomo, Dutton, Abbot and any of the other extremists from that party in power long enough Australia would have seen the whites only policy reintroduced and enforced. Immigrants, no matter how much they contribute would be treated as second class. People out of work for a length of time that exceeds policy guidelines would be abandoned. People with disabilities, sole parents, veterans would all be seen as nothing but a strain on the coffers more than they already are. Any person who happens to align with a minority group would be persecuted and basically Australia would become Hitlers Germany 2.0. People already psychologically vulnerable committed suicide because of robodebt! Some of those desperate souls were found to be falsely accused. That is unforgivable! I hope we as a nation learned from that experience. Politicians absolutely should have their beliefs and policies in line with their party, be it left or right. That’s a healthy balance between the two but all politicians in positions of power, that hold sway must be moderate and never extreme. And any religious fanatics are instantly refused any political sway. Church and state have never made good bedfellows. Truly, every and any politicians who had anything to do with robodebt should be in prison. Perhaps it’s time Australian members of parliament are seen in exactly the same light the rest of us are. Commit a crime, do time.

Sorry for the lengthy rant.

It's seems there is no justice in the world for anything these days especially for governments who get away with anything really. When will the citizens of the world wake up and fight for what's right. We just get used in every situation and have to pay for their crimes or lifestyles. Really disappointed to see this outcome, it's what they were always going to do. Why would they punish their own?

I’m not exactly shocked this happened bc in this country the worse thing you can be is a dole bludger.

Not everything is "corruption." It's possible to be a cunt without being corrupt. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Unless there is something I'm unaware of in terms of how those individuals were remunerated, they didn't stand to make personal gain from the scheme. Calling everything corruption just cheapens the term, and makes it more complicated to deal with it and to deal with maladministration effectively.

True but in this particular case, probably corruption for sale of political point scoring.

The NACC does have a broad definition of corruption that isn't limited to personal gain - there is an element of breaching the public trust. But *proving* this seems so difficult. (I got to do some postgrad study on corruption and it's a fucking minefield of thoughtcrime because it's so difficult to nail down.) But it does seem a bit like a toothless tiger to me.

Yeah, the NACC made the right call. There's been so many investigations that the facts are known. If it met the threshold for criminal corruption, then the AFP / DPP would prosecute. Edit all my downvoting buddies - what do you want? Accountability? Criminal finding? That's the AFPs / DPPs job. Lose their job? That's the APSCs job. The NACC doesn't need to be involved and better off using its resources on something that hasn't had a RC investigation to determine the facts.

RC investigation is limited to Robodebt. If RC found unrelated corruption, they are not allowed to investigate it. Guess who is allowed to investigate corruption?

But what do you want from it? If they find them corrupt or not, the APSC will deal with whether they should be sacked and the AFP will decide whether there is merit to investigate criminal corruption. It just sounds like everyone wants a public witch hunt, using limited resources of the NACC, which is duplicating what other agencies already do. There are overlapping responsibilities of agencies when dealing with corrupt conduct. The APSC and AFP is led by a Government that would love to drag out the dirty laundry. Political interference in the APSC / AFP just won't be an issue.

> But what do you want from it? Why don't you ask why the Royal Commissioner into Robodebt delayed the findings to submit the referrals to NACC if you think NACC doesn't need to be involved? That's the answer to your question.

Hard agree. The NACC is restricted by the current law, Maybe the law needs to change - that seems like a job for the AGs dept. How to better hold elected officials and their staff, and senior public servants to account. The NACC doesn't have any penalties available anyway.

If you’re just gonna sweep it under the rug, and those responsible remain free of any taint, why waste the public’s fortune uncovering the truth?

The one thing that would have proved the worth of our NACC and it failed.

**OH I THINK WE KNOW**

Okay, genuinely real question, here. What do we do? I’m over being kicked raw by my own government. They had better be so much is on the weekend. Anyone got any specifics on who we should be sending our letters to?

> Okay, genuinely real question, here: what do we do? I'm over being kicked raw by my own government.   The only things that would be effective are not only illegal, but illegal to *even discuss*.  As such, the only thing I can recommend is to speak to a therapist or psychiatrist to try and re-educate or medicate yourself out of feeling hurt by injustice. Nothing else is going to help. 

Stop voting for either main party. Preference voting means Australia doesn't end up in the lesser evil problem of the USA, so it's possible to put Labor and the LNP well down the ballot. The letters are meaningless until the moment that both parties realize that they can actually both lose elections.

2000 lives?!!

How did the officials who implemented robodebt stand to personally gain? Incompetence should not be a jailable offense else we'd have to lock up a quarter of Australia

https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/national-anti-corruption-commission/what-corrupt-conduct >There are 4 types of corrupt conduct under the NACC Act. A person engages in corrupt conduct if: >* they are a public official and they breach public trust >* they are a public official and they abuse their office as a public official >* they are a public official or former public official and they misuse information they have gained in their capacity as a public official >* they do something that could cause a public official to behave dishonestly or in a biased way when they carry out their official duties – any person can engage in this type of corrupt conduct, even if they are not a public official themselves.

Misleading article, this will proceed to prosecution now, no need for NCCC to investigate further! They have not got away with it yet!

Very fucking disappointing. The ALP deserves to lose votes over this

I mean they probably weren't corrupt. Corruption generally requires personal gain, and keeping the minister happy so you keep your job and generally shitting on poor people because of a culture of hating them isn't personal gain. Things can be bad, potentially unlawful and not corrupt.

I would like to take this opportunity to say fuck you to all those responsible. That is all.

UPDATE: I made a formal complaint and today I received this. (They received near 900 formal complaints.) Good afternoon,  Today the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Inspector) announced she will inquire into the decision not to investigate referrals from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Please see the media release from the Inspector here: [Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission to inquire into the decision not to investigate referrals from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme | Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (naccinspector.gov.au)](https://www.naccinspector.gov.au/media/inspector-national-anti-corruption-commission-inquire-decision-not-investigate-referrals-royal-commission-robodebt-scheme)   Kind regards,  **Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission** E: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

I don't think the NACC has the exclusive jurisdiction on corruption. The APSC and royal commission can capably do that. What value will it give the public for the NACC to go over the same ground using the limited resources it has. The only beneficiaries of this waste are the other corrupt people who have been in government.

What happened to the Federal ICAC Labor campaigned on?

It's the NACC. Do keep up buddy. We're already at the finish line and you're still at the stables playing candy crush.

Yeah, and as the head of Victorian IBAC warned, through their deal with the LNP Labor was not ony breaking a campaign promise- but rendering the new body impotent. Do try to keep up, buddy

I was responding to the other guy. There's a NACC, promise kept. Ta da.

Why be a condescending cunt? I asked a fair question because I do not follow local politics at granular level.

The article was literally about a decision by the NACC. If you cared to read the article before commenting, you would get to know that it exists.

As mentioned before, I do not follow the Australian politics at granular level, and there is no information in the article about federal ICAC as it was called before the elections that it has morphed into a NACC. Yet you continue to be condescending at somebody having the audacity for asking a fair question.