The federal corruption watchdog has given up on investigating Tourism Australia over its private holiday expenses scandal, Crikey can reveal.
The confirmation from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) comes just a week after the agency’s managing director Phillipa Harrison refused to answer questions from the Senate about the scandal — involving three staff who were fired for holidaying with $137,441 of taxpayer funds — because she had “clear” advice from investigators to stay silent.
Prior to the Senate estimates hearing on June 4, the NACC had refused to confirm or deny whether it was investigating the incident. After Harrison told the Senate she had been gagged by the NACC, Crikey asked the commission for the status of the investigation.
In response to a question about whether it was conducting a preliminary probe, or whether the matter had become a full investigation, the NACC said late Tuesday afternoon it had decided not to proceed with either option.
“As Tourism Australia has publicly stated that it has referred corruption issues relating to three former employees, the commission can confirm that it has recently decided to take no further action in relation to the referral, on the basis that, prior to the referral, the matter had already been fully investigated, the employees terminated and the funds repaid, so there was nothing that the commission could now usefully add to the process,” a spokesperson told Crikey.
The NACC decision raises a number of questions, including whether there will be any further consequences for the three staff involved. It’s also unclear whether Tourism Australia will now be more forthcoming about the matter.
As Crikey has previously reported, Tourism Australia managed to keep what had happened out of the headlines for months, and only confirmed certain details once approached for comment in April. Even after a back-and-forth with the agency’s media team that lasted weeks, Tourism Australia only reluctantly supplied details such as the exact sum involved, while keeping other information to itself, including on-the-record confirmation of the identities of the three staff and which authorities had been contacted.
The agency has used various excuses for keeping such information secret: for example, when initially asked by Crikey to confirm the identity of a senior employee involved, Tourism Australia pointed to its obligations under the Privacy Act when denying the request.
However, when asked the same question at Senate estimates, Harrison instead pointed to the advice from the NACC.
Her performance at estimates created an unprecedented situation where a witness claimed immunity from questions based on NACC advice — a “first”, in the words of Trade Minister Don Farrell.
Parliamentary sources have indicated the implications of such an immunity claim would need to be looked at by MPs. As Farrell put it in estimates: “I would like to get a bit more information on the government’s and the department’s responsibilities because, I suspect, as time goes by, we might find that there are more circumstances like this – hopefully not, but I suspect there will be – and we want to get it right from day one.”
The NACC, for its part, has been relatively forthcoming as far as corruption watchdogs go. As reporters who have worked with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption will know, that body is nearly completely mired in secrecy and appears to have a general policy of never answering questions about investigations. The NACC, by contrast, did issue a reply to questions once Senate evidence had made clear the Tourism Australia matter was under consideration.
A national anti-corruption body that creates more secrecy in Canberra rather than shining light into the bureaucracy is likely not what the creators of the watchdog had in mind, and it remains to be seen if pointing to NACC advice will continue to be a valid excuse for silence in the future. A need to operate in a discreet manner so as to not jeopardise investigations may be understandable, but does that mean every matter touched by the NACC automatically becomes a state secret? Parliamentarians must answer that question before the next similar situation arises.
And it’s now up to agencies like Tourism Australia to lay their cards on the table when they can. The first test has already come: Crikey has asked Tourism Australia for a copy of the advice that Harrison read from in the Senate, after being told by the NACC that Tourism Australia would be the most appropriate place to ask.
