'A shit show’: normalised bullying turbocharged robodebt’s illegality
ANALYSIS
A sidelined, institutionalised, and bullied administrative cohort, turning a blind eye to cling to their jobs. The story of a whatever-it-takes culture laid bare by NACC evidence.
Julian Bajkowski
The Mandarin
MAR 12, 2026
Of all the additional evidence dredged up by the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s probe into bureaucrats, politicians, and staffers who presided over the disastrous, deadly, and illegal robodebt scheme, arguably the most illuminating is the culture of fear and reprisal that gripped responsible staff at the then-Department of Human Services.
To recap: following a referral in the so-called sealed section of the
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, six individuals were referred to the NACC, with Mark Withnell, former Department of Human Services general manager, found to have engaged in ‘serious corruption’, along with Serena Wilson, a Department of Social Security deputy secretary.
The bottom line of the finding is that Withnell “engaged in serious
corrupt conduct by intentionally misleading officers of the Department of Social Services during the preparation of a cabinet submission in 2015”.
The finding relates to the New Policy Proposal submitted to the
expenditure review committee of the cabinet, which argued that no
legislative change was needed to lawfully stand up robodebt, when it was. The key reason the illegal debt-manufacturing and collection racket ultimately collapsed was a federal court finding.
But the blame for the critical governance checks and safeguards being bypassed and sidestepped has been laid squarely at the feet of mid-level public servants who, when put in the NACC’s star chamber, finally tipped the bucket on robodebt’s internal enforcers.
The NACC’s finding that Withnell acted corruptly was buttressed by a highly illustrative tranche of new evidence that illuminated the
pressures placed on DHS staff by Senior Executive Service members of the agency.
The key section of the NACC’s robodebt corruption inquiry finding on his corrupt conduct contains an evaluation of motive and asks, “Why did Mr Withnell act as he did?”
It is beyond excoriating, but also somewhat paradoxical to anyone other than a lawyer, in that “motive is not an essential element of ‘corrupt conduct’ comprised of intentionally misleading DSS about the true nature of OCI (robodebt)”.
The bottom line is that you can act out of fear, institutionalisation,
and its psychological paralysis, but that won’t get you off a corruption finding.
