Operation Myrtleford was an investigation into the 6 persons referred by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.
The Commission found that 2 of the 6 individuals engaged in serious corrupt conduct, and that the remaining 4 did not engage in corrupt conduct.
In July 2023, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (the Royal Commission) delivered its final report. On 6 July, in a sealed section of that report, the Royal Commission referred 6 persons (the referred persons) to the National Anti‑Corruption Commission (the Commission) for further consideration. More detail about the history of the Commission’s consideration of the referrals is outlined in Decision to investigate.
This is the report on the Commission’s investigation of corruption issues relating to the conduct of the referred persons. This investigation report has been prepared pursuant to section 149 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth) (NACC Act). The Commission determined pursuant to section 156 of the NACC Act that it is in the public interest to publish this report (see, Publication of this report).
Conduct of the investigation
The investigation, known as Operation Myrtleford, commenced on 4 April 2025. It was conducted by an investigation team led by a Deputy Commissioner. More information about the investigation team is outlined in Appendix A.
Operation Myrtleford was a complex investigation involving consideration of a large volume of material including: thousands of documents the Royal Commission provided with the referrals; video and transcripts of the Royal Commission’s hearings; other material on the Royal Commission website; documents produced in response to notices to produce; interviews and private hearings involving more than 40 witnesses, including the examination of the 6 referred persons.
More details of the conduct of the investigation are contained in Overview of evidence and process.
Events under investigation
The Commission’s task was not to re-examine the events surrounding the Robodebt Scheme as a whole. Rather, the investigation was confined to specific events occurring in 2015, 2017 and 2018 and to determining whether the conduct of any of the referred persons in connection with those events constituted serious corrupt conduct within the meaning of the NACC Act.
The corruption issues the Royal Commission referred to the Commission related to the following key stages in the development and implementation of the Robodebt Scheme:
- 2014–15 – the process leading to Cabinet approval as a budget measure in the 2015–16 Budget of a proposal that came to be known as the Robodebt Scheme
- early 2017 – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s own motion investigation into the Robodebt Scheme and the engagement by Department of Human Services (DHS) of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to assist in addressing operational issues
- 2018 – the then DHS Secretary’s raising of concerns with the then DHS Chief Counsel regarding the lawfulness of the Robodebt Scheme.
Findings
The Commission concluded that 2 of the referred persons, Mr Mark Withnell and Ms Serena Wilson, engaged in corrupt conduct of a serious nature within the meaning of section 8(1)(a) and/or section 8(1)(b) of the NACC Act, but that the remaining 4 referred persons did not engage in corrupt conduct within the meaning of the NACC Act.
Evidence supporting these conclusions is set out in Evidence.
Mr Withnell
The Commission found that Mr Withnell engaged in corrupt conduct by intentionally misleading officers of the Department of Social Services in 2015 during preparation of a submission to the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet of a proposal that became the Robodebt Scheme. See Findings, Mark Withnell for detail.
Ms Wilson
The Commission found that Ms Wilson engaged in corrupt conduct by intentionally misleading the Ombudsman in 2017 during the Ombudsman’s own motion investigation into the Robodebt Scheme. See Findings, Serena Wilson for detail.
Recommendations and outcomes
The investigation made findings of serious corrupt conduct against 2 individuals. It also concluded that there was insufficient admissible evidence to establish the alleged offences against either Mr Withnell or Ms Wilson beyond reasonable doubt. Key admissions and statements made during this investigation are not admissible in criminal proceedings. It is therefore not appropriate to refer either to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
The NACC Act invests the Commission with corruption prevention and education functions and the power to make recommendations as part of the Commission’s investigation reports aimed at preventing corrupt conduct from occurring again.
In this case, however, the Royal Commission made a number of recommendations to improve the budget process and agency responses to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and they have since been implemented.
These measures should be sufficient to prevent recurrence of the type of corrupt conduct found in this investigation. Therefore, while the Commission has made observations in relation to contributing factors, it has not made recommendations in this report. (See Observations and Recommendations).