In December 2018, 34 judges, alongside three former Chief Justices of the High Court publicly supported the notion that anti-corruption commissions should have the power to hold public hearings. This support was expressed in an open letter to then Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
However, when the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) Bill was introduced by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC in June 2022, the Opposition proposed a significant amendment. They sought to restrict public hearings to only "exceptional circumstances," echoing a provision from Victoria’s IBAC legislation, which had been widely criticised by former IBAC commissioners for hampering the fight against corruption.
Australia’s corruption ranking, as measured by Transparency International Australia, had steadily fallen under the Coalition government, dropping from seventh in 2012 to 18th in 2022. Critics argue that by weakening the NACC’s ability to hold public hearings, the Coalition aimed to limit scrutiny of its own behaviour while in government. Unsurprisingly, more than a year after its establishment in mid-2023, the NACC’s activities have had little public visibility, raising concerns about its effectiveness.
A key test of the NACC’s integrity was its handling of the Robodebt scandal, one of the most significant cases of governmental misconduct in recent years. Robodebt, which ran from 2015 to 2019, was subject to a detailed inquiry led by Catherine Holmes AC SC. Her report, completed in July 2023, contained sealed referrals for further investigation, which were passed to the NACC. Despite this, in April 2024, the NACC decided not to investigate the referrals.
Documents obtained under Freedom of Information revealed that NACC Commissioner Brereton had declared a conflict of interest early in the Robodebt investigation process but continued to be involved in discussions about the referrals. It has been suggested that this conflict was linked to Brereton’s close relationship with Kathryn Campbell, a key figure in the Robodebt scheme and a fellow Major General in the Army Reserve. Brereton’s continued participation, despite his declared recusal, undermines the principle of impartiality and raises serious questions about the NACC’s decision-making process.
The NACC’s mandate is to investigate and publicly determine whether individuals have engaged in corrupt conduct. While some claim that the individuals involved in Robodebt have already been investigated, the NACC alone has the authority to determine if their actions constituted corruption. By failing to investigate the referrals, the NACC has neglected its core duty and has drawn criticism for failing to act on one of the most prominent cases of alleged government misconduct.
This sequence of events raises questions about the appointment of Commissioner Brereton and whether the NACC is fulfilling its intended purpose. If the NACC continues to refuse to examine the sealed volume of Commissioner Holmes’s report, it is argued that the Attorney-General should seek permission to release the findings publicly. Doing so would provide transparency and allow the public to fully understand the extent of the findings, while also shedding light on the NACC’s reluctance to act on such a significant case.
Read the full article.
