Investigations into former anti-corruption chief Paul Brereton nixed over cost concerns | National Anti-Corruption Commission

Two investigations into complaints against former national anti-corruption commissioner Paul Brereton will be halted after the watchdog said it “cannot justify such expenditure”.

In a statement released on Wednesday morning, National Anti-Corruption Commission (Nacc) investigator Gail Furness said she would end ongoing investigations due to Brereton’s resignation and her belief that “the systemic issues identified have been satisfactorily addressed”.

“A significant amount of public money was spent on the investigation of these two complaints,” Furness said. “A significant amount of public resources will need to be spent to complete the partially objected draft reports.

“I cannot justify such expenditure in the circumstances where Commissioner Brereton has resigned and, in my view, the systemic issues identified have been satisfactorily addressed.”

Brereton, Nacc’s first commissioner, announced at a Senate estimates hearing in May that he would step down from his three-year term to a five-year term. His term ended on Monday this week.

At the time of the announcement, the anti-corruption chief said two investigations into his conduct while in office “diverted attention from the commission’s core purpose of strengthening integrity”.

“While I will continue to resist any suggestion of impropriety, I have decided that now that the commission is established and operates with quality staff and good processes, it is time to step aside and allow a new commissioner to lead the commission into the next phase of establishing it as an important and respected component of the state’s integrity architecture,” he said.

One of the Nacc inspector’s investigations into Brereton follows revelations that the commissioner, who was once the Inspector General of the Australian Defense Force (IGADF), failed to properly declare conflicts of interest in his ongoing role within the IGADF office or while overseeing defense-related guidance between July 2023 and October 2025.

Although Furness had prepared a draft report, he said it was not necessary to continue the investigation because the relevant information was already public.

Furness said it was no longer necessary to resolve the legal issue, which his lawyers were objecting to, about whether Brereton had violated public administration laws after his resignation.

The Nacc investigator added that although Nacc had received 98 defense-related referrals in the period leading up to Brereton’s conflict of interest declaration, it had not completed its analysis of them.

However, Furness concluded that the changes to the Nacc regarding conflict of interest declarations satisfied him that any systemic problems were not persistent.

Details of another incomplete investigation into Brereton’s conduct will remain largely secret due to concerns for the complainant’s safety and because Brereton’s lawyers have objected to it.

Furness said the complaint, submitted to him in December 2025, concerned Brereton’s behavior in relation to two separate Nacc operations on one occasion.

Furness said he decided to launch the investigation after receiving Brereton’s response to the allegation sometime in April this year. Furness said Brereton lawyers “challenged the validity of my decision to conduct this complaint investigation and prepare or publish a report.”

He added: “Those involved have expressed to me their concerns for the safety of themselves and their families if details of the allegation and surrounding events were made public.”

On that basis, Furness said, the publication of the final report on the matter would be “significantly curtailed” and that this was “a strong factor in not continuing with the investigation of the complaint”.

The Nacc inspector concluded that Brereton’s resignation meant the Nacc would no longer be “unduly hindered by the ongoing investigation”. [Brereton’s] He stated that there were “actions” and that both investigations should be stopped.