Cracks in the NACC. Brereton protected while corruption remains hidden

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is plagued by missteps and scandals, and trust and confidence in the Labor Government is declining further. john adams reports.

Not a week can go by without a new negative media story about the NACC emerging regarding the behavior of its Commissioner Paul Brereton or questions surrounding its operations and lack of significant results.

In July 2023, the NACC opened its doors to great fanfare and high hopes following years of scandals involving Commonwealth Ministers and senior public servants, resulting in confidence in the government falling to all-time lows according to various surveys.

Given this context, the NACC’s policy objectives were not only to operationally detect and root out corrupt behavior, but also to strategically increase trust and confidence in the Commonwealth’s political and bureaucratic institutions.

However, after 28 months of operation and more than $140 million in public expenditure, the NACC had the opposite effect; The chorus of public concern and criticism continues to grow louder among a wide cross-section of stakeholders.

Deafening silence in the flawed process. NACC and Robodebt investigation.

Commissioner Brereton is misbehaving

Part of the consternation stems from the contemporary and historical behavior of the NACC Commissioner; these include:

• its direct and indirect actions (whether as part of the Afghanistan War Crimes Inquiry or Robodebt) seeking to protect senior Commonwealth officials from findings of wrongdoing;
• ongoing conflicts of interest with the Australian Defense Force and the Department of Defence; And
• Misleading the Federal Parliament resulting from the concealment of critical information from the NACC and the Chief Executive.

Others, like leading public integrity expert Geoffrey Watson SC, I suggested Considering that NACC’s problems stem from its timid leadership team, NACC’s problems go much deeper.

“The NACC needs to change. I have firsthand experience of how these organizations depend on the leadership team to be effective. Leadership needs to be positive and dynamic. Leadership needs to be bold and fearless, especially at a time when it is establishing itself and exploring its mandate.

“Instead, the NACC’s current leadership is timid and negative. Among the documents it produces are comments from the commissioner expressing his reticence to make a decision because if the NACC makes a negative finding it could be challenged in court. Yes, that’s true, but that’s no reason not to go after the crooks who corrupt our system. Leadership must welcome the challenges and confront them head on.”

Worryingly, significant evidence is emerging from multiple preliminary investigations that the NACC deliberately avoided collecting critical evidence from key witnesses and thus actively, and in some cases, deliberately concealed corrupt conduct.

Preliminary and corruption investigations

Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (NACC Act), NACC can conduct a ‘preliminary investigation’ instead of a ‘corruption investigation’.

Both of these types of investigations begin after the NACC completes the initial triage screening process.

Formally, section 41 of the NACC Act states that the purpose of a preliminary investigation is to verify the existence or nature of a corruption problem or to assist the Commissioner in determining whether and how a corruption problem should be addressed.

Strictly speaking, according to public comments made by NACC Deputy Commissioner Kylie Kilgour in a July 2025 podcast, the purpose of the preliminary investigation (or evaluation) is to determine whether the NACC has a “viable hypothesis of corrupt conduct” of a serious or systemic nature.

It is difficult to know what a ‘valid hypothesis’ objectively means in practice and how long it will take for the NACC to determine whether a valid hypothesis exists.

What we do know is that during the preliminary investigation, NACC may:

• issuing legal notices compelling Commonwealth agencies to hand over certain documents; And,
• Do volunteer interviews.

However, once such a valid hypothesis is established, the NACC may proceed with a formal corruption investigation using one of the following methods:

• by NACC only;
• Jointly between the NACC and another Commonwealth agency (or agencies); or
• only by the responsible Commonwealth agency.

In the Operation Pelican case (occurring in early 2024), the NACC was able to launch a formal corruption investigation with lightning speed (i.e., within a few days); In other cases, the NACC preliminary investigation can take more than 76 weeks.

Flawed preliminary investigation process

However, in the context of preliminary investigations it became clear that the NACC specifically in cases:

• refusing to speak to complainants to ensure they have a clear understanding of the alleged corrupt conduct and relevant evidence presented;
• actively dissuading complainants from providing additional relevant evidence;
• receipt of documents by notification for production from specified Commonwealth agencies or relevant persons;
• conducting superficial (uncritical) evaluations of submitted documents;
• accepting the claims of Commonwealth institutions or senior Commonwealth officials without any in-depth questioning or critical evaluation; And
• Refusing to test the claims of Commonwealth agencies or senior Commonwealth officials with material witnesses who are in a position to point out deficiencies in the arguments presented.

The net effect of the NACC’s approach is to deliberately avoid the collection of material evidence in cases where the Commissioner (and the NACC more broadly) wishes to protect a Commonwealth official (e.g. the Prime Minister) from a finding of corruption.

In addition, the NACC appears to have accepted representations and assurances from senior Commonwealth Ministers and senior departmental or agency officials.

without any further review or investigative work.

This pattern can be seen in a high-profile referral to the NACC where Geoff Shannon was the victim of a one-sided, fraudulent investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and subsequent malicious accusations brought by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP).

CommBank’s Matt Comyn and ASIC face abuse allegations from Unhappy Banking founder Shannon

Not only were the charges against Shannon dismissed by the Magistrates Court, but ASIC was warned by the judge and costs were awarded to the Commonwealth. The NACC’s approach was to obtain ASIC’s evidence file, together with ASIC’s internal communications and communications with the CDPP.

The NACC rejected Geoff Shannon’s referral after an initial assessment and preliminary investigation lasting 76 weeks, on the grounds that the material obtained by the NACC contained “no indication that the investigators had acted dishonestly or for an improper purpose”.

But the question is;

When will a Commonwealth official admit in writing that he has been dishonest or knowingly acted improperly?

NACC Inspector error

For months, protests and objections have been made to the NACC Inspector, Ms Gail Furness SC, about the NACC’s approach to assessment and investigation, particularly in the context of another high-profile referral involving very senior Commonwealth officials who are now before the NACC.

Although the NACC Inspector claims that he does not have the legal authority to dictate to the NACC how it should conduct its assessment and investigative work, the Inspector is charged with ensuring that the NACC is free from corrupt conduct, agency mismanagement, and officer misconduct.

According to the NACC Act, this includes ensuring:

• NACC acts reasonably;
• NACC acts without improper motives; And
• NACC’s work is free from errors of fact or law.

However, according to recent testimony submitted to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislative Committee, the NACC Inspector General has not completed any investigations or audits of NACC’s evaluation or investigative work, other than Robodebt.

The Inspector is therefore not in a position to provide any assurance as to the quality and robustness of the NACC’s work and whether the NACC deliberately used flawed methodologies to conceal corrupt conduct by high-ranking Commonwealth officials.

A public policy failure

The NACC under the current Commissioner is a catastrophic public policy failure. Not only has it achieved few meaningful results, wasted significant public resources and lost the trust of a significant segment of the Australian public, it has also taken active action.

Preventing the collection of material evidence in cases involving high-ranking Commonwealth officials.

Whispers on social media that the NACC is actually a cynical decoy masquerading as an anti-corruption agency, but in reality operates as a protection racket for eminent public officials, appear to have more credibility by the day.

Rather than taking active steps to ensure that the credibility of the NACC remains intact, the NACC Inspector General continues to shield the NACC from legitimate criticism through condescending, deflecting legal correspondence rather than the product of a good-faith investigation or audit.

With the NACC’s credibility in tatters and little prospect of recovery, only a dramatic intervention by Parliament can prevent further disillusionment with Australia’s political and bureaucratic institutions.

Tensions rise at NACC as Robodebt begins operating again