“Enough is enough”. Why Brereton *has* to resign from the NACC

NACC boss Paul Brereton has a disturbing history of providing misleading information. How much more evidence of misconduct is required for him to resign? Sarah Russel he asks.

Brereton misled Parliament, the Attorney General, CEO of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) And people. Senator David Shoebridge is on record as saying:

It is clear that he cannot remain Commissioner without having a major impact on confidence in the NACC.

NACC caused shockwaves in June 2024. announced It decided not to investigate the potential corrupt behavior of five public officials and one politician involved in the Robodebt scandal. The six had been referred to the NACC by Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes SC. Holmes described the illegal Robodebt scheme as an “extraordinary saga” of “deception, incompetence and cowardice”.

Corruption Commission’s Robodebt failure speaks to deeper problems with NACC

Briefly media statement Announcing its decision not to investigate the Robodebt referrals, the NACC announced that Brereton had “delegated” the decision to a deputy commissioner “to avoid any perception of a possible conflict of interest”.

mislead the public

NACC Inspector Gail Furness SC launched an investigation after receiving more than 1,200 complaints about the decision not to investigate referrals. review. The NACC Inspector is the independent monitor who oversees the NACC to ensure it complies with the law and acts fairly.

Furness found that Brereton’s involvement in the decision-making process not to investigate Robodebt referrals was, in fact, “extensive”. He found that its behavior was as follows:officer misconduct”.

Misleading Parliament

The NACC Joint Committee provides parliamentary oversight of the NACC and its Inspector. At his first hearing 22 November 2024 – First opportunity for MPs to question Brereton after Furness made his decision – Brereton made two misleading statements to Parliament about Robodebt referrals.

It was left to Inspector Furness to correct the evidence given by the country’s top integrity officer, who appeared after Brereton: “There were only two issues raised this morning, genuine issues that I thought I could assist the committee with.”

In his evidence, Brereton dismissed as “highly speculative” the suggestion that Robodebt referrals showed Royal Commissioner Catherine Homes’ belief that corrupt conduct was potentially occurring: “There is nothing in the referral to suggest that a view was reached that there was corrupt conduct that we needed to investigate.”

Inspector Furness corrected Brereton’s evidence. “… I am quoting what Mr. Holmes said in his letter requesting an extension… to provide guidance [to the NACC]. It was meant to direct individuals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission if it reached its opinion.

their conduct may meet the definition of corrupt conduct under the NACC Act.

Another misleading statement made by Commissioner Brereton concerned legal advice provided by NACC’s internal lawyers.

Commissioner Brereton had sought legal advice “as to whether the Referred Persons’ conduct would amount to corrupt conduct for the purposes of the Act.” The recommendation was that if the behavior was against Referred Person 1, “in our opinion to want (lawyer’s emphasis) It falls within the concept of ‘corrupt conduct’ for the purposes of the law”.

Commissioner Brereton stated that legal advice was correctly given to NACC colleagues at a meeting where the Robodebt referrals were discussed in detail. However, in his testimony to parliament, Commissioner Brereton softened the wording of the legal advice to “could” rather than “could”.

“The legal advice we received from our lawyers is that, if proven, the conduct it could be (italics mine) falls within the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’”.

Inspector Furness had to correct Brereton’s evidence once again. “I think, Commissioner… your advice is it could be (italics mine) constitutes corrupt conduct; The advice was to want (italics mine) constitutes corrupt conduct. I refer you to Mr Robertson’s report at paragraph 56, where he quotes legal advice.”

Hiding the relationship

At the same parliamentary hearing Brereton also misled the committee about the nature of his relationship with one of six people referred to the NACC.

In documents released under Freedom of Information in August 2024, Brereton stated that the relationship was an “intimate relationship” and that the person was “well known” to him. But at the hearing in parliament Brereton twice downplayed the relationship, describing it as “professional”.

He stated: “However, I realize that some may think that my impartiality may be influenced by my previous behavior. professional (italics mine) my association.

He also noted, “I had to strike a balance between my responsibilities as a leader and… professional (italics mine) relationship may influence the decision.”

But as Alan Robertson KC, who wrote a report for Inspector Furness’ review, noted, Brereton’s attempt to rewrite the nature of the relationship was: “shiny”.

Conflict [of interest] existed in the circumstances in which it was disclosed,

“rather than the conditions shiny (italics mine) in [47b] NACC’s submission to the Superintendent dated August 13, 2024.”

Misled the Chief Prosecutor

Documents released under Freedom of Information in August 2024 show that Brereton never used the word “retreat” or “withdraw” when explaining to NACC colleagues how he would manage the conflict. He only said he would “delegate” the decision-making process.

However, Brereton once used the word “retreat” four times. letter to then-Attorney General Mark Dreyfus as he explained how he would manage a conflict of interest. This is highly unusual, given that the evidence shows that he did not “withdraw” himself in any way, but was heavily involved in the NACC’s internal discussions regarding Robodebt.

Although it is common for public officials to mislead the public, misleading an Attorney General must also have consequences for the head of the nation’s leading integrity agency.

Why did the NACC refuse to pursue the Robodebt scandal? Conflict of interest arose

He misleads his own CEO

The latest example of Brereton’s misleading statements occurred during the Senate estimates hearing earlier this week. Although NACC chief executive Phillip Reid denied being misled by Brereton, Reid was forced to apologize to MPs for providing misleading evidence about Brereton advising the Inspector General of the Australian Defense Force (IGADF), an independent defense watchdog.

Senator David Shoebridge suggested Brereton misled Reed twice.

“First of all, he misled you by saying it was rare, when in fact he made the recommendation at least 22 times,” Shoebridge said. “Secondly, he misled you by always saying that he was outside the commission’s working hours, when in fact, on eight separate occasions, he made recommendations to the IGADF during the NACC’s working hours.”

The public expects the NACC president to be perfect. Instead, we have a Commissioner who has failed to recuse himself from decision-making about a person with whom he has a close relationship, misled the Attorney-General and the NACC CEO, and made misleading statements to a parliamentary hearing.

On December 11, Brereton will make his second appearance at the NACC Parliamentary Joint Committee. This would (or could) be a good time for Brereton to tender his resignation.

That’s enough.

What do Fat Cats say? Excessive transparency caused the Robodebt scandal