Here’s a bombshell that’s rocking Australia’s integrity watchdog: an independent inquiry has been launched into the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) chief’s handling of his defense ties, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability. But here’s where it gets controversial—could this be a case of oversight or something more deliberate? Let’s dive in.
In a move that’s sent shockwaves through Canberra, NACC inspector Gail Furness has formally announced her decision to investigate whether the NACC or its chief commissioner, Paul Brereton, violated the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022. And this is the part most people miss—this isn’t the first time Brereton’s conduct has come under scrutiny. Furness’s letter to the parliamentary oversight group reveals she’s received information that ‘warrants an agency maladministration or officer misconduct investigation.’
So, what’s the fuss about? Last year, the ABC uncovered that Brereton had been granted an age extension to consult for the body behind the Afghanistan War Crimes Inquiry—work he conducted on NACC time without the watchdog’s knowledge. This only came to light after media reports forced Attorney-General Michelle Rowland to demand an explanation from Brereton. His initial declarations in 2023, 2024, and even last September made no mention of this ongoing role.
To his credit, Brereton later recused himself from all defense matters, a move his deputy commissioners deemed ‘non-negotiable.’ But for Greens senator David Shoebridge, this isn’t enough. He’s calling for Brereton’s removal, arguing that the Albanese government must act to restore trust in the NACC. ‘This is the second time the commissioner’s behavior has triggered a formal investigation,’ Shoebridge pointed out, referencing the earlier Robodebt scandal where Brereton was found guilty of misconduct for failing to manage a conflict of interest.
Here’s the kicker: While Furness and NACC chief executive Philip Reed are set to face Senate estimates hearings this afternoon, Brereton himself isn’t required to attend. This has left many wondering: Is the NACC investigating integrity issues or becoming one itself? The government’s earlier backing of Brereton now looks, as Shoebridge puts it, ‘completely reckless.’
This saga raises a bigger question: Can Australia’s anti-corruption body effectively police itself? What do you think? Is Brereton’s conduct a minor oversight or a symptom of deeper issues within the NACC? Let us know in the comments—this is one debate you won’t want to miss.
