The Anti Corruption Commission becomes the Corruption Commission.
“The National Anti-Corruption Commission chief has rejected calls to quit over his handling of referrals from the robodebt royal commission, suggesting he was being made a scapegoat and insisting neither he nor his agency will be influenced by public pressure.
Paul Brereton told a governance forum on Friday that he accepted the independent Nacc inspector’s finding that he had failed to adequately manage a declared conflict of interest in relation to a past professional association with one of the six people referred to the Nacc for possible corruption investigation.
But the Nacc commissioner was defiant, insisting that what the inspector called “an error of judgment” did not justify stepping down.
“Perhaps the most important lesson is that we are not the best person to manage our own conflict of interest,” Brereton told the annual public sector forum hosted by the Governance Institute of Australia.”
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
How typical is this?
A former Supreme Court judge failed to remove himself from a role in which he declared a conflict of interest.
The Anti Corruption Commission has to be seen to be squeaky clean.
If a Supreme Court judge can’t manage his conflict of interest then who can?
Rather than sack him with someone who will do the right thing, the government defends him.
It’s just another example of how there are a set of rules for you and another set of rules for the establishment.
Quote from:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/15/paul-brereton-nacc-chief-rejects-calls-to-quit-robodebt?fbclid=IwY2xjawIzFi5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHQQtzjbtPOnf0b1wpbJXhQz4Rp751oKHYAHU9x98EbHd8yyex0Rn-oNhWQ_aem_mkg8kko6zE7AENBjnzgU_g
Committee on 25/02/2025
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
25/02/2025
Estimates
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S PORTFOLIO
Attorney-General’s Department
Senator RENNICK: My question is regarding some correspondence that was written to the Attorney-General last year regarding the failure of the head of the NACC, Commissioner Brereton, to disclose a conflict of interest. It is my belief that, given that he failed to disclose a conflict of interest, he should have been removed as head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I’m just wondering whether or not the Attorney-General’s office has a position on the fact that Commissioner Brereton didn’t actually disclose the conflict of interest and if he should stay in his role.
Ms Jones : I think that’s a question for the minister.
Senator RENNICK: Okay. Fine.
Senator Farrell: Could you repeat the question, please, Senator.
Senator RENNICK: I’ll just read some of this out: ‘A NACC investigation found Commissioner Brereton guilty of misconduct because, despite declaring a conflict of interest in relation to robodebt, the commissioner stayed comprehensively involved until the decision had been finalised. The investigation found it was due to a mistake in the law, but that finding has no credibility whatsoever. Commissioner Brereton is a former Supreme Court judge and the head of the federal corruption watchdog and conflict declarations are a fundamental part of the judicial process. It is incomprehensible to suggest that the commissioner made such a basic mistake.’ Commissioner Brereton was quoted in the media saying:
Perhaps the most important lesson is that we are not the best person to manage our own conflict of interest …
That is an outrageous statement that has no credibility whatsoever.
Senator Farrell: That’s your assertion, Senator?
Senator RENNICK: Yes. Part of what I just said was from a letter sent to the Attorney-General, but I’d just like to know what the Attorney-General thinks about the fact that the head of the national corruption watchdog, a former Supreme Court judge, disclosed a conflict of interest but stayed in the role anyway and didn’t recuse himself.
Senator Farrell: The first observation I would make about that is that there has been disclosure of that conflict. It has been examined. You’ll appreciate this is not my portfolio area, but what I understand has occurred here is that Mr Brereton made a decision not to further investigate a number of people involved in the so-called robodebt issue. That decision was challenged and an issue was raised about the conflict of interest. As a result of that determination, the national anti-corruption body is now examining the issue as to whether there was inappropriate behaviour in that robodebt process. I would have thought that an acceptable outcome in the circumstances. Mr Brereton may have made the observation, as you’ve just quoted, that perhaps the individuals themselves are not the best persons to make determinations on these sorts of issues. I don’t think that’s—
Senator RENNICK: But, surely, if you’ve got a conflict of interest, you disclose, you step aside—
CHAIR: Senator Rennick.
Senator Farrell: Please, Senator—I very quietly listened and in fact asked you to repeat your question so that I fully understood what you were asking me. From time to time, in ordinary court proceedings, judges are required to make decisions about whether they should absent themselves from the courses of hearings, decisions about conflicts of interest. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unusual about what’s gone on here. And I think, to the extent that there may have been issues, those issues have now been resolved by the processes. So the main observation I would make is that the processes have been robust enough that the correct outcome has occurred. The investigations that perhaps should have started earlier are now underway, and, at some point in the future, we will get a result of whatever inquiries the anticorruption body has made.
Senator RENNICK: Can you see how this—
CHAIR: Senator Rennick, before you continue—I can’t vet your questions but do I have to make sure that they are relevant to the portfolio that we’re asking questions about. Senators essentially dismissed the NACC from the hearing last night because we weren’t able to get to them. Questions relating to the NACC are relevant when the NACC is appearing. Other senators wouldn’t have had the opportunity to ask questions about the NACC. I don’t want to jump back and forth in our program for an agency that we have dismissed. I’m trying to let you ask questions that are relevant to cross-portfolio matters. I’d also note that the minister appearing today comes prepared and briefed to talk to the agencies that are appearing. NACC was not scheduled for today, so you might need to be mindful of that when you’re asking your questions. If you have questions relevant to cross-portfolio matters, please put them. Otherwise, if there are questions more broadly for NACC, unfortunately we don’t have an opportunity today to ask those questions.
Senator RENNICK: Okay. I’ll finish with one simple question.
Senator Farrell: Chair, on that—I appreciate your ruling—I wouldn’t want Senator Rennick to think that I in any way don’t want to answer his questions.
CHAIR: No, I understand.
Senator Farrell: Every question has an answer, and I’m prepared to assist the committee in ensuring that all the questions that the senators have get answered in the appropriate way.
CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.
Senator RENNICK: You’re a good man, Donny. I love you, mate. But seriously—
CHAIR: Can I just—order! Can I be clear, though, Minister—
Senator Farrell: I was being serious.
CHAIR: Thank you for that, and I know that you would be very willing to answer those questions. I am more concerned about the senators that are not here, who I will hear from shortly if they do not get a chance to ask questions about the NACC.
Senator Farrell: I understand, but I just wanted to make it clear that the government will answer every question that we’re asked.
CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Rennick, you have the call.
Senator RENNICK: It’s the perception in the public that we want to make sure we maintain the utmost standards of independence and scrutiny, and we’ve got our own NACC Commissioner failing to remove himself when he has a conflict of interest. It’s the pub test here. While we may not know the ins and outs of the details, it’s the pub test—the whole point of this National Anti-Corruption Commission was to crack down on things like conflicts of interest, little bits of grey areas and things like that. Do you think that it’s a—
Senator Farrell: With respect, the whole point of the NACC was to root out corruption—
Senator RENNICK: Yes.
Senator Farrell: in our Public Service, in our politicians, and I think that’s what it’s doing, to be honest with you. I think it’s doing exactly the job that we gave it. I would remind you that the NACC got the support of both the government and the opposition when it was established, and I think it’s doing its job.
Senator RENNICK: Okay, I’ll leave it at that.
