Integrity Questions Cast Shadow Over National Anti-Corruption Commission

During a testy exchange with a Parliamentary committee, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) faced more scrutiny and doubt after a senior officer resigned due to integrity concerns. The NACC had previously come under fire for refusing to pursue six referrals from the Royal Commission into Robodebt.

The Commission’s decision-making was questioned, particularly regarding the appointment of an independent person and the handling of the Robodebt referrals. Commissioner Paul Brereton and his team faced tough questions at the Parliamentary hearing, with concerns raised about bias and conflicts of interest.

Despite assurances of resources, the NACC chose not to act on the Royal Commission’s referrals, citing concerns about inconsistent outcomes, legal advice, and the inability to directly punish corrupt behavior. Senator David Shoebridge’s questions about public concern and transparency added to the tension of the hearing.

The NACC’s reputation and credibility were further called into question as the Commissioner’s responses failed to satisfy the committee’s concerns. The lack of transparency and accountability in the Commission’s decision-making process only added to the growing doubts about its effectiveness.

Who have you been having private conversations with about your conflict of interest in the NACC?”

And so it went, for quite some time, before Grogan made what she called a “lineball call” that the Commissioner didn’t have to answer since he wasn’t relying on “private conversations” as evidence.

Questions Over Independent Reviewer

Shoebridge then probed Brereton on the appointment of the “independent, eminent person” to review the NACC’s decision against investigating the Robodebt referrals.

He argued it would be “preferable to the institution and your own reputation” if that person agreed with the determination, saying it would create a conflict of interest if it was the Commissioner’s role to choose them.

“No,” said Brereton, “I have no interest in the eminent person agreeing or disagreeing with our original determination … It wouldn’t be deeply embarrassing to me, since I didn’t make the decision in the first place.”

But Shoebridge referred to the inspect’s finding that Brereton’s decision was tainted by bias amounted to a “failure to deal with your conflict of interests” which has not only significantly damaged the NACC’s reputation but also forced this extra process of appointing another expert, at “enormous public expense.”

He asked Brereton if he accepted that his behaviour sent a “very dangerous message” to the numerous public servants also dealing with conflicts of interest, to which Brereton replied, “I don’t accept that that’s the message.”

Other members of the Committee were also critical, with Labor MP Jerome Laxale saying people in his electorate told him that “they’ve gone from a sense of joy that a Federal Anti-Corruption Commission had been created … to now profound disappointment about how the NACC has operated since its inception.”

Senior Staffer Resigns, Citing ‘Integrity Issues’

After enduring a mostly skeptical and questioning reception before the Committee, the Commissioner, his deputies, and staff must have been hoping for a quiet weekend.

But then it was revealed that a senior staffer—the acting director of governance, risk, and reporting—had resigned after telling colleagues that she had concerns over “integrity issues” that had arisen even before the NACC began operating.

For instance, Brereton, who had been an appeal judge in New South Wales, hired his associate as an executive assistant without the role being advertised or any competitive selection process taking place, in breach of Australian Public Service guidelines.

A spokesperson for the Commission said the appointment was on a “non-ongoing basis” and that the role was later filled in the usual way.

Meanwhile, in its first annual report, released last week, the NACC disclosed “significant non-compliance” with the Public Governance, Performance, and Accountability Act after spending a large amount of money on construction work on an office without gaining formal written approval as required by the law.

It’s understood this may have occurred in part because staff believed the reporting threshold for Commonwealth AusTender contracts was $100,000 (US$64,800) when it is, in fact, $10,000.

Please rewrite the following sentence:

“The company’s profits have been steadily increasing over the past year.”

“The company has seen a consistent rise in profits over the last year.”

Source link