The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has come under fire following a mishandled complaint against one of its officials, revealing significant flaws in its internal processes. Formed in July 2023, the independent anti-corruption NACC is responsible for investigating corruption within the public sector. Those were two major recent discoveries — that the commission failed to timely refer a complaint to its own inspector, Gail Furness. This implementation of the amendment raises serious questions about the commission’s operational integrity.
The most influential member of the NACC’s leadership, Paul Brereton, inadvertently entered officer misconduct close association territory. This meant going back with one of the six public servants engaged with the case. This incident prompted NACC deputy commissioner Kylie Kilgour to act. She agreed that the issue should have been referred to Furness for additional review.
Background of the NACC and the Complaint Process
The NACC was founded to promote transparency and accountability in government, with a mission to serve as a bulldog against corruption. Section 203 of the NACC Act mandates an outside review of complaints related to staff misconduct. Whoever is the new inspector will be responsible for conducting this review process. This is the third time since the commission’s creation that this section has been triggered.
Brereton at first took the complaint seriously but NACC staff failed to identify it as a red flag. To their dismay, they underestimated the seriousness of his qualms. Kilgour disclosed that staff never even thought about if the referral “presented a corruption concern.” They totally failed to even suggest that they refer the case to the inspector.
“Unfortunately, the commission staff who received your referral assessed only whether your matter raised a ‘corruption issue’ and did not consider whether the matter should be referred to the Inspector.” – Kylie Kilgour, NACC deputy commissioner
Kilgour eventually conceded this misstep. In a stunning letter dated February 5, Kilgour stated how sorry she was for mistakenly sending. The internal mismanagement of this case only increases growing concerns over the NACC’s decision-making processes.
Investigative Findings and Public Reaction
Even after three months of consideration, Furness determined that the complaint was outside her jurisdiction. Public alarm has been growing over the NACC’s effect. Inexplicably, this decision comes even though it impacts the half a million Australians associated with the related Community Development program. Tragically, some of those who received debt notices from this multi-agency program went on to commit suicide. This tragic circumstance resulted in a very public demand for accountability.
The resulting public backlash forced 1,160 public objections and eventually an independent inquiry into the NACC’s decision-making processes. As a result, this review found Brereton’s conduct to be substantiated, though unwitting. The report’s findings revealed deep-seated, systemic problems in the commission that need to be addressed with urgency.
“In the end, the NACC took it on as a corruption issue and investigated it directly,” – NACC annual report
Following these revelations, an NACC spokesperson confirmed that measures are now being implemented to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
“Systems have since been put in place to safeguard against this from happening in the future,” – NACC spokesperson
Accountability and Future Measures
The incident has ignited calls for accountability in the NACC and reforms to its complaint handling process against its own officials. The commission reiterated its commitment to comply with all statutory reporting requirements under the NACC Act. It noted that it is limited in what it can say on matters under Furness’s purview.
“The commission confirms it takes its reporting obligations to the inspector under the NACC Act seriously. Beyond that it is not appropriate for the commission to comment further on matters within the inspector’s jurisdiction.” – NACC spokesperson
The oversight illustrated by this incident raises critical questions about how effectively the NACC can fulfill its mandate to combat corruption when it struggles with internal compliance. In the wake of outcry to the debacle, stakeholders have demanded stricter protocols and increased transparency measures. Their goal is to prove they are restoring public trust in the commission.
