Focusing attention Major General Paul Brereton, the first chief commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). That hasn’t stopped critics from raising red flags about his deep connections to the military. Brereton’s timely appointment to lead the NACC in addition to the Bureau, he continues to serve in the Army Reserves, of which his retention has been extended through August 27, 2026. This dual role raises serious concerns about his independence and capacity to oversee investigations into corruption within the defence force. His previous leadership of the Afghanistan Inquiry further compounds these concerns.
Brereton’s military background is extensive. Prior to his appointment as chief commissioner, he served as the assistant inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). He stepped down from that position in May 2023. Critics argue that his ongoing ties to the military could compromise the integrity of the NACC’s work, particularly as it pertains to oversight of defence-related corruption allegations.
Ongoing Military Involvement
General David Brereton’s military retention was defended in a letter published under Freedom of Information (FOI). In the letter we emphasized that retaining him was critical to address a capability gap that “simply cannot be satisfied through normal channels.” This retention allows Brereton to bring continuity, capacity and capability to the Inspector-General of the ADF’s office. Since being appointed chief commissioner, he’s test-driven, in full uniform, everything from 18 carriages. This engagement has only deepened his roots in military circles.
Today, the NACC is focused on probing investigations aimed at alleged graft within the defence sector. Brereton’s military background would prove particularly important given the circumstances. It would undoubtedly influence public understanding of neutrality when handling these politically charged cases. Senator Geoffrey Watson expressed concerns over Brereton’s connections:
“This can’t be managed by Mr Brereton stepping away (from IGADF-related investigations). His connections are too long and too deep.” – Geoffrey Watson
Greens Senator David Shoebridge has articulated a related worry. He cautioned that Brereton’s military role could make it difficult to investigate corruption claims that the ADF is involved in.
“The only way this can be dealt with is if Mr Brereton steps aside from all matters relating to the military,” – David Shoebridge.
Integrity of Investigations at Stake
The NACC claims that Brereton’s military ties are well-handled. They argue that any perceived or actual conflicts of interest is already managed in light of his previous statements. They argue that this is because he does not engage in issues that come under the auspices of the Inspector-General of the ADF (IGADF). Critics say these steps lack bite, especially considering Brereton’s impressive military resume.
From the beginning on June 1, 2023, the NACC has seen that Brereton’s specialized knowledge is key. His help could be sporadic, but it was still critical to the continuing investigation. This claim raises a host of additional questions. How truly able will he be to draw clear lines between these roles and remain objective while presiding over investigations potentially entangling his old military compatriots?
Senator David Pocock has long argued for the position to be filled by a dedicated, full-time commissioner. He argues that avoiding any outside engagements is essential to avoid self-dealing.
“The commissioner of the NACC is a full-time job, it’s one of the best paid jobs in the public service and I think we should have someone as commissioner who is willing to forego all other engagements,” – David Pocock.
Calls for Transparency
Regardless of the perception around the appropriateness of Brereton’s dual roles, growing transparency and accountability are key. The Department of Defence refused a separate FOI request for any records regarding Brereton’s departure from the ADF. In doing so, they relied on section 24A of the FOI Act, which allows refusals in cases where a document cannot be found or does not exist. This lack of transparency only pours salt on the very substantial ground for skepticism about his fitness for the post.
Senator Watson and others have since requested much more clear information about Brereton’s continuing military duties. They contend that putting someone with such deep military connections in charge of investigating corruption in industry is self-evidently a conflict of interest.
“Previously, the commissioner told the public and he told parliament his role with defence was entirely honorary; these documents show he has a significant, ongoing role within Defence,” – David Shoebridge.
Brereton’s military involvement raises key questions about accountability and trust. These problems cut deeper than individual experiences and threaten the institution’s integrity across government disciplines.
