Our new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is already knee-deep in a very public spat between its leaders. Now they are arguing about Paul Brereton, head of the NACC, recusing himself from the decision. This conflict ignited after Brereton’s continued advisory role in an Afghanistan war crimes inquiry raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. That’s after the only NACC Inspector, Gail Furness, opened an investigation into Brereton’s military ties after two complaints filed against him.
In a recent appearance before the parliamentary committee, Brereton was taking lawmaker’s questions about the recent revelations. He promised them that he had gotten away from the investigation. During the NACC’s inaugural review, a highly competitive 400-page document, the NACC is on a deeper analysis process. This process will be “months, not weeks,” to complete. This complicated and distorting process gives even more intrigue to the continuing debates related to Brereton’s role.
Controversy Over Advisory Role
The flare-up over Brereton has continued ever since he first disclosed that he had provided an estimated 24 hours of voluntary consulting work to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This disclosure was made public while he was still continuing to run the NACC. Our original ABC report on October 22 detailed these red flags about what appear to be dangerous conflicts of interest created by his dual roles. This created obvious conflicts of interest concerns.
When confronted with opposition in the committee session, Brereton went to town defending his bill. If no one has named me or anyone associated with me, then there is no conflict and no reason to recuse myself. I just don’t think complete recusal is how you avoid conflicts while running an effective operation. His position, though, hasn’t been the only voice, even among the commissioners themselves.
We now have the key Deputy Commissioner Nicole Rose deeply worrying about the ramifications of Brereton’s persistent advisory work. A resident shared her thoughts in personal terms. She is adamant that the continuous counsel provided to the IGADF should have found its way to at least the senior executives of the commission. This demand for transparency sheds light on the growing discordance within the NACC. Members continue to fight over the best avenues for addressing these perceived conflicts of interest.
Diverging Opinions Among NACC Leadership
Inconsistency among NACC leaders soon manifested itself. Negative response from Deputy Commissioners Ben Gauntlet and Kylie Kilgour have pushed back against Brereton’s strategy. Gauntlet said that relentless pressure on Brereton’s dual role made the NACC this year’s full-time job. They issued the recusal decision because they were not allowed to do otherwise. As Rose agreed, “The public perception of conflict has become a problem for the agency.” The recusal — all of it — is fully what the commission needs to do.
Addressing the public’s concerns, Kilgour said, shows the agency is committed to maintaining its integrity. Perhaps most important, “It shows we’re listening and working to do our job,” she added. The diverging opinions among the commissioners reveal the challenges in navigating convening in a way that woos audiences on issues of public trust and accountability.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
As this internal conflict continues to play out, many have begun—rightfully—questioning Brereton’s future in his appointed role as head of the NACC. Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson made her opposition clear. She challenged him on taking the position while intending to keep one foot in advising his successor, the IGADF. Historical context The year-long scrutiny reflects the growing expectation in society for transparency and accountability from those in public office.
Brereton has previously complained of a campaign by his accusers. He suspects they might have ulterior motives bent on the desire to quash his recommendations for war crimes investigations. This claim makes a confusing scenario all the more convoluted. It calls into question what’s driving complaints and the chilling public relations impact they can have.
In light of these developments, Furness emphasized that senior executives within the NACC should have been informed about Brereton’s ongoing advisory role. This declaration of principles outlines the imperative for transparency, engagement and accountability in government. It implies that better communication might have avoided much of the ongoing turmoil.
