By Olivia Ireland
A senior public servant corruptly promoted her sister’s fiance to his “dream job” then joked about overruling her subordinates to make the role happen in private messages uncovered by the National Anti-Corruption Commission in its first completed investigation.
The investigation found the public servant abused her office by promoting her sister’s fiance as a candidate for a position in the department, praising him to colleagues, creating the job requisition, approving it herself and forging a signature to fast-track onboarding.
An official from the Department of Home Affairs was found to have engaged in corrupt conduct by getting her sister’s fiance a promotion and lying about how the pair knew each other.Credit: Matthew Absalom-Wong
The official did this “while deliberately concealing the family relationship”, amounting to “corrupt conduct” overall. In a separate incident, the official — who the commission referred to by the pseudonym “Joanne Simeson” — allegedly provided job interview questions to her sister in advance.
Commissioner Paul Brereton said in his report published on Monday, which is the commission’s first completed from start to finish, that he would have recommended sacking the official but she had already resigned.
Simeson exchanged a series of texts with her sister, who the commission called “Melissa Simeson”, about employing her soon-to-be brother-in-law, called “Mark Elbert”.
Melissa was the sports co-ordinator of the AIS European Training Centre in Italy from April 2022 to December 2024. Elbert accompanied her to Italy while on leave from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and spent his time studying.
In December 2022, Joanne messaged Melissa for a copy of Elbert’s CV for a potential job in Home Affairs.
In this exchange, Joanne said the assistant secretary was keen to meet Elbert, and then “we’ll talk [Mark] through the lie”, to which Melissa responded, “he’s so bad at lying he’s too honest”.
Joanne replied: “well he’s gonna have to do better or I’ll get in trouble”. Melissa responded, “yes good say that and scare him haha”.
Elbert did not proceed with the role because he was studying. Then, in March 2023, Joanne put Elbert forward for another role that Melissa said was his “dream role”.
During the application process, a staff member enquired how Elbert was on Joanne’s radar, as “his CV alone does not make him an obvious choice”.
Joanne responded by saying he was a friend of a friend. At around the time she sent the email, Joanne wrote to Melissa that she had copied Elbert into an email.
“I told them I knew [him] through a friend. Technically not not [sic] true he just needs to play along! Also I’m the boss so they will do whatever I say,” she wrote.
Joanne then wrote to Melissa again to reinforce that Elbert should not mention the family connection and suggested how he presented himself. “Make sure [he] sells his ability to write briefs. Pick up subjects quickly. Good team member. Loves international work. Able to work across time zones. You are not my sister. He cannot say our surname. Or where you work.”
“The lying is not his strong suit but we will just properly brief him,” her sister responded.
When asked by the commission about these messages, Joanne said it was “a poor judgment call” that was “a joke between two sisters”.
Another staff member involved in the recruitment was so surprised by Joanne’s personal interest in the process “for this dude in Italy”, including by personally handwriting recruitment forms, that she became worried she was underperforming.
After Elbert got the job at Home Affairs, Melissa and Joanne exchanged text messages discussing the pressure he felt to “be good” for Joanne.
Joanne also wrote: “HAHAHAHAHA I JUST WENT TO HUG HIM THANK GOD HE STUCK HIS HAND OUT [FIRST]”.
Melissa replied: “GAHAHAHAH … What a good boy he’s such a good boy”.
Elbert gave evidence that he would not have applied if he had been aware of the rules around the position or how it would be seen. He told the commission he believed Joanne was “sticking her neck out” for him only by vouching for his competence. Neither Elbert nor his partner were found to have engaged in corrupt conduct.
Anthony Whealy KC, a former judge who lobbied for the creation of a strong federal anti-corruption commission, said the organisation’s decision not to hold public hearings or refer to the people involved by their real names created a dangerous precedent.
“The fact that they don’t name the person who’s been involved in the corrupt conduct sets an even more dangerous precedent because the whole purpose of making a public report is to expose corruption,” said Whealy, who is now a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity.
Whealy said the commission’s justification for refusing to use real names, which included a claim that pseudonyms delivered enough accountability and avoided the risk of identifying witnesses, was a “hollow” excuse because integrity organisations around the country name people involved.
“It doesn’t matter [if] the witnesses’ names are revealed before or after a prosecution, it’s never been a proper basis for not naming someone,” he said.
The Department of Home Affairs has faced repeated controversies about its internal practices, including multiple critical reports from figures such as former spy agency chief Dennis Richardson and the Auditor-General.
A department of Home Affairs spokesperson said staff feeling comfortable to speak out was proof of strong internal reporting channels. The department had received an internal complaint about Elbert’s recruitment, which it investigated and referred to the commission.
“The department assisted the NACC throughout the investigation and has accepted the recommendations in the report,” the departmental spokesperson said. “The investigation did not find that any other individual had engaged in corrupt conduct.”
The NACC has also been embroiled in controversy after its oversight body found NACC commissioner Paul Brereton engaged in “officer misconduct” after he mistakenly failed to remove himself entirely from deliberations about whether to take up the six referrals from the robo-debt royal commission, after he disclosed a conflict of interest.
The NACC originally decided not to investigate the six referrals. However, in a major backflip in February, it began an investigation.
The NACC declined to comment.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.