Federal corruption watchdog warns against NACC being ‘weaponised’

The head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has warned he will not tolerate attempts to weaponise unfounded referrals to the agency, stressing the watchdog will be fearless and independent, as it opened for its first full weekday of operations with 44 referrals on its books.

In his first public remarks as commissioner, Paul Brereton said it was a “historic moment” as the agency officially began work on Monday, saying it embodied the fact Australians were “no longer prepared to tolerate practices which might once have been the subject of, if not acceptance, at least acquiescence”.

He said the commission was aware the public had high expectations of it and was “watching expectantly”, as he confirmed the agency had received 44 referrals online and five telephone requests for callbacks within 48 hours since being launched on July 1.

Former NSW judge Paul Brereton is the head of the National Anti Corruption Commission.Credit: Edwina Pickles

But in a warning shot aimed at political parties and others who might seek to politicise the agency, Brereton made clear he would publicly call out inappropriate referrals.

“Should it be sought to ‘weaponise’ the commission through inappropriate or unfounded referrals, I will not hesitate to use the power to make public statements, if necessary, to avoid unfair damage to reputations and to say that the referral was inappropriate,” Brereton said.

The commission will focus on investigating potential serious or systemic corrupt conduct by Commonwealth public officials, including MPs, their staffers, public servants, and consultants and contractors working under Commonwealth contracts. Anyone can make a referral and the commission also has the power to initiate investigations.

Brereton, a former NSW judge who led the inquiry into alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan, said he wanted the agency to have the reputation of being “fearless but fair, independent, and impartial”. He said the commission was aware of a number of referrals canvassed in the media and would determine whether they merited an investigation.

But he emphasised that such a decision would foremost be guided by whether it would “add value in the public interest”.

“We will more likely be interested in investigating matters that have current practical relevance, rather than those that are historic,” Brereton said.

He laid out a series of relevant considerations that would guide the commission’s judgement, including whether other inquiries or investigations in the matter had occurred, and whether there was any real prospect of a finding of corrupt conduct. Some matters, he said, may warrant an investigation in order to “clear the air, even if there does not appear to be a significant prospect of a finding of corrupt conduct”.

The Greens have already declared a “top 10 wishlist” of matters they say they will refer to the watchdog over the coming weeks, including the former Morrison minister Stuart Robert’s dealings with consulting firm Synergy 360 and a raft of Coalition-era scandals, such as robodebt and sports rorts. Over the weekend, the party referred the PwC tax scandal.

Separately, the Coalition has also indicated it will refer the confidential settlement between former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins and the federal government.

Unlike the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, the federal watchdog must hold hearings in private unless the commissioner determines there are exceptional circumstances warranting public hearing, similar to the threshold applied by Victoria’s corruption agency.

The federal watchdog’s start coincides with a raging debate about the ICAC’s corruption findings against NSW former premier Gladys Berejiklian, which have outraged her supporters who have queried how the agency could determine she engaged in serious corrupt conduct while making no referral to prosecutors for criminal charges.

Brereton did not weigh into the NSW controversy, but said it was important to recognise under the federal watchdog conduct could be corrupt without being criminal, saying “we do not make findings of criminal guilt, to which different rules of evidence and proof apply”.

“If there is evidence of criminal conduct, we may refer it to a prosecuting agency. But it is precisely in the area where it may not be possible to establish criminal conduct to the high criminal standard of proof that the Commission’s work can be most important in enhancing integrity by investigating and exposing corrupt conduct, even where it cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court,” Brereton said.

He said the agency would aim to complete 90 per cent of investigations within 12 months, but he expected there would be some complex investigations that would take longer to establish the truth.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.