Take note of history or politicians risk becoming NACC scalp

NACC commissioner Paul Brereton in Canberra on Monday. Picture: AAP

The history of anti-corruption commissions suggests that the first people to fall foul of them usually belong to the governments that established them.

Former NSW Liberal premier Nick Greiner knows this only too well.

It is a cautionary tale the Albanese government should bear in mind if Labor thinks it might want to use the newly established NACC as a clearing house for settling political scores with the Coalition over its time in office. And vice-versa.

It never ends well for either side as the NSW ICAC has long demonstrated. But usually, it starts with the creators.

Yet only a fool would conclude that politicians are capable of learning the lessons of history. So far it seems, the bulk of the referrals to the anti-corruption commission have come from politicians against politicians.

Commissioner Paul Brereton could not have been more explicit about how he is going to approach this politicisation of the powerful mandate that he has been granted – by politicians.

“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,” he said.

The NACC would concern itself with cases that were current and contemporary more so than the historical. And it will be less persuaded by members of political parties who make the referrals. One can only conclude that Brereton was referring to the 44 complaints already made to the commission since its doors opened on Saturday.

Brereton appeared to be inserting an unwritten clause into the commission’s functions that suggests it will be casting a keen eye over the motivations behind some of the referrals that have come and will inevitably come his way.

In other words, the tolerance for the NACC to be used as a forum for political advantage will be seriously checked.

This should be interpreted as a reassuring statement from a commissioner. While the conduct of politicians was obviously in the scope, there are only 227 of them.

And while Brereton acknowledges they are obviously in the scope, it was the conduct of the federal public service that employs more than 360,000 people across the country that would be in sharper focus.

But he has also left open a broad scope for a vaguer interpretation. He sees his mandate as one delivered by the “people of the commonwealth” who he says are “no longer prepared to tolerate practices which might once have been the subject of, if not acceptance, at least acquiescence”.

What sort of practices is he referring to? The behaviour of the political class, rather than criminality of public servants, was the charioteer of this invention.

“Much of the public debate has been concerned with parliamentarians, but the commission will also be concerned with corrupt conduct involving public servants, individuals engaged in assisting commonwealth agencies, consultants, and contracted service providers under commonwealth contracts,” he says.

Whether he intended to or not, Brereton offers a contradiction in the explanation of why the NACC was created in the first place, the inspiration for its purpose, and the legislative function it will serve.

Nevertheless, Brereton has made it clear that he is in the job for only five years, the government can’t get rid of him, and he is after scalps.