Weak efforts: the meekness of Australia’s anti-corruption body

Logo of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Australia) – Fair Use

The warning signs of the ineffectiveness of the Australian National Anti-Corruption Commission were there from the start. For example, the law that created this limits public hearings to “exceptional circumstances”, a reminder that authorities are not exactly happy to let the big rabble known as the public know how power works in Australia .

Then came the first big decision on June 6. The experts were in suspense. What would this body, charged with improving “integrity in the Commonwealth public sector by deterring, detecting and preventing corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials” do in relation to the referral of six Royal Government officials? Commission to the Robodebt Scheme? After all, the mentally crushing automated debt assessment and recovery program had been responsible for using, in the words of the Commission report, “a patently unreliable methodology such as income averaging, without other evidence, to determine benefit eligibility.” From its inception as a pilot program in 2015 to its completion in May 2020, a reign of bureaucratic terror was imposed on vulnerable Australians.

The response from Australia’s newly formed body was one of stern indifference. While the NACC was aware of the impact of the scheme “on individuals and the public, the seniority of the officials involved and the need to ensure that any corruption matter is fully investigated”, the commission was of the opinion that “the conduct of the six government officials in connection with the Robodebt Scheme has already been fully investigated by the Robodebt Royal Commission and discussed in detail in its final report.”

In other words, there would be no consequences for the individuals in question, no public disclosure of their misdeeds, no sense of satisfaction for the victims of the scheme that their damage had actually been repaired. By refusing to act on the referrals, the NACC had, in the words of former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC, now chairman of the Center for Public Integrity, “betrayed a core obligation and failed to fulfill its primary duty. ”

An absurd spectacle followed. The NACC’s inspector, Gail Furness, was called in quite early in her term to investigate the entity set up to expose mismanagement and corrupt behavior, after receiving 900 complaints about the alleged corrupt behavior of the NACC itself. In the mess of not pursuing the Robodesbt officials, it also emerged that Commissioner Paul Brereton had delegated the process rather than recusing himself due to a conflict of interest. However, by merely delegating the role of making the final decision to a deputy commissioner, Brereton had not completely ruled out his part in the drama.

Two recent incidents confirm how the NACC must function (poorly) – at least in the eyes of Canberra’s secrecy-drugged political establishment. Far from effective, the body’s role is meant to be impotently symbolic, an annexation of the corruption consensus rotting in the center of the capital.

The first came in the failed attempts by Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie to introduce an amendment directing the NACC Commissioner to hold public hearings if he was “satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so ‘. As Pocock explained to the Senate, the committee process to investigate the NACC Act “uncovered evidence from state integrity commission commissioners that… there should be a presumption regarding holding public hearings.” The current legislation, as framed by Labor and the Coalition, is designed “in a way that we have no real oversight of what happens in the NACC.” And that is exactly how that same unholy alliance hoped things would continue, with both Labor and the Liberal-Nationals rejecting the amendment.

Justifying this cowardly move, Labor Senator and Minister for Employment and Employment Relations Murray Watt feebly argued that the “right balance” between holding public hearings and whether they would “enhance criminal prosecution, reputation, security, privacy, could harm welfare or confidentiality” was affected. Any attentive student of secrecy in politics will be aware that any balance between public interests and exceptional circumstances will always favor the path of least transparency. In Australia, public interest tests are almost always read to favor opacity over openness.

In keeping with the disease of closed power, the second issue concerned revelations by the NACC about certain operational details relating to Operation Bannister. The investigation was launched to investigate whether a Home Office employee’s “familial links” to contracted service provider and Paladin founder Craig Thrupp had caused corruption.

Paladin Holdings has profited heavily from Australian taxpayers, raking in more than half a billion dollars between 2017 and 2019 to manage the brutal detention center on Manus Island. The senior executive in question, pseudonymised as Anne Brown, received $194,701.10 from Paladin for “management and advice.” services” in 2017. The money was transferred to her mortgage account to enable full repayment, although she denied doing any work for Paladin or helping them tender to Home Affairs to win the contract.

Browne’s partner, the retired Home Office director pseudonymised as Carl Delaney, directly helped Paladin win the lucrative tender. He joined Paladin’s board of directors in 2019 and was compensated $5,000 for his efforts.

Thrupp also purchased another apartment for Brown and Delaney in the same complex worth $920,000, along with associated furnishings. Two months later, it was rented back to Paladin for $1,000 a week, but ultimately sold in 2020, with Brown and Delaney pocketing the proceeds.

The question under consideration was whether Brown’s failure to disclose the above events (she believed she was not required to do so as of April 2018, when she was on extended leave awaiting retirement) had affected her eligibility to have a security clearance. These include the evolving nature of her relationship with Delaney and the money and property Thrupp gave them. Even Commissioner Brereton acknowledged that “she should at least have known that at least her relationship with Delaney should have been reported,” although she inexplicably found that the secrecy was “understandable” and not the result of malice, dishonesty or corruption.

The investigation initially began as a joint investigation between the Australian Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) and the Department of Home Affairs. Then, from July 1, 2023, it was the NACC’s job to wrap things up. Commissioner Brereton’s report was released on October 9. The allegation that Brown abused her position as an Internal Affairs employee “to dishonestly obtain benefits for herself or to help Paladin secure the garrison services contract is unsubstantiated.” She had failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest between herself and Thrupp (“a close family member”) and her partner Delaney, in their links with Paladin, “in accordance with Home Office procedures”.

The report finds Brown’s failure to report the “change in her circumstances to Home Affairs and AGSVA (Australian Government Security Vetting Agency)” to be unremarkable as this “does not appear to have been intentional”. Failure to do so was insufficient to “bring it to the attention of the head of the relevant agency.”

For a body that offered so much promise, the NACC has failed to make an impact. Rather than rebuilding trust in the public sector and politics, the Commission has shown a lack of willingness to pursue its broader mission, preferring prohibitive caution. The status quo clearly remains intact.