NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton gave a speech where he in effect defended the decision not to investigate the Robodebt 6, defended NACC’s secret hearings and seems to be under the delusion he is a James Bond type figure running a secret service.

Commissioner Paul Brereton was well aware that the NACC and himself were under investigation by the Inspector of the NACC when he gave the speech which makes me wonder if at least some parts of the speech were an attempt to influence the Inspector’s investigation.

The speech was given at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference in Darwin on the 31st of July 2024 but was not uploaded to the NACC’s website until the 5th of August 2024 which helps explain why it went almost unreported except for one article in the AFR.

I have read the speech and there are some nuggets of gold in it especially given Commissioner Paul Brereton lied about recusing himself from the Robodebt 6 decision which is now under investigation along with the NACC refusing to investigate the Robodebt 6.

The speech in on the NACC’s website (Click here to read) and I have saved it as a PDF so I can reference the pages as per below. (Click here to read the PDF version)

I have read the speech, highlighted the key parts as I see it and then given my comments below with the page numbers on my PDF version.

The Hon Paul Brereton AM RFD SC, National Anti-Corruption Commissioner, delivered this keynote address at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference. Darwin, Australia, 31 July 2024.

Published on the NACC website on the 5th of August 2024

Page 1

“Today, a day short of the thirteenth month since our inception, I’m first going to give an overview of our origins, mission, structure and jurisdiction. Some among you may already have heard this, but many have not, and I hope above all it may assist those who are, as we speak, embarking on establishing new anti-corruption commissions. Then, I’ll describe what we are seeing, and in general terms what we are doing; I’ll also address some of the issues that have arisen. Finally, I’ll elaborate what is presently the focus of our corruption prevention agenda: reinforcing ethical decision-making in the Commonwealth public sector.”

Page 2

Purpose and mission

The National Anti-Corruption Commission was established to provide “independent assurance to the people of Australia that corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials is prevented, detected, investigated, and responded to appropriately”. To generate that effect, we have adopted as our mission: “to enhance integrity in the Commonwealth public sector, by deterring, detecting, and preventing corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials, through education, monitoring, investigation, reporting and referral.” To achieve that mission, we have two main lines of operation:

• deterring corrupt conduct through detection, investigation and exposure; and
• preventing corrupt conduct through education and engagement.

My comment: The NACC has failed badly and is seen as a bad joke especially by members of the public who follow the NACC’s performance. The fact that the NACC in under investigation by the Inspector of the NACC for failing to investigate the Robodebt 6 is a huge public embarrassment to say the least.

Page 3

Corrupt conduct

“An abuse of office can be committed through the exercise of influence arising from the person’s public office or the use of information obtained in their capacity as a public official.”

My comment: I thought that part of the definition of corrupt conduct in Commissioner Brereton’s speech is highly relevant to Brereton lying about recusing himself from the Robodebt 6 decision.

Page 9

Our current strategic corruption priorities are:

• the Australian border
• complex procurements
• senior public official decision-making
• contractors and consultants
• the environmental sector
• corruption affecting vulnerable people.

There are three main domains in which we are seeing both perception and actuality of corrupt conduct. They are in the fields of procurement, recruitment and promotion, and at the interface of the public sector and the private sector. In all those areas, the perceived and actual mechanisms of corruption are typically (1) the preferring of family, friends and associates; and (2) the misuse of official information to gain an advantage. These mechanisms produce a subversion of the public decision-making process, to serve a private benefit. Almost invariably, they have their origin in a conflict of interest.

My comment: Once again Commissioner Brereton’s speech is highly relevant to Brereton lying about recusing himself from the Robodebt 6 decision especially where he says “These mechanisms produce a subversion of the public decision-making process, to serve a private benefit. Almost invariably, they have their origin in a conflict of interest.”

Paul Brereton has a close relationship with Kathryn Campbell and her husband John Brennan as I reported on the 23rd of June 2023 in an article titled “Kathryn Campbell’s Robodebt lies on video and her friendship with NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton” and on the 26th of July 2023 in an article titled “Governor-General David Hurley, his $18 million fraud and his mate NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton”. 

Page 11

Three pervasive themes provide the focus for our corruption prevention and education work.

The first is conflicts of interest: Everyone in public life will sometimes encounter situations where they may have a private material or personal interest or connection that is relevant to their public duty. Not every such situation results in corrupt conduct; most do not. Yet at the heart of almost every case of corruption is a conflict of interest, where someone prefers their own interest to the public interest. We will shortly issue guidance for public officials on identifying and declaring conflicts and managing them so that they do not infect the decision-making process.

The second is ethical decision-making, to which I shall return.

The third theme is corruption risks and vulnerabilities that are likely to arise in the context of an election, which is particularly relevant with a federal election due in less than a year. These include issues such as political donations and fundraising, government advertising, appointments, and pork-barrelling, particularly through grants schemes. Grants in particular have already attracted our interest and are a current focus of both our investigatory and prevention lines of operation.

My comment: It is like Commissioner Paul Brereton is prosecuting himself. For example where he says “at the heart of almost every case of corruption is a conflict of interest” which is exactly why Brereton is in a lot of trouble and he has to be sacked.

Page 11:

Transparency and secrecy

I turn now to some of the issues that have confronted us. Sometimes we hear complaints that people do not know what we are doing, and more especially who and what we are investigating. Such disclosure would not be expected of an intelligence agency and should not be expected of us.

My comment: The National Anti-Corruption Commission is arguably a quasi-judicial body, given it has hearing and makes findings, and should be bound by open justice like courts are and like the NSW ICAC is.

But Commissioner Paul Brereton says, “Such disclosure would not be expected of an intelligence agency and should not be expected of us”. Where does “intelligence agency” come from? Brereton is delusional.

Paul Brereton obviously regards himself as some sort of James Bond, but I think the public regard him more of a Maxwell Smart type figure.

NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton

Page 12

Our hearings are meant to be a means of gathering evidence and information; not a show trial from which many of the protections of a criminal trial are absent. Moreover, many witnesses are more comfortable – and give more helpful evidence – in private than in public.

My comment: Every day around the country people who have been accused, but not been found guilty, go to court to defend themselves and the media freely report on that because Australia has an open court judicial system.

Every week journalists will name a person of interest the police believe might have committed a crime and sometimes the journalists stick a camera in the person’s face asking them questions. 

But when it comes to politicians and political staffers it’s a whole new ball game the politicians and NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton tell us. Paul Brereton is a former judge, and he knows the law as per below:

“The High Court has said that “the rationale of the open court principle is that court proceedings should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle save in exceptional circumstances”.”

In Russell v Russell, Gibbs J said that it is the ‘ordinary rule’ of courts of Australia that their proceedings shall be conducted ‘publicly and in open view’; without public scrutiny, ‘abuses may flourish undetected’. (Click here to read more)

I published 2 articles in 2022 that exposed a key justification for the secret hearings is a lie that the government pushed. 

The first on the 9th of October 2022 titled “Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus cooks the books to justify secret hearings at the National Anti-Corruption Commission and video you won’t see at a Federal ICAC” (Click here to read the article) and the second on the 19th of October 2022 titled “NSW ICAC Commissioner John Hatzistergos exposes the lie being told by federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to justify secret hearings” (Click here to read the article)

Page 13

The decision–making process on referrals is ultimately made by our Senior Assessment Panel, in which I am advised by the three Deputy Commissioners, and the heads of our legal, operational, capabilities and evaluation branches.

My comment: That is important to understand as Commissioner Paul Brereton is the boss on decision making on all referrals and his lie about recusing himself was designed to make sure he secretly stayed the boss regarding the NACC’s decision not to investigate the Robodebt 6.

Page 14

Then, in deciding what we will investigate, we consider the prospects of whether an investigation will discover corrupt conduct – many referrals that on their face raise corruption issues contain allegations which are so fantastically conspiratorial as not to warrant further investigation.

Then we prioritise our efforts, usually according to the gravity, scale and egregiousness of the conduct, our strategic priorities, and above all whether and to what extent an investigation is likely to add value in the public interest.

For example, historical matters are less likely to add value in the public interest – so I have reluctantly declined to exercise my extraordinary powers to investigate the alleged conspiracy that resulted in the dismissal in 1975 of the Whitlam Government.

And where a matter has already been investigated and exposed in another forum, or another process can provide remedies that we cannot, it may not add value to conduct another investigation simply for the sake of characterising the conduct as corrupt. On the other hand, where other agencies might encounter obstacles in gaining access to information, our additional powers may be a reason for us to open an investigation.

Sometimes, the value may lie in “clearing the air”; a conclusion that there was not corrupt conduct, where there has been an allegation or perception of corruption, may assist in restoring public confidence and reputations. An important corollary of this is that just because we open an investigation does not mean that we necessarily think there is corruption to be found.

My comment: Commissioner Paul Brereton seems to be justifying not investigating matters more than justifying why the NACC should investigate. I wonder if he said some of the above with Robodebt in mind? I think the answer is below where he mentions Robodebt. 

Page 15

I explain integrity, for our purposes, as involving making decisions and giving advice honestly and impartially, on the evidence and the merits, in the public interest and without regard to personal interest; accepting responsibility for it, including for mistakes; and reporting honestly.

My comment: I have no doubt that Commissioner Paul Brereton had the Robodebt 6 referrals swept under the carpet because of his “personal interest” and the above shows he knows he breached his duty, if not the law.

Page 16

The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a guardrail institution, established in part to restore public trust in the Commonwealth public sector.

Recent controversies, such as Robodebt, have illuminated the challenges that can confront public servants in an environment where they are expected to be responsive to Government.

Rather than reinvestigating what has already been exposed, we are addressing this both through our prevention and education work, and through investigating similar types of behaviour elsewhere.

My comment: For NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton to mention Robodebt in a speech and then try to justify not investigating the Robodebt 6, while he knows the NACC and himself are under investigation for that very issue, is one of the most unethical things I have ever seen. 

Paul Brereton should not be saying a word about Robodebt until the Inspector’s investigation is complete.

I also published a short video on the latest NACC news on the 4/10/24 titled “Australian Parliament House raided by the NACC” as per below, which is relevant to the above article:

(Click here to watch the above video on the Kangaroo Court of Australia YouTube channel) 

Conclusion

Given it took the NACC 5 days from the 31st of July until the 5th of August to upload the speech to their website I wonder if it was edited by someone. That we will never know. But I suspect someone was worried about it’s content and for good reason given the points I made above.

If Commissioner Paul Brereton was charged for his attempt to cover-up the Robodebt 6 crimes his above speech could be used as evidence against him because it shows he knows the law but ignored it anyhow.

The chances of Commissioner Brereton being charged is zero because he will be protected, but the positive is Brereton will be a permanent reminder of how corrupt the NACC is as long as he is Commissioner.

Commissioner Paul Brereton must think if he keeps pushing through the media cycle people will forget and his job will be safe. I doubt it, and I expect the NACC to be a big issue at the federal election which is due within the next 6 months.

Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here

Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.