Gail Furness, Inspector of the NACC, published a pre-determined judgment last week to protect NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton, the NACC Deputy Commissioners and other NACC staff from criminal charges of knowingly abusing their positions to protect Brereton’s friend Kathryn Campbell.

What Gail Furness has done is a crime in itself as she is guilty of trying to conceal the serious indictable offences committed by Paul Brereton and the others.

Former Federal Court of Australia judge Alan Robertson also has a lot of questions he needs to answer given he aided and abetted Gail Furness.

This article is a follow-up to my previous article titled “Inspector of the NACC Gail Furness SC breaks FOI laws and her office is run by the Attorney-General’s Department’.” (Click here to read the article)

The first key piece of evidence is the fact that Gail Furness limited Alan Robertson’s investigation to only Paul Brereton’s conduct. What about the others? Why were they protected?

The second key piece of evidence is there is no reasoning given why they found Paul Brereton’s conduct “is not unlawful” and a “mistake in law or fact” instead of more serious findings such as “is unlawful conduct”.

Judgments are there to keep judges honest and given there is no reasoning why Gail Furness and former judge Alan Robertson decided that Paul Brereton’s actions were only a “mistake” instead of “unlawful conduct” or other possible findings is scandalous.

Why Furness and Robertson don’t give reasons is very obvious. Because it is ridiculous to suggest that a former judge with 40 years legal experience like Paul Brereton made a mistake when a first-year law student would be expected to know better.

The third key piece of evidence is that the main complaint of the NACC corruptly refusing to investigate the 6 Robodebt referrals was never investigated. Because to investigate it fully, and hold NACC staff to account, you need to decide if the NACC should have investigated them.

Below is a video overview of this article. (Click here to watch the video on the Kangaroo Court of Australia YouTube channel)

Alan Robertson says in his report on pages 1 and 2, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8: (Click here to read the full report)

6. Specifically, I am engaged to review the material provided to the Inspector by the NACC,
   including the NACC’s submissions to the Inspector dated 13 August 2024, and to prepare a Report of my findings of fact in relation to the following:
   i. In light of the Commissioner’s declared conflict of interest, was the management
   option chosen appropriate and consistent with law?
   ii. Were the steps thereafter taken by the Commissioner consistent with the chosen
   management option and with law?
7. I am also engaged to advise the Inspector of my opinion as to whether the conduct I find to have occurred amounted to “officer misconduct” as defined in section 184(3) of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act.
8. I am not engaged to review the merits of the decision not to commence a corruption
   investigation.

Why did Gail Furness limit Alan Robertson to only investigate and make findings regarding Paul Brereton’s conduct? Why not the 3 Deputy Commissioners and the CEO etc who were up to their necks in the scandal? Because Furness and Robertson ran a protection racket is the only conclusion you can come to.

Why would Gail Furness spend big dollars hiring former judge Alan Robertson to make limited findings only in paragraph 7 above?

Gail Furness says on the top of page 14 of her report, “It needs to be emphasised that my role is not to conduct a review of the merits of the NACC decision. I can only investigate corrupt conduct of the NACC and complaints of agency maladministration or officer misconduct made in relation to the NACC or a staff member of the NACC.”

But Robertson could have easily given his opinion whether the Robodebt 6 investigation should take place and not deal with “the merits of the decision” by the NACC “not to commence a corruption investigation” into the Robodebt 6.

Knowing whether the Robodebt 6 investigation should take place is powerful circumstantial evidence that would help decide if Paul Brereton and others acted corruptly or not.

How can Gail Furness and Alan Robertson make a finding of “misconduct” against Paul Brereton yet the others who were involved have no finding made against them?

Background

Gail Furness had no choice but to find that Paul Brereton was guilty of misconduct because the NACC said Paul Brereton had recused himself from the matter.

But the NACC then admitted to The Guardian on the 15th of August 2024 that after Paul Brereton had recused himself from the matter:

Paul Brereton “retained visibility of significant steps taken” in relation to the Robodebt royal commission referrals, and “contributed his own views on some issues when requested or when he considered appropriate”. That is admission Paul Brereton had not recused himself.

Furness’ report confirmed the NACC’s admissions to The Gaudian and says,

I found that the NACC Commissioner’s involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive, before, during and after the 19 October 2023 meeting at which the substantive decision was made not to investigate the referrals.

The NACC Commissioner contributed to the discussion at that meeting, settled the minutes of that meeting and was involved in formulating the reasons for decision and also the terms of the media statement. (Click here to read more)

And as I said in a previous article, “Every lawyer in Australia would not be able to stop laughing if they read a judge recused himself but then “retained visibility of significant steps taken” in relation to the matter and “contributed his own views on some issues when requested or when he considered appropriate”. (Click here to read more)

So, anyone saying Gail Furness did a great job because of her findings against Paul Brereton fails to realise she had no choice, and they ignore her finding that Brereton made a “mistake” actually destroys her credibility. It doesn’t enhance it, as they would have you believe.

How the pre-determined judgment fraud worked

Gail Furness found Paul Brereton’s conduct was a mistake and she brought in former Federal Court judge Alan Robertson to try to give her pre-determined judgment some credibility.

In Gail Furness’ report she says Alan Robertson found Paul Brereton’s conduct was a mistake and she agrees as per below:

I concluded that the NACC Commissioner engaged in officer misconduct as defined in section 184(3) of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth) (NACC Act), being conduct that is not unlawful but arose from a mistake of law or fact.

These findings about the declared conflict of interest are based on advice provided by the Hon Alan Robertson SC, former Federal Court judge, whom I engaged to assist me. His advice is contained in the Robertson Report which is attached to this Report. (Click here to read the full report)

So, Gail Furness says her findings about Paul Brereton engaging in “officer misconduct” by “mistake of law or fact” is based on advice provided by the Hon Alan Robertson SC, former Federal Court judge”.

It is a lot of firepower to have a former federal court judge make findings like that which Gail Furness agreed.

On page 28, paragraph 116, Alan Robertson says: “The Commissioner’s conduct, if engaged in by the NACC, would have been agency maladministration as defined in section 184(3), being conduct that is not unlawful but arose from a mistake of law.”

But neither Gail Furness or Alan Robertson say in their reports why they settled on the NACC Act “section 184 (3) (b) (v) is not unlawful, but: arises, wholly or in part, from a mistake of law or fact;’

Furness and Robertson could have made other findings under section 184 such as (a) is unlawful conduct, or (b) (i) is corrupt conduct or (b) (iii) arises, wholly or in part, from improper motives.

But Furness and Robertson chose the weakest finding available, that it was a “mistake”.

Interestingly, the next section is “section 184 (3) (b) vi is conduct of a kind for which reasons should have, but have not, been given” which is exactly what I am accusing Gail Furness and Alan Robertson of being guilty of.

Closing arguments

Gail Furness brought in former judge Alan Robertson to give her judgment more credibility as she knew her judgment would lack credibility given she found it was a mistake.

Given the fact that Gail Furness and Alan Robertson both made such a stupid finding that Paul Brereton’s conduct was a “mistake”, and that neither gave reasons for their findings, shows there was a conspiracy between them.

Gail Furness, a barrister, and Alan Robertson, a former judge and barrister, are very experienced legal professionals and they both know they have to give reasons, and both failed to.

If Alan Robinson had failed to give reasons for his decisions when he was a Federal Court judge he would have been sacked.

What Furness didn’t say in her judgment is she muzzled Alan Robertson, and the only decision Robertson could make was in relation to Paul Brereton because, as per paragraphs 6 to 8 of Robertson’s report above, she made sure other NACC staff were safe from any adverse findings.

Gail Furness says at the end of her report “The Commission has accepted that the decision should be reconsidered by an appropriate person.” and the NACC issued a press release saying “The National Anti-Corruption Commission has decided to have an independent eminent person reconsider its decision not to investigate the Robodebt Royal Commission referrals.”

Yep, the NACC is going to find some corrupt clown to confirm they made the right decision not to investigate the Robodebt 6 which Gail Furness would know. She should have decided on someone to make the decision.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus didn’t set up a corrupt NACC to have it taken down by an honest gatekeeper. Make no mistake, Inspector of the NACC Gail Furness is just as corrupt as Paul Brereton and the others.

Neither Commissioner Paul Brereton nor any NACC staff were questioned under oath, nor cross-examined in the witness stand, nor did anyone sign any certified affidavits or witness statement regarding the matter.

To say Gail Furness and Alan Robertson fully investigated the matter is a joke. Imagine if the NACC operated that way with the alleged crooks they investigate, but then again, maybe they do.

Gail Furness needs to be sacked if she doesn’t resign, and Alan Robertson should be banned from any future government work.

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.