Evidence to a parliamentary inquiry has raised serious questions about conflicts of interest and how they are being managed.

A little over a year ago, Pearls and Irritations published my article on conflicts of interest in the context of the Prime Minister accepting gifts of upgraded flights from Qantas and the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Justice Paul Brereton, appearing to lack judgement in failing to remove himself completely in a ‘Robodebt’ matter where he had a clear conflict of interest. I did not then imagine that it would become necessary to comment a second time on Justice Brereton’s blind spot – but because of his evidence before a Parliamentary inquiry last week, here we are.

The new conflict of interest scenario relates to referrals to the Anti-Corruption Commission of allegations of corruption involving our defence forces. The conflict arises because Brereton continues to provide consultative advice to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) on the Afghanistan war crimes inquiry and continues to serve in the defence force reserve. The conflict was specifically raised at the Parliamentary Inquiry.

The Inquiry was informed that Brereton had failed to inform senior executives at the Anti-Corruption Commission of his work with the ADF. In addition, the Inquiry learned that Brereton’s deputy commissioners disagreed with Brereton’s refusal to recuse himself from all corruption referrals involving the ADF. Reports of the hearings indicate that Brereton defended his position vigorously. One senator commented that his defence represented a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the nature of potential conflicts of interest. His vigorous defence may be difficult to comprehend without consideration of the unconscious forces in play in his thinking.

First some reminders. Conflicts of interest pervade community, political and commercial life and nobody can completely avoid them. Instead, all public figures need to be aware of their possibility and take care to identify them and minimise their potential impact. One place where we should all hope that conflicts of interest are appropriately handled is at the National Anti-Corruption Commission. To do otherwise puts at risk the reputation of the Commission and the trust that the public needs to have in its work.

As I wrote last year, the impact of our subconscious mind in situations of potential conflicts and biases is usually underestimated and indeed often denied. Even people with a tertiary education struggle to grasp that “unconscious” means precisely that – “unconscious”. Instead, many people seem to think as follows: “I am able to identify and be honest (at least to myself) about my conscious biases. Therefore, if a situation arises where an unconscious bias might be in play, I am confident that I will recognise it”.

The reality is that it is simply not possible to will your unconscious thinking into your conscious mind.

It has taken the leaders of the medical profession two or three decades to accept the overwhelming evidence that the promotional efforts of drug companies have profound impacts on the prescribing patterns of medical practitioners. Despite this progress, there remains a distinct lack of awareness that these impacts are unconscious. Thus, Justice Brereton is in good company when he too seems to be unaware of unconscious biases.

As a citizen deeply desirous of the success of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I have formed the view that for the good of the Commission, Justice Brereton should step down. If he is unwilling to consider this option, at the very least he should sever all links with our Armed Forces. If he respects the role and importance of the Commission, one or other action must follow. If not, our Government must request his resignation.