The Inspector of the NACC has received 90 complaints since 1 July. Most of these complaints concern the NACC Commissioner’s conflict of interests with Defence.

The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission admonished NACC boss Paul Brereton for not informing the NACC senior executive team of his advisory work with a defence watchdog.

NACC Inspector Gail Furness SC told this week’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC that she was not clear who knew about Brereton’s ongoing work for the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF).

Commissioner Brereton has been under fire over his consulting work with the IGADF after it was revealed that:

• he continued this work after declaring that he had resigned from the role;
• he said the work was infrequent, when it has occurred on at least 22 occasions; and
• he said it was always outside of NACC business hours, when in fact, on eight occasions, Brereton had provided advice to the IGADF during NACC business hours.

In a recent Senate estimates hearing, the NACC CEO Phillip Reid had to apologise to MPs for giving misleading evidence about Brereton’s consulting for the IGADF.

A spokesperson for the NACC told the ABC that Brereton had disclosed the advisory work to former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus.

However, in this week’s parliamentary hearing Furness said: “I don’t know who he told – from the CEO’s evidence he didn’t know… I don’t know if he told anyone else, because it hasn’t come out,” she said.

“He may have told the deputies, he may not have, don’t know if he told the current A-G. I don’t know who he told.”

Brereton formally disclosed his “ informal and voluntary” consulting work for the IGADF after the advisory work was revealed by the ABC and a month after he had already submitted his declaration for the year.

This is not the first time Inspector Furness has challenged Brereton’s evidence. At the first Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC, Furness had to twice correct evidence given by the nation’s top integrity official – regarding why the Robodebt Royal Commissioner had made referrals to the NACC; and about the legal advice given to Brereton by the NACC’s internal lawyers.

In his evidence to MPs, Brereton had dismissed as “highly speculative” the suggestion that the Robodebt referrals indicated a belief by Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes that corrupt conduct had potentially occurred.

Brereton said: “There is nothing in the referral to indicate that a view had been reached that there was corrupt conduct for us to look at.”

Inspector Furness corrected Brereton’s evidence. “If I could refer to my October 2024 report, in the introduction on page six … I quote from the Honourable Holmes what she said in her letter seeking an extension …  to provide the referral [to the NACC].

“It was in order to refer individuals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission should she reach the view their conduct may meet the definition of corrupt conduct under the NACC Act,” Furness said.

The second misleading statement pertained to NACC internal legal advice.

Commissioner Brereton had asked for advice “as to whether the conduct of the Referred Persons would come within the concept of corrupt conduct for the purposes of the Act”. The advice was that if the conduct was established against Referred Person 1, “in our view it would (lawyer’s emphasis) come within the concept of ‘corrupt conduct’ for the purposes of the Act”.

Commissioner Brereton cited that legal advice correctly to NACC colleagues at a meeting at which the Robodebt referrals were discussed in detail. However, in his evidence to parliament, Commissioner Brereton watered down the wording of the legal advice - from “would” to “could”.

“The legal advice that we obtained from our lawyers was to the effect that, if proved, the conduct could (my italics) fall within the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’”.

Inspector Furness again had to correct Brereton’s evidence. “I think the commissioner … indicated that the advice could (my italics) constitute corrupt conduct; the advice was that it would (my italics) constitute corrupt conduct. I refer you to Mr Robertson’s report at paragraph 56, where he quotes from that legal advice.”

In the same parliamentary hearing, Brereton also misled the committee about the nature of his relationship with one of the six Robodebt public officials referred to the NACC by Commissioner Holmes.

In documents that were released under Freedom of Information in August 2024, Brereton described that relationship as being a “close association” and that the person was “well known” to him. Yet in the parliamentary hearing, Brereton twice downplayed the relationship by describing the relationship as “professional”.

He stated: “I nonetheless recognised some might think my impartiality could be affected by my prior professional (my italics) association.

And: “I had to strike a balance between my responsibility as the leader and … avoiding the perception that my prior professional (my italics) relationship could affect the decision.”

However, as noted by Alan Robertson KC, who wrote a report for Inspector Furness’ review of the NACC’s initial decision not to investigate the Robodebt referrals, Brereton’s attempt to rewrite the nature of the relationship was “gloss”.

“The conflict [of interest] existed in the terms it was disclosed, rather than in the terms of the gloss (my italics) in [47b] of the NACC’s submission to the Inspector dated 13 August 2024,” Robertson wrote.

Brereton continues to keep Inspector Furness busy. She is currently examining two complaints relating to Brereton’s military links, including his continued IGADF work. One of these complaints was lodged by a former NACC employee. Furness said it would take “months” to review the documents related to these complaints.

When the NACC legislation included the role of an Inspector “to oversee the operations and conduct of the NACC to ensure it complies with the law and acts fairly”, who would have thought she would need to spend so much time investigating the behaviour of the NACC Commissioner?