Posts

Australians Deserve a Regulator Beyond Reproach

,

I welcomed the ACCC’s decision to oppose the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group – and pushed hard on a bigger issue: the revolving door between regulators and major law firms.

I raised recent examples of senior ACCC figures moving straight into firms with competition clients, stressing that, even with separation deeds, the perception and potential for insider advantage remain.

Australians deserve a regulator beyond reproach, and senior officials shouldn’t be able to jump straight into the industries they once oversaw.

It’s time to restore integrity and end the cosy pipeline.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a pleasure.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was intriguing hearing some of your comments in answer to Senator Sharma—taking on Apple and mentioning Apple Pay and some of your other comments. I just use cash, because governments have been trying to get rid of cash, so we have to protect it. Anyway, it was very brave, so thank you for your refreshing comments. I’m going to start with a compliment, actually. In October, we discussed the growing concentration in the ownership of insurance companies. You mentioned you were reviewing the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group. I note that, on 11 December, the ACCC announced the takeover had been opposed on the basis of a reduction in competition. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to say on that. I hope this is the start of the end of market concentration in insurance.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It was based upon a careful analysis of the market conditions in Western Australia. It is possible that transaction will be brought back to us under the mandatory merger notification regime. The parties did foreshadow that when we announced the opposition under the informal regime. So it may be reassessed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tonight’s line of questioning is about a potential revolving door of staff between the ACCC and private legal firms. Are there restrictions on someone who is on the ACCC payroll, especially the executive, leaving and immediately taking a position in the business they may have just been regulating at ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We require the entry into a separation deed that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: They enter into an agreement with the ACCC, which is a binding, enforceable agreement, to firstly preserve the confidentiality of the information that has been received and also to continue to observe obligations that applied under the employment in relation to conflict of interest. We did, in one case, specify a period of required leave before employment could be taken up in a private law firm, but we look at that question—beyond the general obligations in relation to conflict of interest and preservation of confidential information—on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is signing that deed a requirement that the prospective employee must agree to before signing up?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. Employees are obliged to do so, and commissioners enter into a code which, during the term, obliges us to comply with all statutory obligations and legal obligations and also to enter into that separation agreement upon leaving.  

Senator ROBERTS: That relies on trust. It would be very difficult to enforce it, because you don’t know what’s happening in the new employer’s offices.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have some observation because we see who comes before us. But, yes, we do not know what is being said.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Financial Review has reported on this topic, and I’m considering legislation to stop politicians and senior bureaucrats leaving and going to work for a company they were just regulating. This practice is too commonplace. ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver—is that how you pronounce her name?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: She left in May 2025, halfway through her term, and went to work for Herbert Smith Freehills. Is that correct?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you address this move at the time, in respect of the perception—and I’m sure this was a false perception—that HSF bought off an effective commissioner with a large job offer?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I think that is an incorrect perception, and Ms Carver did sign a separation agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner Carver was the enforcement committee chair for the 2023-24 ACCC prosecution of BINGO bins. BINGO bins were represented by Herbert Smith Freehills. Bingo lost and were fined $30 million. In the Sigma Healthcare and Chemist Warehouse merger—  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Sorry; just one moment. I should note that, to my knowledge, though it was resolved before I became chair, Ms McDonald would know Miss Carver was conflicted and did not participate in the consideration of BINGO matters when she came to the ACCC. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. In the Sigma Healthcare—Chemist Warehouse merger, Carver as deputy chair of the Mergers Review Committee participated in merger assessments in that period. The merger was approved in November 2024. Herbert Smith Freehills advised Chemist Warehouse—I’m not suggesting misconduct in any way by any party, but I am saying the capacity for corruption exists in these arrangements. I think you’re acknowledging that.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have a very clear and very strict conflict policy. Commissioners are required to disclose conflicts of all work that has been done, if they have been in private practice when they join the ACCC, that results, depending upon the extent of the seniority. If it’s a one-off transaction, it’s at one end of the spectrum; if it’s continued advising, it’s at another. If at the continued-advising level, that person will be conflicted and not have involvement in matters for that company for a number of years while at the ACCC. But, if a clear disclosure is given, the chair receives advice on it from our general counsel and our CEO, and I then take a recommendation to the commission, and we decide and record in a register the treatment of that conflict. So we take that very seriously. Frequently, for the initial period, when commissioners join, if they have been in private practice, they will be absented from a number of matters. They leave meetings, they don’t participate at all in the deliberations, they don’t receive papers, and they do not then participate in decision-making.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, I didn’t think of that, but there are potential conflicts entering ACCC as well as departing from ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There are. There is an objective to bring in highly skilled and experienced people. We have many highly skilled and experienced people who have worked in the public service throughout their career, and they are significant—they are the majority of contributors in the ACCC, there is no doubt—but we also bring in and are keen to attract appropriate people with skill levels, and that requires careful management.  

Senator ROBERTS: I suppose it’s small, but there may be some people who want to get into ACCC so they can get out again later and use their contacts. It’s always a possibility.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a possibility. We do seek through our legal arrangements in the separation deed to manage this, but it’s a possibility.  

Senator ROBERTS: Jennifer Barron was promoted to general counsel for merger reform in early 2025—this is my last question—with a major task on the books: preparation for merger law changes. In late April 2025, King & Wood Mallesons announced her appointment as a partner in their national competition team in Sydney, a team which does merger cases. The law says this person can’t use direct knowledge of an upcoming event at the new company, but they can use any other insider information to make themselves a valuable new employee. Is there anything being done about that?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Ms Barron also entered into an agreement undertaking ongoing obligations to preserve confidential information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: My pleasure.

/0 Comments/by

Holding the Powerful Accountable

,

In Senate estimates, I asked questions about the Brereton Afghanistan inquiry and its implications for integrity in public office. When Mr Brereton wrote his report, he declared that command responsibility for alleged war crimes did not extend to senior officers or headquarters. That raises serious concerns.

I pressed officials on whether Mr Brereton had close associations with those officers and whether this pattern of judgment affects his fitness to lead the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The response confirmed that while his association was professional, he continued to provide advice on the inquiry—even after becoming commissioner.

Australians deserve confidence that those tasked with fighting corruption are beyond reproach. Transparency and accountability are not optional—they are essential.

What do you think? Should prior involvement in controversial inquiries disqualify someone from heading an anti-corruption body?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: When Mr Brereton wrote his Afghanistan inquiry report he declared that command responsibility and accountability for war crime allegations does not extend to senior officers and headquarters, joint taskforce 633 and the joint operations centre. Did he know any of those officers well, or did he have a close association with any of those officers?

Mr Reed: That report was produced before the National Anti-Corruption Commission began and therefore—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to—

Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to be able to tell you about—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?

Mr Reed: I can’t advise you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?

Mr Reed: No, I don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to ask Mr Brereton, please?

Mr Reed: I’m not sure. Is it relevant?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, because it’s going to the commissioner’s fitness for the job of heading up the NACC and establishing whether there’s a pattern of behaviour here. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, from what I can tell.

Mr Reed: I’ll pass to my colleague Rebekah O’Meagher.

Ms O’Meagher: Thank you, Philip. If it assists, in terms of the previous line of questioning, the commissioner has put it on the record that, in terms of that association, it was a professional one, not a friendship. It was a historic—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that.

Ms O’Meagher: professional association. As to the reasoning of how that error of judgement occurred, those referrals came to us in the third day of our operation as the commission, and the commissioner has explained that he maintained involvement—not decision-making but involvement—because it raised issues in terms of the breadth of corrupt conduct under the act. That was the reasoning. He declared what the conflict was on multiple occasions. He stated how he was going to manage it. And another deputy was the decision-maker for the referrals.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC received any referrals or complaints in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry that Mr Brereton conducted?

Mr Reed: It’s not something I’m going to be able to answer here.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice please?

Mr Reed: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Has Mr Brereton recused himself from the complaints against the Afghanistan inquiry, or does he need the inspector-general to tell him to do that again?

Ms O’Meagher: The commissioner has stated that he will recuse himself, and he has recused himself, from all matters involving that IGADF.

Senator ROBERTS: Has he continued to provide advice to the inspector-general of the ADF on the Brereton report? He has, hasn’t he?

Mr Reed: That’s what we were talking about earlier—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Mr Reed: and the answer is yes. But it was advice, not regular or structured but infrequent.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm, Mr Reed, if there have been any complaints to the NACC about the Brereton report? He’s not advising the NACC?

Mr Reed: If it was a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the IGADF—

Senator ROBERTS: And the Brereton report.

Mr Reed: he would recuse himself from that matter.

/by

Wrap up of the National Anti Corruption Commission

The National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) has passed Parliament and will be established next year.

So what’s covered by the NACC and what is One Nation’s view on these issues? I spoke on this in Parliament this week.

Something to tackle corruption is long overdue, we’re looking forward to having this body up and running and fine tuning it so that corruption is punished.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Shoddy governance is Australia’s greatest problem and biggest threat. The absence of data in making policies and legislation—some parties go to great lengths to avoid data and substitute emotion. That is partly corruption, but this bill that we are discussing today goes to real corruption, illegal corruption.

Initially I thought parliament contained the procedures for self-accountability. After two years, I realised I was wrong. Then I started participating enthusiastically in presentations and discussions in this building and outside, around a national crime and corruption commission. I thank that many people I listened to—lawyers, judges, former judges and everyday Australians concerned about corruption. I appreciate the conversations that I had with former senator Bill Heffernan. I realised when I spoke out about the fact that we need to have a commission in place to provide oversight of four main groups: federal members of parliament, federal bureaucrats and public servants, federal judges and federal police.

Now I turn to the government’s proposal. For too long corruption in government has been almost impossible to deal with because current protections are totally inadequate. Each state has a body to deal with corruption at the state level of government. All the state bodies, however, face jurisdictional and evidential hurdles. Whistleblower protections, particularly for private-sector whistleblowers, have failed to provide assumed protections. In recent years, many whistleblowers have had their lives and/or careers publicly and privately trashed—destroyed. Some have faced criminal charges or been destroyed financially through civil actions.

Integrity as an expected attribute of those in public office has been invisible and left to chance. That lack of integrity destroys the people’s trust in the governance of this country. This bill, when passed with appropriate amendments, will go a long way towards setting up a workable scheme, ensuring that integrity becomes a fundamental feature of our legislative and executive arms of government.

To get this bill right, a number of issues need to be addressed through internal or external amendment. One thing this bill does not address is third-party corrupt conduct, where the person being dealt with is an otherwise innocent public official dragged unknowingly into a circle of corruption. This is a scenario included within the jurisdictions of most state anticorruption bodies, except those of Tasmania and Western Australia. To be comprehensive, the bill must include this scenario to ensure that corruption, even involving innocent public officers, can still be investigated for corruption.

It’s important to understand that this bill is not designed to be purely or only punitive. It’s much more than that. It’s designed to get to the root cause of corrupt processes, practices and systems, to rectify, eliminate and prevent corruption and to systematically do that and systematically prevent corruption. This provision will assist in identifying relationships vulnerable to abuse and exploitation so that processes may be introduced to provide effective risk management, oversight and accountability. This will be an alternative to relying on the ability to satisfy the restrictive requirements of proving crime beyond reasonable doubt. That’s highly restrictive. We need better than that. Another power that should be clarified in the bill is the commission’s power to commence investigation of its own volition, without being reliant on external referrals from other agencies and individuals. This clarification would ensure that the source of complaints or information did not limit the full ambit of justification for investigations.

The issue of public hearings has challenged those in favour generally of establishing this commission. It has been suggested that holding public hearings may expose a person to vilification of their reputation, and potentially there may be insufficient evidence to establish an offence. People are worried that this will be used as a mechanism to turn into unjustifiable political witch-hunts, as we’ve seen in some of the states. This was one of my concerns, and it was the reason for my rejection of the bill in its earlier form. To address this, the bill indicates that hearings may be held in private unless the commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances—exceptional circumstances, as it says in the bill—justify holding the hearing in public and it’s in the public interest to do so. The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’, if included in the bill, would make it virtually impossible to hold public hearings, as it would require a court to determine whether circumstances are in fact exceptional. That’s a lawyer fest for sure. The removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances is essential, and there are proposed amendments before the Senate that will fix this problem. I support these amendments. It would be appropriate that, if a public hearing were held, the commissioner or a deputy commissioner preside, because they are legally qualified to deal with the more obvious legal issues.

Another concern raised with me is the composition of the proposed parliamentary joint committee, where the chair is required to be a member of the government. This raises questions on the independence of the joint committee. A better solution may be that the chair should not be a member of a political party forming government or should at least be a person enjoying bipartisan support of the committee. It’s important that an extensive whistleblower protection authority be established to ensure protection for genuine disclosures. The government assures me that the introduction of such an authority is imminent and an essential supportive element of this bill’s operation.

Next, I raise what Senator Bill Heffernan has raised with me in extensive personal discussions, as well as senior judges and practitioners of the law. What’s missing from this bill is the jurisdiction to overview the misconduct and actions of the judiciary. This option is desperately needed, and there is information showing that this jurisdiction has been overlooked for far too long. It needs to be included—it must be included. It would be welcome to think that our judges are all free from human weaknesses, but they’re human. In practice, it’s not a realistic conclusion that they are free from human weaknesses. Judges are human and susceptible to the human frailties that may lead to misconduct in their offices. We know that. The judiciary must have a mechanism that provides independent review of the conduct of its members.

I look forward to the development of a bill to cover judges and senior police and associated amendments to strengthen the safeguards designed to protect our society from evildoers hiding behind public office—a bill the government has flagged with us. The Australian public deserves protection and reassurance. The people deserve integrity. To be effective, government must be trusted. We do not have trust in governance at the moment, but that’s what we need. We have one flag above this building, one flag for the nation. We are one community. We are one nation. And we support the integrity of our political representatives and public officers whose duty is one of service to the people.

/1 Comment/by