Posts

The NACC: Big Budget, Small Results

,

Since its inception in July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has spent over $140 million of taxpayer money. Yet, despite having more powers and more staff than its predecessor, the results so far are underwhelming: just one conviction, two simple investigations, and ten historical cases carried over from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. That’s a staggering cost for such limited outcomes.

I acknowledge that corruption investigations are complex and take time—but Australians deserve transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums are being spent. The fact that the Commissioner won’t front up to answer questions only raises more concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used, and I’ll keep asking the hard questions until we get the answers.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Since being established in July 2023, the NACC has spent north of $140 million of taxpayer funds. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with more powers and more staff this time, the NACC has concluded one prosecution, 10 historical investigations from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, two NACC initiated simple investigations, with one conviction—is that correct? 

Mr Reed: At the moment— 

Senator ROBERTS: One hundred and forty million. 

Mr Reed: the commission has 38 corruption investigations underway, and 12 of those are joint investigations. We’ve got 33 preliminary investigations, which are part of the assessment process. We finalised 10 investigations, nine when it became clear that corrupt conduct would not be found and one where a corruption finding was made in a report provided to the minister, which is one of the matters that I put in my opening address. We’ve assessed 5,103 referrals. That’s 84 per cent of the 6,055 that have come in. So the NACC is a very busy organisation. The investigations of corrupt conduct are complex. They take time, and any organisation like this will take more than two years, usually, to complete investigations. What I said in my opening address was that, as the commission enters this next phase—this third year of operations—complex investigations will reach completion, and the commission’s operational achievements will gradually become more visible. That’s the reality of a new organisation picking up a significant workload, picking up a workload from a predecessor organisation and having to complete that work at the same time as dealing with the referrals that have come through. It’s not a straightforward, simple exercise, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. 

Mr Reed: These are complex matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: But $140 million in two years, plus a commissioner who won’t front and be held accountable to taxpayers, raises many questions. 

Mr Reed: The annual appropriations are on the record. They were agreed to as part of the forward estimates before the NACC commenced. We’re still recruiting people into roles. The fact that the commissioner is not here is not a lack of accountability; it’s the accountable authority that you’ve got sitting in this chair, and it’s the accountable authority who is expected to be at estimates. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with the commissioner not being here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/1 Comment/by

When Conflicts Aren’t Managed, Trust is Lost

,

During my time with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in Senate estimates, I raised serious concerns about the handling of the Robodebt referral. The inspector’s report revealed that Commissioner Brereton declared a conflict of interest because he knew one of the individuals involved—yet despite that, his involvement in the decision-making was extensive.

The inspector found maladministration under the NACC Act. Mr Brereton contributed to discussions, settled meeting minutes, helped formulate reasons for the decision, and even shaped the media statement. That’s not how a conflict of interest should be managed. To make matters worse, the press release contained a false statement about investigative powers—an error acknowledged by the commission. For a former Supreme Court appeals judge, that’s a serious mistake. This isn’t about one error; it’s about trust.

Australians need confidence that the NACC operates with integrity and independence. When conflicts of interest aren’t properly managed, that confidence is undermined.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In relation to the robodebt referral, Mr Brereton declared that one of the people who was subject to the decision not to investigate was a person he knew well.

Mr Reed: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Where did he know this person from?

Mr Reed: The letter that was tabled here didn’t identify that person’s name. The inspector has investigated that matter, and her report was produced on 30 October last year. It goes into a reasonable amount of detail about how that conflict of interest was managed, and it made a finding of maladministration against the commissioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Maladministration?

Mr Reed: That’s correct, under the NACC Act.

Senator ROBERTS: Despite declaring the conflict of interest, his involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive. That’s what the inspector said.

Mr Reed: That’s what the inspector found.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m now quoting the inspector, who said Mr Brereton contributed to the discussion at that meeting, settled the minutes of that meeting and was involved in formulating the reasons for the decision and also the terms of the media statement.

Mr Reed: And all of those facts are on the record in the inspector’s report.

Senator ROBERTS: And the decision to not investigate someone who had a close association with him; that is correct too?

Mr Reed: Sorry, I think I missed the point of the question.

Senator ROBERTS: The decision to not investigate someone that he had a close association with was his decision?

Mr Reed: The decision taken in relation to robodebt was not a decision of the commissioners; it was a decision or a matter—it was under assessment. It wasn’t an investigation; it was under assessment. That matter was allocated to a deputy commissioner because of the conflict of interest. What the inspector found was that he hadn’t managed that conflict of interest effectively—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying.

Mr Reed: and, therefore, the decision about robodebt was made by a deputy commissioner, not by the commissioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Is my understanding correct that the press release on the decision not to investigate robodebt contained a false statement that another commissioner had the power to investigate those people, and did he, Mr Brereton, suggest including that when he helped formulate the media release?

Mr Reed: All of that was covered in the inspector’s report and—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I know.

Mr Reed: the commission acknowledged, as part of that, that that was an error in that statement.

Senator ROBERTS: From a former Supreme Court appeals court judge who would have known this?

Mr Reed: People make mistakes.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a hell of a mistake. He would have known this. It would have been ingrained in him.

Mr Reed: This has all been explored in the inspector’s report. We’re going back over old ground here.

Senator ROBERTS: The inspector said his involvement in the robodebt decision to not investigate his mates was an error of judgement, would you just acknowledge?

Mr Reed: I don’t think those are the words that were used.

Senator ROBERTS: Was it an error of judgement?

Mr Reed: No. I don’t think ‘mate’ was referred to in that report, but I might be wrong.

Senator ROBERTS: So what would you call it? A colleague? An associate?

Mr Reed: It was a colleague from a former life.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been through Mr Brereton’s former position in the appeals court in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That’s arguably the second highest tier of court in Australia. Is he really trying to make us believe, through you, that, given his experience, he would make such a consequential error of judgement?

Mr Reed: The error has been acknowledged, and it’s on the record, so I’m not quite sure where this is heading.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s heading to a loss of confidence in the NACC. That’s where it’s headed.

Mr Reed: I think it’s unfair that one matter, one aspect of the work of the commission, one of the first decisions that was announced about an assessment, as distinct from an investigation, somehow undermines the NACC for the rest of time.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a pretty serious issue.

/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

Is the NACC Protecting Power Over Truth?

,

I recently asked questions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about its refusal to engage with complainants who hold critical information—information that could help expose corruption at the highest levels. One such individual is economist John Adams, who has referred serious allegations involving the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Despite providing extensive documentation, Mr Adams has been shut out of the process. The NACC confirmed they do not consult complainants before deciding whether to investigate. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

I also asked whether the NACC has served any legal notices or conducted compulsory examinations of the Prime Minister. Their response? “I’m not in a position to answer that.” The NACC “hides” behind confidentiality provisions in the Act, refusing to confirm or deny any action. Why is the federal body so secretive? Australians deserve to know if their leaders are under investigation.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the NACC refusing to engage with complainants in either preliminary investigations or corruption investigations—complainants who have critical information which can help the NACC fulfil its mission? One person, who has given me permission to name, is John Adams, and he has referred the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Why haven’t you talked to him? 

Mr Reed: Mr Adams has made a number of referrals to the commission. We go through a process of triage and then assessment, and the outcome of that, if it goes from tier 1 triage to tier 2 assessment, is then considered by the NACC Senior Assessment Panel to determine whether or not there’s a corruption issue that could be investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you make that decision without consulting the complainant?  

Mr Reed: What happens is that people make referrals, and we assess them. We decide whether or not we’re going to proceed with any further work. Eighty-four per cent of the matters—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, I accept what you’re saying. Can you make those decisions to take it from one stage to the next without taking to the complainant?  

Mr Reed: It depends on what material the complainant has provided. Mr Adams has provided enormous amounts of material.  

Senator ROBERTS: He’s diligent.  

Mr Reed: He is just one of those individuals who is very invested in one particular matter, and the commission has spent a significant amount of time considering the material that he’s provided and has made decisions about that matter. I don’t think that Mr Adams is happy about that or will ever be happy about the outcome. So we don’t have to go and talk to individuals who made referrals.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t have to.  

Mr Reed: It’s just the reality of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia?  

Mr Reed: We have received 6,055 referrals since our inception, and it’s just not possible that we’re going to talk to all of them, and, in many ways, there’s no requirement to. Sorry, I missed your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia. If so, how many and when?  

Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to answer that. We don’t talk about the work that we do. We don’t talk about referrals, unless they’re on the public record. We don’t talk about investigations. We don’t talk about where notices are served.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Mr Reed: It’s just the nature of the act. The act requires us to do things confidentially and largely in private. That’s the reality of the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC compulsorily examined the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: We will never talk about the work we’re doing until we publish a report at the end of the work we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the same apply to ministers, not just the Prime Minister?  

Mr Reed: I’m not going to enter into a debate about the work that the NACC is undertaking in any of its investigations. It’s not appropriate to talk about it here.  

Senator ROBERTS: In October 2021, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption published a media release indicating that Premier Berejiklian was under formal investigation for corruption. This publication led to the resignation of the premier. Does the NACC have the approach of informing the public if a minister of the Crown or the head of a Commonwealth government or agency is under investigation for corruption? You’ve already said no, but it has happened before in a different state, in a different jurisdiction.  

Mr Reed: I worked at the New South Wales ICAC for five years. I very much understand how it operates. It has a different legislative base, a different approach. They ultimately end up in public hearings as part of an investigative process, but most of the work they do is done privately. If I can quote some figures to you out of the most recent annual report of the ICAC, they had one public inquiry in 2023-24, which occurred over 11 days, yet, in the same time period, they undertook 36 of what we would call private hearings and what they call compulsory examinations over 30 days. The bulk of the work done by the New South Wales ICAC is done in private. Then, when they get an investigation to a particular point, they have the option to go to public hearing. There are provisions that relate to that, and they use that option on a regular basis, but it’s a different bit of legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: In May 2024, the Prime Minister of Australia and senior ASIC officials were referred to the NACC after allegedly facilitating an illegal cover-up of a company called ABC Bullion. Are you familiar with that? It occurred during an official investigation.  

Mr Reed: We don’t ever comment on matters that are referred to us or where they’ve ended up unless it’s been put on the public record previously, and most matters have not. So I’m not going to answer either positively or negatively about that particular referral.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again, the NACC has resisted in engaging the key witness, so we’ll move on to the last issue. Given that there have now been two senior judges finding that Ms Brittany Higgins lied about not receiving support from her employer Senator Reynolds, will the NACC reopen the complaint about Ms Higgins receiving a $2.4 million payment of taxpayer money based on lies, being that she would never be able to work again.  

Ms O’Meagher: In relation to Ms Higgins, she wasn’t a Commonwealth public official at the time of the conduct you refer to, so it’s not within the jurisdiction of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thanks.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/by