Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the report on the National Anti-Corruption Commission for 2023-24, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This morning the first report from Gail Furness SC, Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, was tabled in the house. Ms Furness's first year as inspector ended with an announcement by the National Anti-Corruption Commission that it would not pursue referrals from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Robodebt was not only found to be illegal; it caused huge trauma, and people lost their lives. Hundreds of Australians complained to the inspector, and on 13 June 2024, thank God, Ms Furness announced that she was inquiring into the National Anti-Corruption Commission's decision, and so she should.

When I heard the National Anti-Corruption Commission wouldn't be investigating these six senior public servants, I was angry, like many other millions of Australians out there, but it didn't surprise me at all. I was the only one in this place last year to ask why on earth this government would put Paul Brereton in charge of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in the first place? This is the same bloke who decided that it was fine to let the top brass off the hook and throw the book at our diggers for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

When the National Anti-Corruption Commission was established, a lot of people thought senior ADF officers and senior Defence public servants would be the most common referrals, but apparently not. This is why so many in the veterans community couldn't believe a senior ADF officer was appointed as the commissioner, not just any senior ADF officer but the major general who gave all of the other major generals a blanket exemption from investigation in his Brereton inquiry report. Lo and behold, Major General Brereton, wearing his NACC commissioner's hat, decided not to pursue referrals from the robodebt royal commission and—blow me over—one of the six people referred was another major general. Who would have guessed? We're all mates!

There was a very clear conflict of interest here. Brereton says that his 'judgement was mistaken when viewed through the lens of apprehended bias'. Well, that is the understatement of the century if I have seen one. He is the boss of the anticorruption body, but he succumbed to 'mistaken judgement and apprehended bias'.

The NACC watchdog released its annual report today. In that report, the inspector considered this mistaken judgement by Brereton could amount to 'officer misconduct'. How about that! In another refusal of a major general to accept responsibility, Brereton dug in and refused to resign, as he would. He went so far as to tell an audience of the government's institution that he blamed leaders for a poor public sector integrity culture in which responsibility is exempted. Does anybody else see the irony in that statement? Talk about narcissism! Here is the clincher: Brereton told the government institution, 'If every judge found to have made a mistake of law or fact resigned, there would be no-one sitting on the bench in this country.' To compare judges making errors of law or fact with his actions where a conflict of interest existed—a conflict which he even identified—is absolute rubbish. According to journalist and author Rick Morton, when the NACC was scrambling to work out how they would tell Australians the NACC would take no further action against the six people referred to the NACC by the robodebt royal commission, Major General Paul Brereton told the commission 'not to get hung on whether or not there is a corruption issue'.

The Labor government claims it was a big win, but putting Paul Brereton in charge of it has hurt the reputation of an agency we desperately needed to have faith in. This is why Australians are losing faith in our political leaders. Katherine 'robodebt' Campbell was one of the six senior public servants, and she got a slap across the wrist, with no loss of super, and she can work in the Public Service again as long as she tells them she was involved in robodebt. Why don't you tell them how many lives you are responsible for taking as well?

As for Paul Brereton, he should resign effective immediately. If he had any conscience or integrity left, he would do so. But no, and this is typical behaviour of soldiers from the military. When he was asked if he would resign last week—this is the arrogance of Brereton—he refused and even suggested that resigning would hurt the NACC. Hey, mate, the only person hurting the NACC is you. Get out of there. Leave. It would be a statement that our yardstick is popularity not integrity. He should have a good look at himself in the mirror, because he is not popular and his lack of integrity is clear for all Australians to see.

It is not just Major General Paul Brereton; it is the Attorney-General. I warned you not to put him in there. I can't even take complaints, because senior commanders in there are too scared. They know they will be done over because of what you have done, AG. (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak to the annual report of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It was extraordinary that the first time we have really had to call upon the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, under powers that, thankfully, the Senate gave the inspector with amendments moved by the Greens, resisted by the government, was into the inquiry into the scandalous dealing of the robodebt fiasco by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

This month we saw the Inspector of the NACC deliver a brutal assessment of the NACC's decision not to investigate the robodebt scandal. The inspector concluded that the head of the NACC, Commissioner Brereton, engaged in officer misconduct in how he dealt with it and that the robodebt scandal needed to be reinvestigated by the NACC. As we speak, the NACC is doing somersaults trying to find some way that isn't ridden with conflicts of interest in which they can now appoint somebody to review the conflict-ridden decision that the NACC made not to investigate the robodebt scandal.

Before looking into the mess that happened inside the NACC, it's worth remembering that this wasn't just any corruption referral. The robodebt scandal was referred to the NACC by hundreds and hundreds of individuals as well as by the royal commission into the scandal. The royal commission sent the NACC a large body of confidential evidence concerning six people who it concluded may have engaged in corrupt conduct regarding robodebt. This was not the standard referral to the NACC. The inspector found that Commissioner Brereton failed to remove himself from the NACC's handling of the robodebt matter, despite his admission—and he said it in multiple different ways—that one of the six people referred by the royal commission was, in his words, 'well known to me'. I think he also said later that he had a 'close personal association' with her.

The inspector's report details how Commissioner Brereton declared that conflict of interest, purportedly delegating the final decision on robodebt to a deputy commissioner, and then remained deeply involved in every aspect of the NACC's consideration. Because of the detail in the inspector's report, we now know that Commissioner Brereton led the key discussions about robodebt inside the NACC, sought internal legal advice about it and even settled the minutes of meetings held about it. He then topped it all off by authorising a misleading media release trying to explain why the NACC was doing nothing. The inspector concluded that this conduct was in breach of the legal obligations of the NACC and that a 'fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the NACC commissioner's involvement might have impinged on the impartiality' of the decision-making process. Thank goodness for the inspector!

As a result of the blowtorch applied by the inspector, we're now going to get another review by the NACC, which none of the existing senior staff can take part in, to see if it should investigate robodebt. That's already falling into scandal, as we saw from a report this weekend in the Saturday Paper. Since the release of the inspector's report, we've had both Labor and the coalition rushing to the defence of Commissioner Brereton, saying that the inspector's brutal correction is proof the system is working and that the public had total trust in Commissioner Brereton. If only that were true.

What we saw from not only the NACC inspector's report but also the independent review that Alan Robertson, a very highly regarded senior counsel, did for the assistance of the NACC inspector was that Commissioner Brereton led the key discussion at the meeting on 19 October 2023 where the NACC effectively decided not to investigate the robodebt scandal. The commissioner has been telling people that he was only there for policy reasons. Let's hear what Alan Robertson SC said:

The Commissioner's involvement in the decision-making under section 41 was comprehensive, before, during and after the 19 October 2023 meeting at which the substantive decision was made.

The views of the Commissioner expressed at the meeting on 19 October were not limited to policy questions concerning the referrals generally as the policy questions had a strong factual element specific to, amongst others, [Referred Person 1]—

being the person with whom Commissioner Brereton had declared a conflict—

The discussion was framed by the issues raised by the Commissioner. The Commissioner settled the minutes …

Not only that, but the commissioner then let the referred people settle his misleading media release. I can tell you now that there will be a further investigation of Commissioner Brereton this coming Friday by the parliamentary joint committee. Maybe that will get to the truth of this scandal. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.