The National Anti-Corruption Commission turns 2
- Written by: A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) opened its doors two years ago this week amid much fanfare and high expectations.
Since then the body has attracted considerable criticism, overshadowing a solid, if slow, start to a whole new anti-corruption system across federal government.
Established with strong powers after a history of much weaker proposals, what has it achieved in its first two years?
Early hurdles
On its first day, the decision to livestream the opening ceremony showed the Commission was alive to public expectations.
However, the Commission’s reputation faced major early challenges: fears its transparency had been “nobbled”, and its damaging initial decision not to investigate officials referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission.
The first challenge flowed from the politics that birthed the Commission.
In 2022, despite otherwise state-of-the-art powers, the Albanese government made a late decision to insert an “exceptional circumstances” test to its ability to hold public hearings in corruption investigations.
The shift created a bad impression. Many voices, including cross-bench parliamentarians, were left with good reason to question the very institution they helped create.
The problem will haunt the NACC until the unnecessary threshold is removed.
Public recognition
In reality, the NACC still has hefty public hearing powers, but they are as yet to be used.
When the need arises for royal commission-scale transparency, it will deliver an important side benefit the NACC still badly needs: public visibility.
The challenge is confirmed by research on public trust, yet to be published, by Griffith University. Surveyed in March this year, only 12% of respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the NACC, while a third had never heard of it at all, or didn’t know.
This contrasts with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, now 37 years old and the country’s heaviest user of public hearings. Over a quarter (26%) of NSW respondents said they knew at least a fair amount about the ICAC.
Building visibility is a slow road, and does not mean the NACC is not doing its job. But with recognition a cornerstone of confidence, it’s a key tool the Commission clearly still needs to learn how to use.
Workload
In fact, the NACC’s heavy pipeline of work is finally starting to give it more to talk about.
About 4,500 corruption complaints or referrals have been assessed since 1 July 2023, leading to more then 40 full investigations, including 31 currently underway.
It will take time for this workload to pay off, in dealing with and preventing corruption, as well as reinforcing the public trust everyone needs. But even if slow, the first results confirm the importance of the investment.
This week, the Commission published its fourth investigation report, revealing details of serious corrupt conduct by a Department of Home Affairs Senior Executive who abused her office by dishonestly advantaging her sister’s fiance for a job.
Small fry? Maybe to some. But the fact 15 of the current investigations relate to senior officials takes the fight against nepotism and cronyism right to where it needs to be.
Before the NACC, there was little confidence in how this kind of soft corruption was being dealt with by federal agencies.
Hard corruption
In its first two years, the NACC has also monitored 40 internal investigations by agencies which previously would have gone unsupervised, if they happened at all.
On harder corruption, some results tell an even stronger tale.
Last year, the NACC finalised an investigation which saw a former Australian Taxation Office employee jailed for five years, for accepting A$150,000 in bribes to reduce the tax debts of a Sydney businessman – also since jailed.
And in December, a former Western Sydney Airport manager pleaded guilty to soliciting a A$200,000 bribe in exchange for a A$5 million services contract at Badgery’s Creek.
Prior to the NACC, this was exactly the type of hard corruption many federal politicians and public servants claimed did not occur. No-one believed it, but now there’s a system for getting it under control.
Politicians not immune
The fact 13 of the NACC’s current investigations relate to former or current federal politicians or their staff is also reassuring. Of all the public officials in Australia, they have long been the most immune from integrity oversight.
Known referrals include former Liberal Minister Stuart Robert in relation to alledged improper financial dealings with Canberra lobbyist, Synergy 360.
A separate review found $374 million in contracts linked to Robert and the firm were poor value for money or plagued with perceived conflicts of interest.
Even if Robert’s denials are correct, the NACC has good scope to help ensure no such dealings are possible in the future.
The NACC’s strategic priorities highlight “senior public official decision-making” as an area where “even the perception of corruption can significantly harm trust in government”. This is especially important given the lack of regulation covering contractor, consultant and departmental relationships.
Robodebt setback
Tackling such fundamental issues, and not just driving a hamster wheel of criminal investigations, is the big challenge. It is underscored by the worst hurdle confronted by the NACC: its initial refusal to investigate Robodebt.
The NACC’s independent inspector, Gail Furness, found that decision was contaminated by a badly managed conflict of interest, which caused the Commission reputational damage.
But the poor handling also provided the circuit breaker needed for an independent reconsideration.
Since February, the NACC is now investigating whether six individuals referred by the Robodebt Royal Commission engaged in corrupt conduct.
It is a chance for the Commission to show it’s more than a compliance-focused enforcement agency, and is ready to play a positive part ensuring accountability and justice for victims when officials abuse their power.
The larger mission
Accepting this larger mission is a challenge for all anti-corruption commissions, but the NACC’s ability to do so is aided by some special powers.
Its broad definition of “corrupt conduct” means it can tackle any kind of serious integrity failure, including breaches of trust or abuses of power, which don’t involve the types of private gain often associated with corruption in the past.
A second key tool – also the likely solution to its visibility problem – is the Commission’s unique power to tackle larger issues through public inquiries.
Also yet to be used, this power extends to any “corruption risks and vulnerabilities” or “measures to prevent corruption” the Commission sees fit. Unlike individual investigation hearings, it does not require “exceptional circumstances”.
The last two years have seen the NACC well and truly blooded in its role as the cornerstone of the federal integrity transformation we needed to have.
Now the question is more about the Commission’s choices of direction, including how it nurtures its relationship with the public, than whether it has capacity to get the job done.
Authors: A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University
