The boss of the embattled National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), Paul Brereton, has been paid almost $1 million by taxpayers in the role to date — including $73,226 for one month’s work before it commenced operations.
The revelations come as the NACC – embroiled in controversy over Brereton failing to “recuse” himself over the Robodebt referrals – has claimed it can no longer answer media questions because of limited “resources”.
Searches of the federal procurement register AusTender show Brereton was given a contract for $73,226.12 for ‘temporary personnel services’, for the period 1 June to 30 June last year, before the NACC officially commenced operations on 1 July.
The NACC told The Klaxon earlier this month:
‘The Commissioner was engaged by AGD (Attorney-General’s Department) as Commissioner-designate for the period from 1 June 2023 to work on the establishment of the Commission in preparation for its commencement on 1 July 2023.’
The Remuneration Tribunal shows the NACC Commissioner is paid $784,600 a year, plus travel expenses and allowances. Since Brereton started on 1 June last year, he has been paid $962,053, plus travel expenses and allowances.
The $73,226.12 contract to Brereton for the month of June last year (Source: AusTender)
The NACC shocked the nation when it announced in June that it would not investigate six public officials referred to it by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.
It said Brereton – who freedom of information documents show had declared a conflict of interest behind the scenes – had ‘delegated the decision in this matter’ to an unnamed Deputy Commissioner.
As reported by The Klaxon on 1 July, Brereton has close personal ties to Kathryn Campbell – the most senior public servant who oversaw Robodebt – including through their time as senior officers in the Army Reserve.
Paul Brereton (second from left), Kathryn Campbell (second from right) (Source: Frontline, Defence Service Journal, December 2022)
The Klaxon has recently published a string of major exposés, including revealing Brereton broke the NACC’s own conflict of interest guidelines; that the NACC only created its “Integrity Policy” after it received referrals from the Robodebt Royal Commission; and that its decision not to investigate the Robodebt referrals is just two pages long.
Brereton failed to “recuse” himself in the legal sense, despite using the word repeatedly in official correspondence and was involved in the Robodebt matters.
In an explosive exposé on Monday 26 August, The Klaxon revealed how intimately involved he was in the matter — with freedom of information documents showing he remained present throughout the majority of a NACC Senior Assessment Panel meeting that considered Robodebt.
Early Tuesday morning – for the first time – the NACC said it could no longer respond to questions because of ‘time and resources’.
Investigative reporter Michelle Fahy had sent the NACC ten questions on Monday.
The NACC said in a statement, at 7:32 AM Tuesday morning:
‘...given the considerable time and resources it would require to answer your further queries we are unable to assist.’
NACC’s response to journalist Michelle Fahy early Tuesday morning.
Given the NACC’s claims to Fahy regarding ‘time and resources’, this reporter, later on Tuesday morning, separately approached the NACC with a single question:
‘How many meetings has the NACC Senior Assessment Panel held to date and at how many was the matter of the Royal Commission Robodebt referrals formally considered?’
The NACC responded:
‘As your colleague Ms Fahy was advised, the Commission has made best efforts to respond to your questions but is unable to assist further.’
No mention of ‘time and resources’ was made this time, but the outcome was the same, with the NACC refusing to answer vital questions over Brereton’s involvement in the Robodebt referrals matter.
Further, a close reading of the NACC response shows it curiously states that ‘the Commission has made best efforts’ to respond.
Yet the NACC clearly hasn’t made its best efforts to respond — given the question put to it was one sentence long and easily answered.
We pointed this out to the NACC and that, ‘As the nation’s anti-corruption regulator, it is important the NACC does not make false or misleading public claims’.
Journalist Anthony Klan’s questions to the NACC Tuesday — unanswered
We asked the NACC:
‘Is it the NACC’s position that it made the NACC’s “best efforts” to respond to our questions? If so, why has the NACC made this false claim?’
We received no response.
We asked that if it was not the NACC’s position that the NACC had ‘made the NACC’s “best efforts” to respond to our questions’, then ‘whose “best efforts” is the NACC referring to and what does the NACC mean by this?’
Again, we received no response.
Anthony Klan is an investigative journalist and editor of The Klaxon. You can follow him on Twitter @Anthony_Klan. This article was originally published on The Klaxon and has been republished with permission.
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
