‘A serious mess’: The crisis inside the corruption watchdog

Summary

Podcast Summary: 7am – "A serious mess": The crisis inside the corruption watchdog

Date: May 28, 2026
Host: Willie Darley (Solstice Media)
Guest: Nick Fyce (Independent Journalist)
Episode Theme:
This episode dives into the crisis engulfing Australia’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NAC) after the resignation of its inaugural head, Paul Brereton. Through parliamentary scrutiny, conflicts of interest, and multiple internal investigations, the episode explores how the commission’s foundational problems have led to a significant erosion of public trust—and what reform might look like.

---

Main Theme & Purpose

The episode unpacks the public crisis at the heart of the NAC, centered on outgoing Commissioner Paul Brereton’s resignation amidst allegations of conflicts of interest, particularly concerning his ongoing links to Defence and his associations with individuals implicated in the Robodebt scandal. It explores how this crisis reflects broader issues of organisational design, appointment processes, and the urgent need for reform if Australia’s premier anti-corruption body is to recover its reputation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Brereton Crisis: Roots & Fallout

• Brereton’s Background and Potential Conflicts ([02:01]–[03:22]):
  • Brereton, a Major General in the Army Reserve and author of the Afghanistan War Crimes Inquiry (the “Brereton Report”), became the first head of the NAC.
  • Conflict Roots: Ongoing consulting work with Defence while head of the NAC, and personal/professional ties to Catherine Campbell, a Robodebt figure referred to the NAC.
    • “In multiple ways, the Commissioner of the NAC was conflicted, or there was a perceived conflict or the potential for a conflict in terms of his previous roles and his current role.” — Nick Fyce ([02:57])

2. Senate Estimates Showdown (Paul Brereton on the Record)

• Brereton Questioned on Robodebt, Defence Ties ([00:01], [03:22]–[05:08]):
  • Brereton grilled by Senators (especially David Shoebridge and Pocock) about responsibility and transparency.
  • Brereton maintained he had informed other statutory officers but not the CEO about his ongoing Defence association, refusing full responsibility.
    • “Do you accept responsibility...?” — Senator Shoebridge
    • “No.” — Brereton ([00:27])

3. Multiple Active Investigations

• Surprise Revelation by NAC Inspector ([05:11]–[06:54]):
  • Gail Furness, the NAC Inspector, reveals a previously undisclosed third investigation into Brereton’s conduct, in addition to two others:
    1. Officer Misconduct (Robodebt-related)
    2. Ongoing Defence Ties
    3. New Complaint (details undisclosed)
  • Brereton has racked up $204,000 in taxpayer-funded legal fees defending himself.
    • “We just sat through an hour and a half ... they hadn't even mentioned this. Gail Furness gets up and ... it only started last month.” — Nick Fyce ([05:31])

4. The Compounding Problem of Perceived Conflict

• Perception and Institutional Integrity ([07:05]–[08:47]):
  • Ongoing Defence work created a significant perception problem, as many NAC referrals involve the Defence Force.
  • Brereton has recused himself from Defence-related matters, but only after two years of presiding over such cases.
    • “The question to me now is, what happens to all of those investigations that he presided over... Do they get revisited?” — Nick Fyce ([07:35])

5. Appointment Flaws and Structural Weaknesses

• Critique of Original Appointments ([08:47]–[09:55]):
  • Integrity experts questioned appointing a Defence figure to head the NAC due to the military’s lack of transparency.
  • All initial appointments (Commissioner and deputies) were the least qualified combination permitted by law.
    • “They ended up with the least qualified combination of deputies permitted under the Act. It was almost like it was built to fail.” — Nick Fyce ([09:36])

6. Can Brereton’s Exit Fix the NAC?

• No Quick Fixes—Need for Long-term Reform ([09:55]–[11:17]):
  • Removal might help, but the issues go deeper: lack of public trust, backlog of Defence referrals, only two deputies remaining.
  • Since inception, the NAC has not made a single major corruption finding out of 7,000 referrals.
    • “They have a track record of precisely zero major corruption findings from 7,000 referrals...” — Nick Fyce ([10:53])

7. Public Hearings and Transparency

• Calls for Legislative or Procedural Change ([11:28]–[13:57]):
  • Fyce argues for more public hearings as in NSW’s ICAC, as secrecy undermines public understanding and trust.
    • “Once you reach a certain level ... there have to be public hearings.” — Nick Fyce ([12:46])
    • “New South Wales ICAC is the most respected and admired anti corruption organisation in the country. That actually should be the model...” — Nick Fyce ([14:09])

8. Future Optimism vs. Realism

• On Reform Prospects ([14:58]–[15:45]):
  • Fyce is cautious but insists “we have to fight for a proper national anti corruption commission.”
    • “Everyone wants it to be better. So to me it's very much a case of pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will.” — Nick Fyce ([15:38])

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Brereton under political fire:

  • “Do you accept responsibility...?” — Senator Shoebridge ([00:01])
  • “No.” — Brereton ([00:27])

• On the need for reform:

  • “Brereton's left a serious mess at the NAC. It's not just the conflicts. This is an organisation with a serious deficit of public trust.” — Nick Fyce ([10:53])

• Wry humour about Australia’s corruption record:

  • “Perhaps we should celebrate the fact we live in such a corruption free country, Nick. I mean, that's another way to look at it.” — Willie Darley ([11:17])
  • “Oh, isn't it great, Waleed? Yeah, I can barely laugh about it at this point.” — Nick Fyce ([11:22])

• On the ‘build to fail’ design:

  • “They ended up with the least qualified combination of deputies permitted under the Act. It was almost like it was built to fail.” — Nick Fyce ([09:36])

• On vision for the future:

  • “It's very much a case of pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will...” — Nick Fyce ([15:38])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 0:01–0:27: Brereton questioned on Defence conflicts (Shoebridge–Brereton exchange)
• 2:01–3:22: Fyce on Brereton’s background and sources of conflict
• 5:11–6:19: Revelation of third investigation (Fyce and Gail Furness)
• 7:05–8:47: Fyce on the depth of the perception problem
• 9:55–10:53: The impact (or lack thereof) of Brereton’s resignation
• 11:28–13:57: Debate on public hearings vs. secrecy, ICAC as a model
• 15:08–15:45: Fyce’s cautious hope for genuine reform

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a damning picture of the state of Australia’s NAC, highlighting how foundational issues in appointments, transparency, and conflict management have grown into a full crisis. Nick Fyce demands not only a reset in leadership but fundamental reform—especially opening hearings to the public—to rebuild the watchdog’s failing integrity. Even as he doubts immediate results, he insists that ongoing advocacy and design improvements are critical for the NAC’s legitimacy and Australia’s fight against corruption.

Transcript

[Senator David Shoebridge]

Do you accept responsibility for not telling your chief executive officer that you'd done 10 hours of work for Defence during work hours with the nag? Do you accept responsibility for not telling your chief executive officer about the fact that you had that ongoing role and you were doing the ongoing work for Defence because you didn't tell him either of those things, did you? No. Do you accept responsibility for that?

[Nick Fyce]

No.

[Willie Darley]

Paul Brereton, the outgoing head of Australia's National Anti Corruption Commission, was grilled at Senate estimates this week. Brereton led the body tasked with investigating serious corruption in the Commonwealth public sector. But his time as its first commissioner has ended in a crisis of confidence over robodebt, his ongoing defence links and whether the watchdog properly managed conflicts of interest inside its own walls.

[Senator David Shoebridge]

What lessons arise for the NAC from this Robodeck controversy?

[Nick Fyce]

The lesson from that was that it obviously would have been better had I had nothing to do with that matter at all.

[Willie Darley]

From the outset, Brereton says he's become a distraction from the Commission's work. But his resignation begs the question, do the NAC's problems end with him? I'm Willie Darley, you're listening to 7am today. Independent journalist Nick Fyce on how Australia's anti corruption watchdog ended up in crisis and whether it can recover. It's Friday, may 29th. Nick, that was quite a showdown, I think we can say, between Paul Brereton and some senators in the Senate Estimates inquiry. But before that, I want to go back to 2016 with the Brereton Inquiry into war crimes in Afghanistan, because that's intimately involved, isn't it?

[Nick Fyce]

It is. It's the start of a long story. So the Commissioner of the NAC is Paul Brereton and he was also conducting the Afghanistan War Crimes inquiry, started in 2016, round to 2020. That was for the Inspector General of the ADF. He produced the Brereton Report. He was also a major General in the Army Reserve. He went on, obviously, to be appointed as the inaugural Commissioner of the nac. And that relationship, his relationship with the ADF was the foundation of a series of conflicts and he had a professional association with some of the subjects that he was investigating at the nac. But it turns out that it was not just an affiliation. He was doing ongoing consulting work with the Inspector General's office and he also had a close association, in fact, occasionally it was termed a personal association with Catherine Campbell, who was the subject of the Robodebt inquiry. She was one of the six who was referred to the nac. Over robodebt. So, in multiple ways, the Commissioner of the NAC was conflicted, or there was a perceived conflict or the potential for a conflict in terms of his previous roles and his current role that's been the basis of so much controversy and I think is at the heart of his resign this week.

[Willie Darley]

So tell us about what we saw on Tuesday night in Senate estimates.

[Nick Fyce]

So the background is that a few weeks ago, the Greens Senator David Shoebridge moved a successful Senate motion. He directed Brereton and the three other the NAC Deputy Commissioners to attend budget estimates this week to give evidence and to answer questions. On Monday, though Brereton announced his resignation, taking effect on 6th of July, there's still speculation as to why he resigned. But the pressure was rising on a number of fronts, some of which we've discussed.

[Ruby Jones]

And.

[Nick Fyce]

And Brereton had earlier told Parliament the NAC had also said that he'd resigned his position before becoming the NAC commissioner, but this wasn't true, as we've discussed, he was still commissioning. And we know that Brereton was currently under investigation by the oversight, Gail Furness, she's the NAC inspector, a kind of oversight role that she has. She had an investigation running into his defence ties. And that was what primarily was the basis of a series of quite testy questions between Brereton and David Shoebridge and Senator Pocock, also. Commissioner, can you surely not see that Australians who watch this, the Commissioner of our highest integrity body, and your inability to take any responsibility at any turn, to throw the CEO under the bus, to just constantly. Excuse me, when did I be willing to. Well, earlier you said he has absolutely no right to know what you're doing. In terms of the igadf, I said it was relevant for the other statutory officers to know that I had an ongoing affiliation with the igadf, which they knew, which you didn't inform.

[Willie Darley]

Was there anything that stood out to you from those exchanges?

[Nick Fyce]

So, after having heard from the Attorney General's office, having heard from the NAC commissioner, the NAC Deputy Commissioners, the NAC Inspector herself turns up Gail Furness, and she reveals in something of a bombshell that she's undertaken another investigation.

[Senator David Shoebridge]

So I received a complaint, I had the Commissioner's response, I commenced an investigation.

[Nick Fyce]

This is a third investigation into a complaint about Brereton's conduct. We've just sat through an hour and a half of Brereton and his fellow commissioners and the CEO fronting up the Senate estimates they hadn't even mentioned this. Gail Furness gets up and the first thing she says is, oh, by the way, it only started last month. Yeah, exactly.

[Senator David Shoebridge]

And are you able to recall when you first sent it to the Commission for the response? Well, it was before the 14th of April.

[Nick Fyce]

It was also revealed that the second investigation that she'd been looking into had been going back and forth between her and Commissioner Brereton's office, that he'd run up $204,000 in legal fees paid by the taxpayer to defend himself from whatever her findings are, which we don't know yet.

[Willie Darley]

Ok, so three investigations is quite a lot to get your head around. Do we know much about them? Can we separate what the three are about and whether or not they're related?

[Nick Fyce]

So the first one we already know about, that was the officer misconduct finding. That was in relation to the Robodebt findings. The second one is ongoing. It's into Brereton's defence tyres. The things we've been talking about, how he handled or mishandled them, we don't know her conclusion. The third one, we literally don't know. We just learned about it last night. It was only mentioned in the context of a complaint about Brereton's conduct.

[Senator David Shoebridge]

Can you identify, did it relate to the Commissioner in any way? As I've said, I commenced a complaint investigation into a complaint I'd received about the conduct of the Commissioner.

[Willie Darley]

So let's talk about this concept of a conflict of interest here. If Brereton is connected with the ADF in some kind of formal way, and there have been photos circulating of him wearing army fatigues, for example, while he was Commissioner, the conflict of interest there is what? That there might be some kind of corruption allegation that emerges from the Defence Force itself and that, if so, how big a deal would that be? Could he not just recuse himself, for example, for those sorts of referrals?

[Nick Fyce]

So the problem is a perception. One primarily it's that, as you said, he appears in uniform, that he has ongoing work with defence personnel, defence referrals, of which there have been many, we believe over 100 to the NAC. Defence is potentially the NAC's biggest customer. Allegations that have been made in relation to defence material, defence acquisitions, defence matters generally. We're talking about billion dollar contracts here. Now we have the head of the NAC who has since finally has recused himself from those referrals. He's recused himself after having presided over them for two years, for more than two years. The question to me now is, what happens to all of those investigations that he presided over for Two and a half years. Do they get revisited? Who do they get revisited by? Are they situations that were influenced by Brereton? Of course they would have been. Here was the head of the commission. So we have a genuine deep seated problem here.

[Willie Darley]

Does this take us in the direction of wondering why Brereton was appointed Commissioner in the first place? Nothing to do with his ability, but just because of the situation that he was inevitably in.

[Nick Fyce]

I think there are serious problems about his original appointment and I don't think they've been adequately discussed. I know that several integrity experts in the legal field, for example Geoffrey Watson, sc, they believe that the Commissioner of the NAC should never have been a defence figure. The military is a hierarchical organisation. It's generally secretive. They don't deal well with transparency and accountability issues as a culture. And I think the method of appointing all of the commissioners and deputy commissioners in the first instance was problematic. The NAC had the run of the field when they opened this organisation. It was a brand new integrity organisation. They could have had former judges, they could have had scs. They ended up with the least qualified combination of deputies permitted under the Act. It was almost like it was built to fail.

[Willie Darley]

Coming up, does Brereton's resignation actually fix the knack? You've identified the conflict of interest as a major issue and the way that appointments have been made to the nac. Does Brereton's departure change any of that or fix any of those concerns?

[Nick Fyce]

I think potentially a lot will be changed by his departure. I think some of it depends on who they appoint next. So I think the Albanese government has a poor track record when it comes to appointing commissioners. They need to appoint someone who is top draw, completely unimpeachable, has the best possible qualifications. They need a transparent, rigorous process. They'll need someone that the legal community gets behind that transparency experts get behind because Brereton's left a serious mess at the nac. It's not just the conflicts. This is an organisation with a serious deficit of public trust. There's the pile of defence investigations. There's only two deputy commissioners remaining. They have a track record of precisely zero major corruption findings from 7,000 referrals with a staff of over 200 people. They have never made a major corruption finding.

[Willie Darley]

Perhaps we should celebrate the fact we live in such a corruption free country, Nick. I mean, that's another way to look at it.

[Nick Fyce]

Oh, isn't it great, Waleed? Yeah, I can barely laugh about it at this point.

[Willie Darley]

You've mentioned some concerns with the appointments of Commissioners and the way which was done. I suppose that raises the question of the design of the NAC at the beginning of the whole process. Do you see design flaws here that would need government or legislative intervention?

[Nick Fyce]

Not that many, actually. The main problem, I think, was the lack of public hearings. The ENAC hasn't had any public hearings. It's only obliged to have them in exceptional circumstance. Apparently. We have never come across an exceptional circumstance that requires a public hearing yet otherwise, to me it's actually it was an issue of personnel and approach. I think apart from the lack of public hearings, I don't think the problem was a legislative one.

[Willie Darley]

Well, you mentioned the privacy or the secrecy element of it. As I recall, the argument for that was that the problem with public inquiries into corruption is that the minute you are investigated, the political damage is so severe that a judgement is rendered irrespective of whether or not you get cleared. And that that would ultimately just be too damaging to public office holders who may not have done anything corrupt and this would just be a totally unworkable situation. You say you think they should fix that. Do you mean making it all public or do you think there is still some room for private hearings to take place?

[Nick Fyce]

An investigation has to jump over several hurdles to reach the level of a formal investigation. I don't think anyone is saying that all of their investigations should be secretive. I think the New South Wales ICAC is an excellent model. They have public hearings when they choose to, when they think it's appropriate. Most of their work is done behind the scenes. Confidentiality is absolutely obligatory for an anti corruption organisation. But once you reach a certain level where you know that there is a serious corruption matter to discuss that it's a public matter, I think there have to be public hearings. With private investigations, all you end up with is an investigation report. At the end of years of investigation, you'll get one day of headlines, maybe you'll get two days of headlines and then it will be gone again. We don't get an understanding of the depth of the corruption that has been investigated. Compare it to, for example, a royal commission like the Robodebt Royal Commission. The only reason this became a public issue and became so widely known was because we watched the blow by blowing in public of Catherine Holmes Royal Commission hearings. Now we need the equivalent of that for the nac.

[Willie Darley]

I would say there'll be people in New South Wales who argue that. Well, the problem you have with ICAC is it just swept everything up. So you end up with, you know, Barry o' Farrell Resigning over a bottle of Grange. And that's the same situation, as you know, Eddie obiid.

[Nick Fyce]

I've heard that argument, Waleed, but I would counter by saying that New South Wales ICAC is the most respected and admired anti corruption organisation in the country. That actually should be the model according to public polling and according to what integrity experts say. I mean, we keep talking about the Grange bottle. That comes up a lot. No one was obliging him to resign over that. That was his choice. And I think it's entirely reasonable that politicians occasionally take a fall for doing the wrong thing. Is that not a reasonable thing to expect about politicians? That they have integrity standards? As in, that was his choice. He wasn't obliged by the ICAC to resign because he'd received or mish a bottle of Grange. I think public scrutiny is really important.

[Willie Darley]

So you've set out some things you would like to see by the way of reform, some criticisms you've made of the way the Albanese government has handled this. Are you optimistic at all that your vision will become reality?

[Nick Fyce]

I'm not optimistic necessarily. But we have to believe that it's possible to improve this organisation. We have to fight for a proper national anti corruption commission. I know that there's been talk of critics of the nac. I know there was a defensiveness by Paul Brereton. We actually believe, we critics believe in the importance of a national anti corruption commission. We just want it to be better. Everyone wants it to be better. So to me it's very much a case of pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will. We have to believe it's possible.

[Willie Darley]

Nick, thanks so much.

[Nick Fyce]

Thank you.

[Ruby Jones]

Also in the news, it's been revealed that the number of NDIS participants expected to be shifted off the scheme under new eligibility rules is considerably higher than first thought. Health Minister Mark Butler announced last month that the number of participants set to be exited or shifted from the NDIS would be at least 160,000. But documents tabled in the Senate on Wednesday show the government is hoping to reduce current numbers by 241,000 participants by mid-2031. And the federal government is suing the manufacture of PFAS, or forever chemicals found in firefighting foam, at 28 defence bases across the Australia. It's seeking $2 billion in damages, the Government's largest ever legal claim. The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland Says Multinational Corporation 3M withheld information and misrepresented the effects and environmental risks of the foam. I'm Ruby Jones. Thanks for listening. 7am we'll be back tomorrow.