The resignation of National Anti-Corruption Commission commissioner Paul Brereton is a significant moment for one of the Albanese government’s flagship integrity reforms, but it also raises a far deeper issue: Australia’s federal anti-corruption watchdog has failed to meet the expectations placed upon it. Established in 2023 amid widespread public anger over Robodebt, sports rorts, overspending on consultants, ministerial scandals and declining trust in politics, the NACC was presented as a transformative institution that would restore accountability and transparency to government. Nearly three years later, however, many Australians are still waiting for evidence that the commission is willing – or able – to confront the most powerful figures in public life.
In this episode, we examine why the NACC has become a source of frustration for supporters of stronger integrity measures and critics of government alike. Brereton’s tenure was overshadowed by repeated conflict-of-interest concerns, frequent recusals and growing criticism that the commission had become secretive, overly cautious and disconnected from public expectations. While the NACC has secured a small number of convictions – 11 in three years – its focus on lower-level public sector misconduct has left many questioning why major political controversies, including matters arising from the Robodebt Royal Commission, have not resulted in high-profile investigations.
Unlike powerful state-based bodies such as the NSW ICAC, it seems that the federal commission was deliberately designed with significant limitations. Restrictions on public hearings, narrow legal definitions of corruption, limited resources and a highly risk-averse culture have created a watchdog that often appears more concerned with managing legal processes than exposing misconduct. The result is a growing perception that Australia has created an anti-corruption body that looks tough on paper but remains reluctant to challenge entrenched political power.
As Labor begins the search for a new commissioner, the debate is no longer simply about who should lead the NACC – it’s about whether Australia’s anti-corruption framework is capable of delivering the accountability it promised. If public confidence in democratic institutions is to be restored, reforming the watchdog itself may become just as important as the reform that created it.
