NACC chief Brereton’s claim recusal ‘unnecessary’ openly disputed by his deputies

39 minutes agoThu 11 Dec 2025 at 8:01am

National Anti-Corruption Commission chief Paul Brereton maintained his recusal from defence cases was unnecessary. (ABC News: Adam Kennedy)

In short:

The National Anti Corruption Commission’s deputy commissioners have disagreed with their chief, Paul Brereton, that it was "unnecessary" for him to step aside from all corruption referrals involving defence.

The NACC Inspector Gail Furness says senior executives should have been told Mr Brereton was still consulting for a defence agency.

What’s next?

Ms Furness is conducting a "significant" probe into complaints about Mr Brereton’s defence links.

The deputy commissioners of the federal integrity watchdog have publicly rejected chief commissioner Paul Brereton’s assertion that his recusal from all defence corruption referrals was "unnecessary", arguing the step was essential to restoring public confidence.

Mr Brereton appeared before a parliamentary committee on Thursday for the first time following ABC revelations he had continued to advise the Afghanistan war crimes inquiry, despite assurances he had stepped away, and since the federal integrity watchdog announced the defence recusal decision.

In an at times fiery public hearing on Thursday, Mr Brereton defended his involvement with the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF), declaring he had conducted around 24 hours of unpaid work for the body, including on the NACC’s time, while head of the commission.

Mr Brereton told the inquiry he personally drafted the section of the NACC’s public statement that described concerns about conflicts as lacking any basis in "actual conflict" and stood by his position that a blanket recusal was "quite unnecessary" from a legal perspective.

"If no-one named me or associated with me is involved, there is no conflict and no need to recuse and that is on the basis why I think the total recusal is from the perspective of the proper management of conflicts, quite unnecessary," he said.

However, all three deputy commissioners told the committee they believed the full recusal had become non-negotiable.

Deputies publicly dispute Brereton’s claim recusal not needed

Deputy commissioner Nicole Rose said she understood Mr Brereton’s view from a "strict conflict of interest" standpoint, but argued the breadth of public concern required a stronger response.

"I pushed quite strongly for recusal from all defence matters," Ms Rose said.

"The perception of conflict has become an issue for the agency. The recusal in its entirety is absolutely the right decision for the commission."

Deputy commissioner Ben Gauntlet agreed, saying the widespread scrutiny left the NACC with "no choice".

"I believe the recusal was necessary given the status of the commission at the time relative to public opinion," he said.

Deputy commissioner Kylie Kilgour said the measure signalled the NACC was receptive to public concern.

"It shows we are listening and trying to do our job," she said.

The hearing also marked the first time the Coalition has directly criticised the watchdog’s chief.

Liberal senator Sarah Henderson questioned whether Mr Brereton should have accepted the commissioner role if he intended to continue advising the IGADF.

"You are the commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and any perception of conflict surely is an issue," she said, arguing Mr Brereton’s stance reflected a "fundamental misunderstanding" of conflicts of interest.

He rejected the characterisation, declaring: "Tell me what the conflict is."

Mr Brereton then suggested some individuals who had referred complaints about him to the Inspector of the NACC had "an interest in [his] war crimes report recommendations not being implemented".

Greens senator David Shoebridge said that assertion was "extraordinary".

Pressed on the claim, Mr Brereton conceded he had no evidence and had not seen the names of the complainants.

Inspector says senior executives should have been told

NACC Inspector Gail Furness also gave evidence, telling the committee the watchdog’s senior executive should have been informed of Mr Brereton’s ongoing IGADF advisory work, which he formally disclosed to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland only after the ABC’s report on October 22.

His original declaration, submitted on September 16 of this year, made no mention of his continued advice to the IGADF, and nor did declarations from 2023 and 2024.

"To my way of thinking the ongoing advice to the IGADF should have been disclosed to at least the senior executive of the commission," Ms Furness said.

"That’s my view."

Ms Furness said it wasn’t clear who knew about the work.

"I don’t know who he told ... from the CEO’s evidence, he didn’t know. He may have told the deputies, he may not have. I don’t know if he told the attorney-general."

Ms Furness confirmed she was examining two complaints relating to Mr Brereton’s military links, and said it would take "months, not weeks" to review more than 400 documents amounting to several thousand pages.

"Where it ends, I don’t know," she told the committee.

Committee chair Kate Thwaites described the probe as a "significant investigation", and Ms Furness agreed.

Asked to assess the NACC’s performance in its first two years, Mr Brereton rated the agency a seven out of 10.