The NACC has been a monumental disappointment to date, yet it continues to surprise in its failure of purpose, ignoring the rorts it admits happened. Michael Pasoce reports.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission’s Robodebt cowardice set the standard early on – the standard the major parties wanted after being pushed to establish the commission.
And shock horror, the NACC has celebrated its third birthday by admitting it was wrong to find there was no corrupt conduct involved in the Coalition’s multi-billion-dollar rorting of various Commonwealth grants.
Nevertheless, in his last week in the job, Commissioner Brereton effectively approved pork-barrelling as long as it was done with appropriate paperwork.
Corruption approved
The NACC took its first year to decide grants corruption wasn’t corrupt under its Act. As reported at the time, the NACC gave a tick of approval for multibillion-dollar federal corruption – the sort of corruption that NSW’s ICAC has had the backbone to confront, but the NACC does not.
If you thought the NACC deciding not to investigate Robodebt was, um, “disappointing”, the NACC walking away from the Coalition’s blatant rorting of massive grant schemes was another whole level of failure.
That initial investigation and its outrageous decision were the result of a referral from Vince O’Grady, a spreadsheet supersleuth and former policeman. For more than two years I had happily collaborated with Vince and his IT support in harvesting grant data from government websites to write a dozen or more exposes of the most flagrant pork-barrelling, skewing billions of taxpayers’ dollars into favoured seats for the obvious reason.
It was much, much bigger than Bridget McKenzie’s seminal “sports rorts” debacle and absolutely systemic. The main headline was in the billions of dollars dished out in Community Development Grants, custom-designed by the Coalition to buy votes, but along the way there were stories of bowls club bias and golf club blackballing in Labor electorates.
Over four years, the Morrison government gave more than
$22.3m to golf clubs
and associated businesses via a score of grant programs, schemes and wheezes. Magically, only 2.2% of that money went to golf clubs or related businesses in Labor electorates.
The Rigs are Getting Bigger: Michael Pascoe on Community Development Grants rorts
Mr O’Grady appealed the NACC decision. The commission took two years to conduct its review but last week told Mr O’Grady “the Commission has concluded that your referral does raise a corruption issue, which could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct”.
So all up, three years to see what everyone else already knew.
However, comma…
But wait, there’s more. Or rather, a whole lot less.
“However,” wrote none other than the Commissioner himself, The Hon PLG Brereton AM RFD SC, in his last week in the job, “we have decided not to open a corruption investigation into that issue, but to address it, in conjunction with other related issues, in our prevention and education work.”
Turns out the NACC is conducting a corruption investigation into another grants scheme, one of the reasons for not bothering further with Mr O’Grady’s referral despite all the evidence he has gathered. But don’t hold your breath about this other unspecified investigation – it sounds like it will end up with a token “education” result.
What it boils down to is that the NACC has effectively renewed its approval of pork barrelling as long as such rorting of taxpayer funds is done with appropriate attention to detail. Hence “education”. Brereton again:
“While we have found nothing to support the suggestion of a forgery, and while a disproportionate allocation of grant funding to Coalition-held electorates would not necessarily translate to a breach of public trust or abuse of office, a corruption issue arises because funds may have been applied for purposes for which they were not allocated and given, regardless of any disproportionate allocation of funding, which may be a breach of public trust. Given the quantum of public money involved, and the number of grant schemes, this could involve corrupt conduct which is serious and/or systemic.”
So “education and prevention” means warning politicians to be careful to file the correct paperwork when breaching public trust, not doing something like, say, giving the North Sydney Council $10m for its North Sydney Pool redevelopment out of a grant that was earmarked for regional and rural groups.
And Commissioner Brereton had another “however” for Mr O’Grady:
“However, the application of grants funds for purposes for which they were not allocated and given is the essence of the corruption issue under investigation in the other Commission investigation referred to above, relating to one of the other schemes mentioned in your correspondence.
“We anticipate that the associated corruption risks and vulnerabilities will be exposed in the context of that investigation, and that as a result of that investigation we will embark on corruption prevention and education work, informed not only by the outcomes of that investigation but also by the information you have provided concerning the SIGP (Sports Infrastructure Grants Program) and other grants schemes.
“The current investigation will likely serve as a case study, based on one of the schemes you have mentioned, to highlight the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the others, including the SIGP.”
A case study. Education. A “how to pork barrel” guide for pollies.
It gets worse…
Could it get worse? Of course it could and has.
The further reason Brereton gave for not pursuing the grants corruption was that, well, it was a while ago and it’s been aired, and it’s kinda spilt milk under the bridge. Or, in his own words:
“In that light, and having regard to the historic nature of the SIGP matter (dating from 2018), the fact that it has already been the subject of investigation and exposure through the ANAO report (released in January 2020), investigation by the Department of Prime Minster and Cabinet (in February 2020), inquiry and report by a Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants (tabled March 2021), and a further inquiry into the administration of Commonwealth grants by the JCPAA (‘Report 495 Inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration’, tabled in June 2023), and the remedial steps already taken by Government concerning grants processes in response to recommendations arising from those inquiries, an additional Commission investigation into SIGP would not be a proportionate use of our resources.”
And that’s all, folks, from Paul Brereton and the NACC. Just make sure what, in my opinion, are corrupt grants go exactly where you corruptly say they will go,
and all’s fine and dandy and not corrupt.
Failure of purpose
A reason for having a NACC was to do more than the Australian National Audit Office can do, e.g. the ANAO found the National Party’s $1.15B Building Better Regions fund stank to high heaven, but could do no more than tell us that.
By way of comparison, there is the benchmark set by the NSW ICAC’s Operation Jersey investigation, which found:
“Defined as ‘the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes’, the ICAC concluded that pork barrelling can, under certain circumstances, involve serious breaches of public trust and conduct that amount to corrupt conduct.”
That’s a standard too high for the Federal Labor and Coalition parties that have the NACC they can be comfortable with.
Thank you, Vince O’Grady, for all your work – an individual doing at his own expense what the rich NACC seems to find too hard.
NACCered from the start. What will Brereton’s departure change?
Michael Pascoe is an independent journalist and commentator with five decades of experience here and abroad in print, broadcast and online journalism. His book, The Summertime of Our Dreams, is published by Ultimo Press.