FOI documents reveal extent of unreported corruption in Commonwealth agencies

The nation’s corruption watchdog has warned federal agencies and departments that gross misconduct may be more prevalent than previously thought.  

The Financial Review first reported the troubling findings after obtaining documents from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) through a freedom of information request. 

The NACC’s warning to departments showed 1 in 6 government workers surveyed (15%) admitted to witnessing but failing to report, and at least 554 public servants said they had witnessed but failed to report corruption, including nepotism, fraud, cronyism and conflicts of interest. 

Journalist Paul Karp noted the NACC “released high-level results” of its Commonwealth Integrity Survey in December 2024, however the new figures were included in an appendix, listed under the heading, ‘The dark figure of corruption’. 

Of those who reported witnessing corrupt conduct, most said they had seen more than one incident, prompting fears the behaviour is systemic. 

Concerningly, half said they’d observed the behavior within the 12 months prior to the survey being conducted. 

“The question for ministers, departments and the NACC is why hundreds of public servants do not feel comfortable reporting potential corruption, either to their superiors or to the NACC itself,” said Bill Browne, the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program Director. 

The NACC has been under fire for failing to hold any public hearings, including for its investigation into the illegal Robodebt scheme. 

It’s scrutinising six public officials tied to the scheme that resulted in several suicides. 

Initially, the Commission decided “not to commence a corruption investigation as it would not add value in the public interest.” 

However, the decision was overturned after former High Court Justice Jeffrey Nettle found that each of the six individual Robodebt referrals “raises a corruption issue”.  

The Greens have been highly critical and accused the Commission of “actively concealing critical information about its investigation”. 

“What makes this even more outrageous is these revelations only came to light through a hard-fought freedom of information battle that the Greens took up with the NACC,”  said Greens justice spokesperson, Senator David Shoebridge in August. 

“An anti-corruption body fighting to keep key information secret really isn’t worthy of the name.” 

Mr Browne agreed. “When the NACC was created in 2022, Australians had high expectations, given a string of high-profile integrity issues in government had been identified. 

“Several errors by the NACC have undermined confidence in its operations, and the failure to hold public hearings is a missed opportunity to draw attention to the problem of government corruption.” 

The NACC inspector’s Annual Report, released on 30 October, found that NACC commissioner Paul Brereton had mismanaged a conflict of interest with respect to his handling of the Robodebt corruption referrals. 

The Commonwealth Integrity survey collected 58,309 responses from workers in 171 agencies from August to September 2024. 

It also found the most likely corrupting influences in government are private business associates, “official business stakeholders” and criminals. 

Polling research undertaken by the Australia Institute earlier this year, in collaboration with the Human Rights Law Centre and Whistleblower Justice Fund, found 67% of Australians agreethat public hearings should be held more frequently than the current legislation stipulates. 

“Reform is needed if the NACC is to win the confidence of the Australian people,” said Mr Browne. 

The commission can only hold public hearings “where there are exceptional circumstances, and it is in the public interest”. 

Nine thousand people signed a petition calling for five key reforms including an immediate independent review of NACC, allowing for a non-government majority on the committee scrutinizing the Commission and implementing a Whistleblower Protection Authority. 

“A Whistleblower Protection Authority would support and protect whistleblowers, who risk their own health, careers and, in some cases, freedom in order to expose wrongdoing,” said Mr Browne. 

“Australia Institute polling research confirms that Australians overwhelmingly believe that the NACC should be empowered to hold public hearings whenever they are in the public interest.”