From powers to priorities: What the NACC’s recent work reveals about Commonwealth integrity risks

When the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) began operations in July 2023, much of the discussion centred on its extensive investigative powers and the implications of the new integrity regime for Commonwealth agencies and public officials.

In a previous article, I explored the NACC’s early impact and the legislative framework underpinning Australia’s federal anti-corruption regime.

Now, two years on, the NACC’s published findings offer insights far more valuable than operational statistics, beginning to shed light on the behaviours, governance failures and organisational risks drawing regulatory attention. A clear theme has emerged: serious corruption is often less about sophisticated criminal schemes and more about governance failures, unmanaged conflicts of interest and the misuse of public office.

Governance failures in the spotlight

One of the Commission’s most significant public reports examined recruitment practices within the Department of Home Affairs, finding that a senior executive engaged in serious corrupt conduct by manipulating recruitment processes to favour close family members, concealing familial relationships and providing interview questions in advance.

Crucially, the Commission did not view this as an isolated lapse in judgment. Instead, it concluded that the conduct reflected “systemic nepotism and cronyism within the Australian Public Service.”

This finding highlights the NACC’s willingness to scrutinise not only individual misconduct but also the organisational culture and internal controls that may enable integrity failures, extending investigations beyond individual wrongdoing to broader systemic issues.

Conflicts of interest: A persistent corruption risk

Another recent case involved a former immigration officer who improperly approved a visa application for a family member. Viewed alongside the Home Affairs investigation, a broader pattern emerges: public officials allowing personal relationships to influence official duties, without sophisticated planning or financial gain, but reflecting a failure to uphold the impartiality expected of Commonwealth decision-makers.

Both cases involved public officials allowing personal relationships to influence their official duties. Neither required sophisticated planning or financial gain. Instead, both reflected a failure to uphold the impartiality expected of Commonwealth decision-makers.

For agencies, conflicts of interest remain one of the most significant corruption risks in the Commonwealth public sector. Managing them requires more than annual declarations; conflicts must be identified early, properly documented and actively managed throughout decision-making processes.

Investigation reports as practical guidance

The NACC’s published reports are proving a valuable resource, highlighting weaknesses in recruitment, governance and organisational culture that may exist across the public sector. Agencies would benefit from integrating these findings into their integrity frameworks, treating them as practical guidance on conduct that falls short of expected standards, not merely as records of completed investigations.

Prevention at the core of the NACC’s mandate

As the NACC marked its second anniversary, it reaffirmed that corruption prevention, not just investigation, is one of its core statutory functions. Agencies should therefore anticipate increased scrutiny of their governance arrangements, integrity capabilities and organisational culture, not just their responses to allegations of misconduct.

Education, engagement with Commonwealth entities and the development of stronger integrity frameworks remain central to the NACC’s work. This preventative focus underscores the principle that the most effective anti-corruption framework is one that prevents misconduct before it occurs.

Lessons for the private sector

Although the NACC’s jurisdiction is limited to Commonwealth public sector corruption, its findings carry lessons for private organisations, particularly those contracting with government or operating in regulated sectors. The Home Affairs investigation, which identified “systemic nepotism and cronyism”, reflects a broader regulatory trend: Australian regulators are increasingly examining whether governance frameworks and organisational culture contribute to misconduct.

Boards and senior executives should ensure that recruitment, procurement and conflict management processes are robust, transparent and well-documented. While the legal obligations on private organisations differ from those applying to Commonwealth entities, strong controls, effective conflict management and a culture of integrity are becoming universal indicators of good governance, and the NACC’s findings provide practical guidance on the standards regulators increasingly expect.

Practical lessons for organisations

The NACC’s recent work offers several practical lessons for organisations:

1. Conflicts of interest: Treat conflicts of interest as dynamic risks requiring ongoing management, not just one-off administrative disclosures.

2. Transparent processes: Ensure recruitment, procurement and other discretionary decisions are supported by transparent processes that can withstand external scrutiny.

3. Governance and culture: Recognise that weaknesses in governance and organisational culture may themselves attract regulatory attention if they enable misconduct.

4. Integrity systems: Understand that integrity is increasingly assessed not only by individual behaviour but also by the effectiveness of systems, controls and leadership in preventing misconduct.

Looking ahead

The NACC has moved beyond its establishment phase, and its investigations are setting practical expectations for how agencies should identify, manage and mitigate corruption risks.

For both public and private sector organisations, this represents a critical shift. Perhaps the most significant lesson from the NACC’s second year is that integrity is no longer assessed solely by whether corrupt conduct occurred, but whether organisations have the governance, culture and accountability mechanisms to prevent it. The Commission’s published findings are evolving into a blueprint for the governance standards that regulators increasingly expect all organisations to uphold.