A federal anti-corruption commission: is it working?

The Promise vs The Reality

When the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) opened its doors in July 2023, it was heralded as a game-changer for Australian politics. After years of scandals -from sports rorts to car park grants -voters finally had their federal anti-corruption watchdog. But three years in, the question isn't whether we have a commission, but whether it's actually working.

The numbers tell a sobering story. As of May 2026, the NACC has received over 8,400 referrals but has only commenced 12 formal investigations. Of these, just three have resulted in public hearings, and zero prosecutions have been secured. Meanwhile, public confidence in federal politicians sits at a record low of 24%, according to the Australian Electoral Study.

Design Flaws That Matter

The NACC's limitations weren't accidental -they were baked into its design through traditional political horse-trading. Key weaknesses include:

• High threshold for public hearings: The commission must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, creating a presumption against transparency
• Limited retrospective powers: Many historical scandals fall outside its scope
• Parliamentary privilege protection: MPs' statements in parliament remain largely untouchable
• Narrow definition of corruption: Focuses on criminal conduct rather than broader integrity failures

These constraints reflect the reality of how anti-corruption laws get made in our current system. Politicians wrote the rules for their own oversight, prioritising their comfort over public accountability. The result? A watchdog with more bark than bite.

Real-World Impact

Consider the recent "Infrastructure Fast-Track" controversy, where $2.3 billion in transport funding was allocated without proper process to marginal electorates. Despite clear public interest, the NACC declined to hold public hearings, citing insufficient evidence of criminal behaviour. The commission's narrow interpretation meant that what many saw as obvious pork-barrelling fell through the cracks.

Similarly, the ongoing "Green Energy Grants" saga -where ministerial decisions allegedly favoured donors over merit -has been referred to the NACC multiple times by crossbench MPs, yet remains under preliminary assessment after 14 months.

International Comparisons

Other Westminster democracies show what's possible with stronger design. New Zealand's Serious Fraud Office has secured 23 convictions since 2023, while maintaining public confidence through transparent processes. Canada's Public Sector Integrity Commissioner operates with broader powers and lower thresholds for investigation.

The difference? These bodies were designed with genuine independence from the political process, often through citizen assemblies or cross-party committees with real teeth.

The Direct Democracy Solution

This is exactly why Direct Democracy's approach matters. When citizens vote directly on institutional design, they prioritise effectiveness over political convenience. Our members have consistently supported stronger anti-corruption measures:

• 89% favour public hearings as the default, with privacy only for genuine national security concerns
• 76% support broader corruption definitions covering integrity failures beyond criminal conduct
• 82% want retrospective powers to investigate historical scandals
• 91% demand regular public reporting on investigation outcomes and reasons for decisions

Under direct democracy, the NACC would look fundamentally different because citizens -not politicians -would write the rules. We'd prioritise transparency over comfort, effectiveness over political protection.

What Needs to Change

Immediate reforms should include:

• Reversing the hearing presumption: Public by default, private only when justified
• Expanding the corruption definition to include serious integrity failures
• Strengthening investigative powers with proper resourcing
• Regular parliamentary review with citizen input, not just political oversight

But these changes won't come from the current system. Politicians who benefited from weak oversight won't voluntarily strengthen it. Real reform requires citizens taking direct control of the process.

The Path Forward

The NACC represents both the promise and limitations of traditional politics. While its creation showed public pressure can drive change, its weaknesses reveal what happens when politicians retain ultimate control over accountability measures.

Direct democracy offers a different path. When citizens vote directly on anti-corruption design, they choose effectiveness over political convenience. They demand transparency over secrecy. They prioritise public interest over political protection.

The question isn't whether we need better anti-corruption measures -it's whether we're ready to take direct control of creating them.

Ready to join the movement for real accountability? [Take our policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au/quiz) to see how your views align with direct democracy principles, or [become a member](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join) to start voting on the policies that shape your future. Because the best way to fix corruption is to take power away from politicians and give it back to you.