National Anti-Corruption Commission (Cth)
A short factsheet on the National Anti-Corruption Commission: its establishing Act, purpose, powers, and why it is not a prosecuting authority.
Learning outcomes
- State the NACC's establishing Act and its core function of investigating serious or systemic corrupt conduct in the Commonwealth public sector.
- Explain why the NACC is not a prosecuting authority, and what it does instead when an investigation discloses corrupt conduct.
- Identify the NACC as the federal analogue of each state and territory's own integrity commission.
Act: National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth).1
Established: operating since 1 July 2023.
Purpose: The NACC detects, investigates, reports on and works to prevent serious or systemic corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials, parliamentarians and their staff. It is an integrity body, not a general police force or prosecutor — its focus is corrupt conduct connected to the exercise of Commonwealth public power, not crime generally.
Powers conferred under the Act
The Act gives the NACC strong investigative powers, including compulsory examinations (which can be held in public in exceptional circumstances), the ability to compel production of documents and information, and search and surveillance powers comparable to those of state and territory integrity commissions. These powers exist to investigate and report, not to determine guilt or impose punishment.
Is it a prosecuting authority?
No. Like every state and territory integrity commission, the NACC does not prosecute. Where an investigation discloses evidence of a criminal offence, the Commission refers the matter to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions rather than prosecuting it itself. A student who describes the NACC as "prosecuting" a matter has made the same specific, checkable error the WA and NSW factsheets already warn against for their own integrity commissions.
How it relates to the other Commonwealth bodies
The NACC's corruption-oversight role is distinct from the Commonwealth Ombudsman's general maladministration complaints function — a problem naming corrupt conduct, not simply an unfavourable or poorly explained decision, is what points toward the NACC. It is also distinct from the Administrative Review Tribunal's merits review role: the NACC does not review the correctness of a decision, only whether corrupt conduct was involved in making it.
Self-check
- Have I stated the NACC's function as investigation, reporting and referral, not prosecution?
- Have I distinguished the NACC's role from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the ART?
- Have I identified the NACC as the federal analogue of the state/territory integrity commissions in each state and territory?