Antinuclear

What a top secret navy officer case says about the The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and Defence’s ‘cosy’ relationship

Defence initially referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) a case involving a former ‘star-ranked’ navy officer. The NACC chose to send it back to Defence to investigate itself instead — and not for the first time.

Michelle Fahy, Aug 16, 2026, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/what-a-top-secret-navy-officer-case?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=211342821&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A former “star-ranked” officer of the Royal Australian Navy is facing a court-martial in September on eight charges relating to reported “lucrative defence contracts” for sustainment work at the Henderson shipyard near Perth, which the government has invested $12 billion in to prepare for AUKUS purposes.

The ADF’s chief judge advocate, Major General Michael Cowen KC, is hearing the case and has suppressed all details thus far, including the identity of the accused former officer.

Several elements of the case have drawn attention from defence commentators, who have argued that it appears as if Defence leadership and ministers are trying to “bury” the case from public view, and that the case should take place in an open civil court.

But a key point of interest is the fact that the National Anti-Corruption Commission, after initially being referred the matter by Defence, as required by law, chose to hand the case back.

This means Defence is overseeing its own investigation into the matter.

It’s not the first time this has happened

The NACC has a history of handling certain cases like this.

In mid-2024, the national audit office found that a Defence official had given French weapons maker Thales confidential information during a protracted negotiation process. The official subsequently took a position with Thales, just before the company was awarded a 10-year, $1.2 billion contract to manage two Commonwealth-owned munitions facilities.

When Defence referred that matter to the NACC, the watchdog sent the case back to the department to investigate. Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy later claimed the department had “thoroughly investigated” the Thales matter and found “no evidence to substantiate the allegation”.

But as former Australian Federal Police investigator Chris Douglas said at the time, Conroy was wrong to make this claim.

Douglas, who worked for the AFP for 31 years in intelligence and operational units before going on to advise domestic and foreign governments on the design and implementation of anti-corruption programs, said Defence cannot effectively investigate allegations that could involve corruption.

A “thorough” investigation can only be undertaken by a law enforcement agency, particularly the NACC, “using a full suite of investigation powers including electronic evidence gathering.”

“There might be evidence at the person’s home, Defence isn’t going to find that, or in premises occupied by Thales, Defence won’t find that either. That is why we have a NACC.”

The NACC also did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian government contracts worth billions of dollars.

Douglas added that if Thales were an individual, “based on its past behaviour it would not be given a security clearance and therefore no employment”.

‘They should have been investigated’

Talking with Crikey, Douglas said the NACC’s decision to send the naval contracts case back to Defence for investigation provides further indication that “it lacks an understanding of how to approach serious corruption matters”.

While there are valid reasons for a department to be asked to conduct preliminary investigations into minor matters, Douglas said the case involving the former Navy officer is not minor.

“They should have been investigated thoroughly by the NACC. Defence does not have the power to tap telephones, install listening devices or compel witnesses to speak.”

Senator David Shoebridge, Greens spokesperson on Defence and Justice, agrees.

“It is now a pattern of behaviour where the NACC, which is meant to be the independent watchdog that takes on corruption, has handballed its responsibility back to the institution at fault,” he told Crikey.

Douglas also criticised the court-martial process, noting that police officers do not sit on judicial panels overlooking other police. “You wouldn’t have a corrupt cop who’s been taking money from outside being adjudicated by police only; those matters go to a civil criminal court.”

In contrast to the secrecy being imposed by Defence, the former AFP investigator supplied several examples in which the names of senior law enforcement officers have been made public regarding serious offences. These included former assistant WA police commissioner Gailene Hamilton, who was stood down from the WA police force in July last year. Her trial started in May.

Further bolstering the argument that the former navy officer’s case should be heard in a civil court is news that entities external to Defence also appear to be involved in the matter, with interactions to be examined between Defence’s former arms buying group — the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group — and several large companies that completed sustainment at Henderson shipyard.

‘Cosy’ relationship between NACC and Defence

The NACC’s freedom of information disclosure log contains documents related to the abovementioned Thales matter of 2024. The six documents reveal emailed interactions between relevant personnel at the NACC and Defence, and show what Douglas has described as an apparently “cosy relationship” between the two.

Notably, the NACC notified Defence, from the outset, of the expected length of its investigation: four to six weeks.

August 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies | Leave a comment