EXCLUSIVE This high-ranking Australian official has just been found to be corrupt. Here's the outrageous reason why we're BANNED naming and shaming her - as her sleazy texts emerge and she lands a big new job

Daily Mail​

a day ago

The Australian government's corruption watchdog has been slammed for being 'more concerned with protecting wrongdoers than exposing wrongdoing' after Daily Mail Australia was prevented from revealing the identity of a corrupt public official.
Almost two years since it was set-up, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) published its first finding of misconduct against a public servant on Monday.
The 32-page report revealed a Home Affairs official repeatedly lied to help secure a job for her sister's fiancé, admitting in a series of extraordinary text messages that she would 'talk him through the lie', and even boasting: 'I'm the boss so they will do whatever I say'.
The public servant quit before she could be sacked - promptly landing a lucrative role in the private sector - and has faced no punishment for her corrupt conduct.
Despite this, the NACC chose not to use her real name out of concern for her 'wellbeing', claiming the 'imperatives of accountability, transparency and education will still be achieved by publishing a detailed report that utilises pseudonyms'.
Daily Mail Australia was able to use some of those details to easily work out the corrupt former official's identity, which we intended to reveal as a matter of public interest.
But we have been prevented from doing so by an obscure section of the NACC Act, which grants Commissioner Paul Brereton the power to make it a criminal offence to reveal the corrupt official's identity, punishable by up to two years' in prison.
Geoffrey Watson KC, Director at the Centre for Public Integrity, said there were valid reasons to make a direction under section 100, such as if children were involved or there was a threat to life.
'There are very good reasons why the NACC should have powers to suppress the identities. But golly, why would they be utilised in this case?', he asked.
'It means that the people involved have escaped really any punishment. And yet NACC thought it was worthwhile spending the taxpayers' resources on pursuing it.'
Mr Watson said the NACC 'must have misread transparency to mean opacity, and they must have read accountability to mean no accountability'.
The eminent lawyer insisted it was a 'matter of public interest' for the corrupt official's identity to be revealed.
'I might point out that by protecting her name, the people who suffer are the ones employing her now who might be interested that she has a record of abusing her power to do favours for friends and family,' he added.
'That's the sort of thing you might wish to know about somebody before you employ them in a position of responsibility or power.'
The NACC, which was founded in July 2023 with a remit to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct in government, has 228 staff and $222million over three years.
Its report into 'Operation Kingscliff', authored by Mr Brereton, detailed the extraordinary lengths 'Joanne Simeson' - a pseudonym - went to in order to land her sister, Melissa's, soon-to-be husband, Mark, a job.
Joanne was found to have praised Mark to colleagues while 'deliberately concealing' her connection to him, before forging a signature to fast-track his onboarding.
Mr Brereton said she had abused her office and misused official information, recommending that her position be terminated had she not resigned.
'Nepotism, cronyism and undeclared conflicts of interest in recruitment and promotion is an area of widespread concern,' Mr Brereton stated.
She was also found to have leaked interview questions to her Melissa, who still works in the public service.
However, the report found no wrongdoing with her Melissa or her now-husband, Mark.
'Talk him through the lie'
Joanne, who had worked in the Australian Public Service since 2011, messaged her sister, Melissa, in December 2022 to ask for an updated CV for Mark to be considered for a role in the Freedom of Information section in the Department of Home Affairs.
At that point, the couple were living in Varese, northern Italy, where Melissa worked as a coordinator for the Australian Institute of Sport's European training centre, while Mark took a career break and studied.
Joanne, who was at that stage a senior official within the Home Affairs Immigration Executive Branch, told her sister the Assistant Secretary was keen to meet Mark.
'We'll talk [Mark] through the lie,' Joanne wrote.
Melissa responded: '...he's so bad at lying he's too honest'.
Joanne messaged back: 'Well he's gonna have to do better or I'll get in trouble'.
Melissa responded: 'Yes good to say that and scare him haha'.
The FOI officer application ultimately did not progress because Mark was studying at the time.
However, by early 2023, Melissa and Mark were feeling homesick and started to discuss returning to Australia early.
In March, Joanne suggested Mark apply for a role alongside her in the Global Initiatives Branch, which Melissa said was 'right up his alley'.
'They will do what I say'
Later that month, Joanne copied Mark into an email to two senior directors within Home Affairs to suggest him for the role.
But one of the directors responded to ask 'how this person happened on your radar', noting that 'his CV alone does not make him an obvious choice'.
Joanne claimed he was a 'friend of a friend'.
'But (he) comes with excellent recommendations and is extremely diligent and hardworking by all accounts, plus ability to pick up subjects extremely quickly and very competent in terms of reviewing documents and providing advice...', she added.
Joanne told the NACC she had referred to her future brother-in-law as a 'friend of a friend' because she did not want colleagues to know about their relationship as she was an 'extremely private person'.
In a message to her sister, Joanne acknowledged she had been economical with the truth.
'I told them I knew [Mark] through a friend. Technically not not [sic] true he just needs to play along!', she wrote.
'Also I'm the boss so they will do whatever I say.'
Joanne told the NACC the message was a 'joke between two sisters'.
In a subsequent message, Joanne stressed to Melissa the importance of keeping their relationship secret.
'You are not my sister. He cannot say our surname. Or where you work,' she wrote.
Melissa responded: 'the lying is not his strong suit but we will just properly brief him. No [Simeson].'
'Beauty of being a boss'
In a subsequent message, Melissa thanked her sister for 'putting yourself on the line for him'.
Mark had a meeting with a senior official the following day, which Joanne insisted was not an interview.
'No (it's) a chat,' she responded to her sister.
'I told her to bring him onboard. Beauty of being a boss.'
Following the meeting, Melissa reported that it was his 'dream job' and he would 'love to do it'.
He was then given clearance to work remotely in Italy before they emigrated back to Australia.
Joanne created a recruitment requisition for her brother-in-law, listing herself as an approving delegate before she instructed the HR team to 'please progress (this) as a priority'.
The director in charge of hiring told the NACC the process was 'unusual' and had felt like 'a bit of a foregone conclusion'.
The director also queried the decision to allow him to work remotely in Italy, claiming there was a 'feeling that it wasn't allowed'.
In a subsequent text to her sister, Joanne mentioned getting Mark in to 'meet the team' when they were on a visit back to Australia.
'Just gotta make sure I don't tell people my sister is visiting from Italy at the same time haha,' she added.
In May 2023, while preparing for him to visit the office, Joanne forged a witness signature on a temporary access form.
'In her evidence, she admitted to fabricating those aspects of the Temporary Access Form,' the NACC report stated.
'(Joanne) said she had never done that before, nor since.'
Joanne sent the form on to the security team, requesting it be addressed as a priority due to staffing shortages within the department.
But her haste aroused suspicions with one of the directors involved in hiring Mark, who wrote to the other with her concerns.
'I find it a bit unusual that [Joanne] is personally pursuing requirements for this dude in Italy,' the director wrote in a Microsoft Teams message.
'Such a good boy'
On May 26, 2023, Mark was formally offered the role with a salary of $101,264.
Joanne messaged her sister to ask if this was 'enough', to which she responded: 'it's perfect you're the best. Truly this is a game changer'.
He accepted the job three days later and came into the office on 1 June 2023 to collect his laptop and test his log-in.
Joanne messaged Melissa: 'HAHAHAHAHA I JUST WENT TO HUG HIM THANK GOD HE STUCK HIS HAND OUT [FIRST]'.
Melissa responded: 'GAHAHAHAH … What a good boy he's such a good boy.'
Mark told the NACC he found it 'difficult' to have to keep his relationship with Joanne a secret.
He worked remotely in Italy from June 5 2023 to October 17, when he and Melissa returned to Australia.
During that period, Joanne also helped her sister successfully apply for a role within the Department of Home Affairs, telling her what kind of questions she would be asked at interview and how to answer them.
Joanne later admitted that she had provided 'confidential information to her sister to assist her with the interview'.
It all unravelled when Mark started working in Canberra and colleagues noticed he did not refer to his partner by name.
When one jokingly asked him if she existed, he 'went red'.
A superior then asked Mark directly what his relationship was to Joanne, to which he immediately responded: 'I'm engaged to her sister'.
The pair then confirmed their relationship when they attended the Home Affairs Christmas party together that year.
That same month, Joanne was appointed Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Home Affairs in December 2023.
But by that stage an unnamed staff member in the department had raised concerns about the potential conflict of interest and Joanne was stood down in February 2024 pending the outcome of the NACC investigation.
She resigned in June of that year, after digital forensic experts combed through her work and personal phones.
'[Joanne] explained that she had made the decision to resign from the public service (and take up a more junior position in the private sector), which has resulted in financial loss, including of benefits, and also in the non-fulfilment of her longstanding aspiration to serve her entire career in the public service,' the NACC report stated.
'In addition, her mental health has suffered significantly, and her family members have also suffered as a result of her actions.'
Joanne told the NACC she had not received any workplace training or in recruitment and had not obtained any personal advantage from the outcome.
But the report noted that Joanne 'accepted the proposed findings and is very remorseful'.
The same month she resigned, she started a job at a global cybersecurity firm.
In a blog piece she wrote for her new employer in February, Joanne warned of the prevalence of fraud in the hiring process and the importance of ensuring people are who they say they are.
She stressed who it was now worryingly common for people to use stolen identities when applying for jobs, especially in tech industries.
Daily Mail Australia has approached Joanne for further comment.
The NACC report found that neither Mark nor Melissa had engaged in corrupt conduct.
Both still work within the public service, according to their LinkedIn profiles. All three deleted their LinkedIn accounts after Joanne was approached for comment.
Mr Watson SC, director at the Centre for Public Integrity, also reserved his ire for the apparent triviality of the NACC's first official finding of misconduct, suggesting it should have started with a 'bang, rather than a whimper'.
'Why on earth is the NACC descending into these petty matters? This is an employment issue,' he said.
'The NACC has expensive commercial offices in five capital cities. It has 230 employees and it's producing this sort of triviality. It's just extraordinary.'
A spokesperson for the NACC said 'seniority is one of several factors which combined to inform the decision not to name her'.
'Decisions on whether to name an individual involved in a corruption investigation are made on a case-by-case basis,' they added.