Demand J McClellands' removal as Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
The issue
An Open Letter of Petition to the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission
Protective Collective write this to formally and vehemently object to the appointment of the current Deputy Chief of the Australian Family Court, Honourable Robert McClelland AO as the next Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)
On the basis of issues not limited to:
- Acute Structural Conflict of Interest in the Absence of a Family Court Federal Judicial Commission;
- Creating a Chilling Effect on Family Court whistleblowers, including grassroots organisations supporting women and children subjected to Sexual Violence;
- J McClelland denial of structural harm to Women, Caregivers and Children reporting Family Violence and Sexual Violence in the form of blanket denials by the Australian Family Court in public press releases positioning them as liars[1];
- J McClelland, despite being aware that the above structural barrier and bias exists in the Australian Family Court, has done nothing to change it;
- J McClelland questionable decision making regarding Child Sexual Abuse in Family Court cases, for example, by granting a Convicted Child Sexual Offending Father, ongoing loose in home supervised access to children, in his Judgement made on Christmas Eve, 2021.
The NACC was set in place as an independent government body for investigation and reporting of systemic corruption within Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Family Court system and its associated legal actors.
For the NACC to hold the public's trust, its leadership must be beyond reproach, entirely free from systemic conflicts of interest, either the perception of or actual, and be demonstrably committed to the best interest of every member of the Australian public. The Commissioner holds extreme power to allow or disallow investigations on his or her own discretion.
We assert that Justice McClelland’s career history, institutional ties, and judicial record render him fundamentally unsuitable for this role.
1. Acute Structural Conflict of Interest, particularly in the Absence of a Federal Judicial Commission
J McClelland has spent over a decade embedded within the family law jurisdiction, and currently serves as Deputy Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The NACC is one of the only oversight bodies where the public can report alleged corruption, collusion, or misconduct involving Australian Family court actors, including lawyers, barristers, and judicial officers such as Registrars.
Currently in Australia, there is no independent oversight body that can deal with any corruption, collusion or adverse profiteering in the Australian Family Court and its associated actors. And there never has been. This means that the only avenue that has ever been available to anyone to report any issues occurring within the Family Court, is to the Family Court employees themselves. Effectively ‘police policing police’.
Judges of the Australian Family Court are seen as ‘above reproach’ and ‘above the law’ and are untouchable by any Commission or Court in the entirety of Australia.
Appointing a former employee who has been employed by the Australian Family Court since 2015, where there has been little challenge to any of his questionable rulings or his inability to self govern systemic bias and harm in the Court system he is currently Deputy of, is of great concern, as outlined further below.
In light of the above, for J McClelland to be potentially overseeing investigations into the very network of professionals he has associated with for over a decade is an invitation open for abuse of power, apprehended bias, bias and conflicts of interest. The same issues that have plagued the National Anti-Corruption Commission since its’ inception. Culminating recently in well over $1.14M of taxpayer funds to inquire into it.
The fact he was appointed by the Attorney General Michelle Rowland, who continues to refuse to put into place the Federal Judicial Commission (which would be the only way an Australian Family Court Judge could be independently investigated), and who oversees the functioning of the Australian Family Court and all legal professionals, and the law, respectfully, speaks to either omissions by J McClelland in his application as the head of NACC, or questionable ability for decision making on the part of Hon Michelle Rowland.
2. Appointment causing Chilling Effect for Family Court Whistleblowers
J McClellands’ appointment has already caused a profound chilling effect, discouraging victims and whistleblowers from coming forward with their reports regarding corruption within the Family Law system. Particularly in a climate where growing calls for transparency and accountability of actors in the Family Court of Australia.
For example, Protective Collective is in the process of compiling evidence of corruption in the Family Court by associated Family Court actors. This appointment has stopped the complaint in its tracks. Furthermore, J McClellands’ appointment could reasonably be foreseen to stop any person who works within the Family Court system and wanting to whistleblow, from coming forward.
3. J McClelland - Institutional Denial of Harm and Dismissal of Media Revelations
Furthermore, whilst holding senior leadership as Deputy Chief of the family court system, Justice McClelland and the court administration have repeatedly denied that women and children are being placed in direct harm by the Family Court's Orders. Instead, defending themselves and publicly claiming that children are being listened to.
When harrowing investigative reports have been published by the press, - including major public disclosures by the ABC[2] and the Herald Sun exposing children forced into the care of reported Men/Fathers who have committed serious acts of violence against them - the systemic response under his leadership has consistently been to publicly reject and deflect these findings.
By aggressively countering these public interest reports and dismissing the valid, lived experiences of victims, it broadcasts to the greater public that women and children reporting sexual violence are liars and it gaslights whistleblowers and undermines strong and cogent reporting of investigative journalism and robust vetting of victims both adults and children, lived experience of the Australian Family Court.
3. Judicial History and the Failings of Child Protection
A Commissioner must exhibit flawless judgment regarding safety, morality, and the protection of the vulnerable. Justice McClelland’s judicial record raises grave concerns with his capacity to make sound decisions in the publics’ best interests.
In one example, in his judgment of Duffield & Carlson[3], Deputy Chief Justice McClelland extraordinarily awarded significant home supervised custody to a Father – a convicted child sex offender who had been incarcerated - who had sexually offended against a child who lived next door, whilst the Man was still married with young infant children.
In J McClellands’ Judgement delivered Christmas Eve 2021, he made comments which in summary 'praise' the Mother for not ‘alienating’ the children by telling them that their Father was a convicted child sexual abuser. The ‘formula’ that J McClelland uses to justify the convicted child sex offender Father spending ongoing loosely supervised time with the Children in his home is, was in our opinion, fortune telling and devoid of listening to experts who cautioned against such a ruling and in opposition to the cogent valid concerns of the Mother. Therefore, J McClellands' 'reasoning', is, in our opinion, significantly alarming and demonstrates an incapacity of decision making that is in the least reckless, and at best is not in alignment with the public interest, moral values of the Australian public or what would be expected by the Australian public as a suitable child safety measure.
J McClellands' repeated reference and reliance on the prohibited[4] ideaology of ‘parental alienation’, (a widely acknowledged legal abuse tactic used as a defence against reports of violence) speaks to his own embedding of this ideaology into the culture of the Family Court of Australia. A non-peer reviewed and universally condemned ideaological concept that is only seen as 'real' in Family Courts worldwide, and where it has shown time and again, to severely punish women and children reporting sexual violence. Something that J McClelland is well aware of, having been part of a paper published by the Law Council in 2024[5]. Yet despite J McClellands' knowledge and involvement and position of power, it is not something he has engaged in trying to dismantle or even admit exists within the Australian Family Court.
It is our opinion, that J McClellands' actions show, he is not willing or able to tackle systemic harmful issues within his own role as Deputy Chief of the Australian Family Court, and therefore he is incapable of fulfilling his role as Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and lacks the moral and intellectual fortitude to hold the position, let alone the courage to call out systemic issues or seek to change them.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The National Anti-Corruption Commission cannot function effectively if its leadership is structurally compromised or indifferent to systemic institutional issues.
The Australian public has already witnessed the immense damage dealt to the integrity of the NACC by the continuing conflict of interest scandals surrounding the NACC's inaugural leadership. We have seen significant taxpayer funds exhausted on independent inquiries just to address internal misconduct and institutional bias.
We cannot afford a repeat of this institutional failure and a chilling effect on whistleblowers and lack of confidence of the public with apprehended bias and a decision maker who is incapable of making decisions that are in the best interest of public or that pass the ‘pub test’.
The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland claims that J McClellands’ appointment as Commissioner of the NACC was merit based, yet the ABC[6] has reported J McClelland was merely ‘referred’ to the position. However J McClellands’ appointment was made, needs to be fully vetted and made completely transparent for the Australian Public.
We call on the government to immediately revoke this appointment and select an independent Commissioner.
We urge you to join us in calling for J McClelland's removal from his position at the NACC. We must act promptly to protect the credibility of our institutions and ensure that justice remains both seen and served. Your signature can make a difference in holding our institutions accountable. Please sign this petition to safeguard the integrity of the NACC.
Just saying J McClelland can be trusted, is not good enough. His actions say something entirely different and he must be removed from his appointment.
There are Many Other People who would be suitable for the role of Commissioner of the NACC, we do not need to look far in Parliament to members who show a deep passion for integrity and responsibility.
Thank you for your support, together our collective voices can make change.
Who is Protective Collective?
Live Live Revolution and Protective Collective was founded by Lisa McDonald Arts Psych Grad Dip who has over two decades of experience advocating in the field of prevention of sexual violence and family violence. Lisa McDonald was instrumental in having sensitive and confidential case notes protected in the Family Law Act 1975 and was called on for her expertise in the law reform, being a key driver for protection. Lisa is a public commentator, advocate, activist and researcher in Family Law reform with particular interest in the systemic issue of the ‘parental alienation’ legal systems abuse ideaology, that positions women and children as ‘liars’ and ‘alienators’ for simply reporting incest and abuse. These women and children are severely penalised and subject to the ‘parental alienation cure’ deemed by the International Criminal Court as ‘torture’ and specifically prohibited by the United Nations. You can find Lisas’ content, reporting and raising of awareness on Instagram @kaykohsun and @protectivecollective and www.liveliverevolution.com
Protective Collective Lived Experience Panel for 2027 is currently being organised to enable the voices of women, caretakers, allies and children subjected to systemic bias when reporting violence, are heard and that they have opportunity to co-design policy and law, as per the National Coercive Control Plan guidelines.
Please support, sign and share this petition if you feel to.
References:
[1] https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/statement-100926
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-17/alleged-dv-victim-loses-custody-of-children-in-family-court/106826526
[3] https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2021/344.html?context=1;query=Duffield%20&%20carlon;mask_path=
[4] Custody, violence against women and violence against children (A/HRC/53/36), presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2023
[5] https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/publications/protecting-victims-family-violence-including-children-family-law-system-disincentives-disclosing-family-violence-and-child-abuse-and-responding-systems-abuse-terms-1a-and-1b-2024
[6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-19/nacc-corruption-watchdog-robert-mcclelland-replace-paul-brereton/107140004
54
The issue
An Open Letter of Petition to the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission
Protective Collective write this to formally and vehemently object to the appointment of the current Deputy Chief of the Australian Family Court, Honourable Robert McClelland AO as the next Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)
On the basis of issues not limited to:
- Acute Structural Conflict of Interest in the Absence of a Family Court Federal Judicial Commission;
- Creating a Chilling Effect on Family Court whistleblowers, including grassroots organisations supporting women and children subjected to Sexual Violence;
- J McClelland denial of structural harm to Women, Caregivers and Children reporting Family Violence and Sexual Violence in the form of blanket denials by the Australian Family Court in public press releases positioning them as liars[1];
- J McClelland, despite being aware that the above structural barrier and bias exists in the Australian Family Court, has done nothing to change it;
- J McClelland questionable decision making regarding Child Sexual Abuse in Family Court cases, for example, by granting a Convicted Child Sexual Offending Father, ongoing loose in home supervised access to children, in his Judgement made on Christmas Eve, 2021.
The NACC was set in place as an independent government body for investigation and reporting of systemic corruption within Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Family Court system and its associated legal actors.
For the NACC to hold the public's trust, its leadership must be beyond reproach, entirely free from systemic conflicts of interest, either the perception of or actual, and be demonstrably committed to the best interest of every member of the Australian public. The Commissioner holds extreme power to allow or disallow investigations on his or her own discretion.
We assert that Justice McClelland’s career history, institutional ties, and judicial record render him fundamentally unsuitable for this role.
1. Acute Structural Conflict of Interest, particularly in the Absence of a Federal Judicial Commission
J McClelland has spent over a decade embedded within the family law jurisdiction, and currently serves as Deputy Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The NACC is one of the only oversight bodies where the public can report alleged corruption, collusion, or misconduct involving Australian Family court actors, including lawyers, barristers, and judicial officers such as Registrars.
Currently in Australia, there is no independent oversight body that can deal with any corruption, collusion or adverse profiteering in the Australian Family Court and its associated actors. And there never has been. This means that the only avenue that has ever been available to anyone to report any issues occurring within the Family Court, is to the Family Court employees themselves. Effectively ‘police policing police’.
Judges of the Australian Family Court are seen as ‘above reproach’ and ‘above the law’ and are untouchable by any Commission or Court in the entirety of Australia.
Appointing a former employee who has been employed by the Australian Family Court since 2015, where there has been little challenge to any of his questionable rulings or his inability to self govern systemic bias and harm in the Court system he is currently Deputy of, is of great concern, as outlined further below.
In light of the above, for J McClelland to be potentially overseeing investigations into the very network of professionals he has associated with for over a decade is an invitation open for abuse of power, apprehended bias, bias and conflicts of interest. The same issues that have plagued the National Anti-Corruption Commission since its’ inception. Culminating recently in well over $1.14M of taxpayer funds to inquire into it.
The fact he was appointed by the Attorney General Michelle Rowland, who continues to refuse to put into place the Federal Judicial Commission (which would be the only way an Australian Family Court Judge could be independently investigated), and who oversees the functioning of the Australian Family Court and all legal professionals, and the law, respectfully, speaks to either omissions by J McClelland in his application as the head of NACC, or questionable ability for decision making on the part of Hon Michelle Rowland.
2. Appointment causing Chilling Effect for Family Court Whistleblowers
J McClellands’ appointment has already caused a profound chilling effect, discouraging victims and whistleblowers from coming forward with their reports regarding corruption within the Family Law system. Particularly in a climate where growing calls for transparency and accountability of actors in the Family Court of Australia.
For example, Protective Collective is in the process of compiling evidence of corruption in the Family Court by associated Family Court actors. This appointment has stopped the complaint in its tracks. Furthermore, J McClellands’ appointment could reasonably be foreseen to stop any person who works within the Family Court system and wanting to whistleblow, from coming forward.
3. J McClelland - Institutional Denial of Harm and Dismissal of Media Revelations
Furthermore, whilst holding senior leadership as Deputy Chief of the family court system, Justice McClelland and the court administration have repeatedly denied that women and children are being placed in direct harm by the Family Court's Orders. Instead, defending themselves and publicly claiming that children are being listened to.
When harrowing investigative reports have been published by the press, - including major public disclosures by the ABC[2] and the Herald Sun exposing children forced into the care of reported Men/Fathers who have committed serious acts of violence against them - the systemic response under his leadership has consistently been to publicly reject and deflect these findings.
By aggressively countering these public interest reports and dismissing the valid, lived experiences of victims, it broadcasts to the greater public that women and children reporting sexual violence are liars and it gaslights whistleblowers and undermines strong and cogent reporting of investigative journalism and robust vetting of victims both adults and children, lived experience of the Australian Family Court.
3. Judicial History and the Failings of Child Protection
A Commissioner must exhibit flawless judgment regarding safety, morality, and the protection of the vulnerable. Justice McClelland’s judicial record raises grave concerns with his capacity to make sound decisions in the publics’ best interests.
In one example, in his judgment of Duffield & Carlson[3], Deputy Chief Justice McClelland extraordinarily awarded significant home supervised custody to a Father – a convicted child sex offender who had been incarcerated - who had sexually offended against a child who lived next door, whilst the Man was still married with young infant children.
In J McClellands’ Judgement delivered Christmas Eve 2021, he made comments which in summary 'praise' the Mother for not ‘alienating’ the children by telling them that their Father was a convicted child sexual abuser. The ‘formula’ that J McClelland uses to justify the convicted child sex offender Father spending ongoing loosely supervised time with the Children in his home is, was in our opinion, fortune telling and devoid of listening to experts who cautioned against such a ruling and in opposition to the cogent valid concerns of the Mother. Therefore, J McClellands' 'reasoning', is, in our opinion, significantly alarming and demonstrates an incapacity of decision making that is in the least reckless, and at best is not in alignment with the public interest, moral values of the Australian public or what would be expected by the Australian public as a suitable child safety measure.
J McClellands' repeated reference and reliance on the prohibited[4] ideaology of ‘parental alienation’, (a widely acknowledged legal abuse tactic used as a defence against reports of violence) speaks to his own embedding of this ideaology into the culture of the Family Court of Australia. A non-peer reviewed and universally condemned ideaological concept that is only seen as 'real' in Family Courts worldwide, and where it has shown time and again, to severely punish women and children reporting sexual violence. Something that J McClelland is well aware of, having been part of a paper published by the Law Council in 2024[5]. Yet despite J McClellands' knowledge and involvement and position of power, it is not something he has engaged in trying to dismantle or even admit exists within the Australian Family Court.
It is our opinion, that J McClellands' actions show, he is not willing or able to tackle systemic harmful issues within his own role as Deputy Chief of the Australian Family Court, and therefore he is incapable of fulfilling his role as Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and lacks the moral and intellectual fortitude to hold the position, let alone the courage to call out systemic issues or seek to change them.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The National Anti-Corruption Commission cannot function effectively if its leadership is structurally compromised or indifferent to systemic institutional issues.
The Australian public has already witnessed the immense damage dealt to the integrity of the NACC by the continuing conflict of interest scandals surrounding the NACC's inaugural leadership. We have seen significant taxpayer funds exhausted on independent inquiries just to address internal misconduct and institutional bias.
We cannot afford a repeat of this institutional failure and a chilling effect on whistleblowers and lack of confidence of the public with apprehended bias and a decision maker who is incapable of making decisions that are in the best interest of public or that pass the ‘pub test’.
The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland claims that J McClellands’ appointment as Commissioner of the NACC was merit based, yet the ABC[6] has reported J McClelland was merely ‘referred’ to the position. However J McClellands’ appointment was made, needs to be fully vetted and made completely transparent for the Australian Public.
We call on the government to immediately revoke this appointment and select an independent Commissioner.
We urge you to join us in calling for J McClelland's removal from his position at the NACC. We must act promptly to protect the credibility of our institutions and ensure that justice remains both seen and served. Your signature can make a difference in holding our institutions accountable. Please sign this petition to safeguard the integrity of the NACC.
Just saying J McClelland can be trusted, is not good enough. His actions say something entirely different and he must be removed from his appointment.
There are Many Other People who would be suitable for the role of Commissioner of the NACC, we do not need to look far in Parliament to members who show a deep passion for integrity and responsibility.
Thank you for your support, together our collective voices can make change.
Who is Protective Collective?
Live Live Revolution and Protective Collective was founded by Lisa McDonald Arts Psych Grad Dip who has over two decades of experience advocating in the field of prevention of sexual violence and family violence. Lisa McDonald was instrumental in having sensitive and confidential case notes protected in the Family Law Act 1975 and was called on for her expertise in the law reform, being a key driver for protection. Lisa is a public commentator, advocate, activist and researcher in Family Law reform with particular interest in the systemic issue of the ‘parental alienation’ legal systems abuse ideaology, that positions women and children as ‘liars’ and ‘alienators’ for simply reporting incest and abuse. These women and children are severely penalised and subject to the ‘parental alienation cure’ deemed by the International Criminal Court as ‘torture’ and specifically prohibited by the United Nations. You can find Lisas’ content, reporting and raising of awareness on Instagram @kaykohsun and @protectivecollective and www.liveliverevolution.com
Protective Collective Lived Experience Panel for 2027 is currently being organised to enable the voices of women, caretakers, allies and children subjected to systemic bias when reporting violence, are heard and that they have opportunity to co-design policy and law, as per the National Coercive Control Plan guidelines.
Please support, sign and share this petition if you feel to.
References:
[1] https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/statement-100926
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-17/alleged-dv-victim-loses-custody-of-children-in-family-court/106826526
[3] https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2021/344.html?context=1;query=Duffield%20&%20carlon;mask_path=
[4] Custody, violence against women and violence against children (A/HRC/53/36), presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2023
[5] https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/publications/protecting-victims-family-violence-including-children-family-law-system-disincentives-disclosing-family-violence-and-child-abuse-and-responding-systems-abuse-terms-1a-and-1b-2024
[6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-19/nacc-corruption-watchdog-robert-mcclelland-replace-paul-brereton/107140004
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 1 November 2026