INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 September 2007. Page 812.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:15): I would like to make a brief contribution. This topic has been discussed for quite a while in South Australia. I am not convinced that we need an independent commission against crime and corruption. I have not seen any evidence that would warrant establishing a standing commission. That is not to say that, from time to time, we do not have crime and corruption. You would be naive to think that we are somehow immune from that. Before I indicate what my approach would be, I think it is fair to say that South Australia has a very good record in regard to the behaviour of public officials and MPs, and that includes other elected members in local government. We have a very good record in terms of people in public office behaving in a very exemplary manner. Now, whether there is something special about South Australia that has given rise to that, I do not know, but I think the reality is that, over the time we have been established as a state, we have a very enviable record of a high standard of ethical behaviour by public officials; and, as I say, that includes elected members.

The approach of having a standing commission in my view is not warranted on the evidence that I have seen thus far. The cost would be significant. The way you can achieve the same goal is to have some independent mechanism whereby you can trigger an inquiry if there is a prima facie case for investigation. We have already seen in the inquiries conducted—for example, by Dean Clayton QC and Tim Anderson QC—that you can draw qualified people from the bar to carry out investigations. What we need is a mechanism which enables people from the independent bar to be commissioned to carry out an investigation into alleged crime or corruption and give them the powers of a royal commissioner to investigate whatever the allegation is. Clearly, you need a filtering system which does not negate genuine independence and does not negate the opportunity to investigate thoroughly, but you need to negate people who are going to engage in frivolous and vexatious claims.

The areas which are most likely to come under scrutiny are likely to be in local government. I say that because there is more temptation in the area of local government, I guess, in respect of things such as development applications; there is more temptation for inappropriate behaviour by elected or appointed officials. That is not to say that our local government is a hot bed of crime and corruption—it is not. The local government sector in South Australia is outstanding in terms of being one which, in the main, is focused on issues which reflect highly on its integrity. I am not suggesting that local government is in any way a hot bed of intrigue, crime and corruption; I am just making the observation that I think you are more likely to get a temptation there to do something inappropriate in regard to behaviour than in many other areas of official life. That is not to say it cannot happen in other areas, but I think it is less likely. My view is that I would like to see this bill progressed.

However, as I indicated previously, I am advocating an alternative and less costly mechanism whereby an investigation can be triggered, and then you call upon someone from the independent bar with the powers of a royal commissioner to investigate the allegation or allegations without necessarily spending $10 million, $20 million or $30 million a year to keep a standing commission in place on the off-chance that you might have some crime and corruption that needs investigating. I think the intention is good, but I do not believe it is necessarily the way to go. I believe it is quite an expensive option. I stand to be influenced by the member for Mitchell if he can demonstrate that there are grounds for having such a commission in South Australia. However, at this stage, I am not convinced that a standing commission is necessary or justified.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:20): It is my pleasure to rise today in support of this motion of the member for Mitchell in relation to the commencement in this state of an independent commission against crime and corruption. I thank the honourable member for being so prompt in getting a bill to the parliament. Of course, we on the Liberal side have already made public our intention to establish a commission in this state. We are still settling exactly what form that commission should take. We are looking at the various commissions around the place. There are three, of course, in Australia already—in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Although I would have to say that generally in Australia we are less inclined to expect corruption in public office, it would just be burying our heads in the sand to suggest that in fact corruption does not occur in this state as it has already been found to do in other states and in other places overseas. Of course, members would be aware that in other countries there may be even a culture of corruption where it is their expected mechanism for achieving things, for instance, that one would bribe public officials.

In spite of the fact that we generally expect proper behaviour and everything to be above board, to expect that those things do not happen in my view just beggars belief. Indeed, I think that since our announcement there was a case in either Sydney or Melbourne of a local government officer who was taking all sorts of financial and other inducements in relation to the continuation of brothels.

I certainly am very confident that our police force here is really a very good one in terms of the uprightness of its members and its lack of involvement in corruption. I would expect that, just as in any other profession, there will inevitably be some bad eggs that get into the system. But I remember in Sydney, as quite a young person, seeing corruption that was so actively practised in the police there. I remember being in a pizza bar one night when police officers came in to collect their pizza, and not only did they not pay for it but they got handed money, a significant amount of money, with their pizza from the operator of the pizza place. I remember also seeing a very drunk driver that we had followed down a hill and he was pulled over by the police, and the next thing the policeman was getting things out of the boot of the car of that driver, who was then allowed to drive on in spite of the fact that he was clearly so inebriated that he could barely stand up, because we actually followed him from the pub.

So there was no doubt in my mind that, in those days anyway, the New South Wales police were very open to corruption. But, that said, I also knew many, many police officers in Sydney who were absolutely beyond reapproach in their behaviour. So, as I said, it is largely a matter of setting up systems to ensure that those who do behave properly are not tainted by the problem of the inevitable one or two who get through the system and who do not behave according to the rules. At the moment, of course, people will argue that we have the Police Complaints Authority, and so on, but the public perception is that the Police Complaints Authority in effect involves former police officers investigating police officers and they will never ever be seen to be separate enough from the Police Force for the public to have sufficient confidence that they are in fact independently investigating the corruptions. So, unlike the member for Fisher, I actually think it is a good idea to have a separately funded independent organisation that would take over that aspect.

I notice in the bill proposed by the member for Mitchell he gives the commission various powers, firstly to investigate allegations or complaints which might imply corrupt conduct; to communicate the results of their investigations to the authorities; to instruct, advise and assist people on ways in which they could eliminate corrupt conduct; to educate the public about corruption, and the need for there to be a public understanding that corrupt conduct is not acceptable in any form; to enlist and foster public support for combatting corruption and organised crime; and to make findings and report those; and so on. So there is a whole series of things that are included within the member's bill.

As I said, the Liberal Party has already decided that we would support an independent commission against corruption. We are still settling what form that would take, but in the meantime we believe it is appropriate to progress this bill on the basis that if it is successful we might in due course seek to put some amendments in place in order to bring it into line with the model that we think is the most appropriate. That is obviously a matter for negotiation. But there are clearly some common elements, for instance that element about educating the public, because it is important, and the more watchdogs you have the more efficient your system is going to be.

One of the reasons I believe that such an independent commission against corruption has generally been resisted by parliaments over the years is that MPs, of both persuasions, feel that they will become subject to unnecessary investigation by such an organisation if one is set up. And that may be so. That certainly could happen. My view is that if you are an MP and you take on public office and you are being paid out of the public purse in relation to your career then you should be prepared to withstand that scrutiny and make sure that your behaviour is such that the scrutiny does not lead to any finding of corruption against you. I certainly would not look forward to having an investigation but recognise there could be an investigation against me of some allegation. I am not aware of having ever done anything which would give rise to the suggestion that my behaviour has ever been corrupt, but I recognise that that probably for most MPs is a downside to the introduction of legislation of this sort.

As I said, that is in my view one of the reasons why it has generally been resisted. But my view is that, firstly, we have to be prepared to be absolutely accountable. Once upon a time MPs did not have to file notices with the parliament every year declaring what their interests were. We take that as a matter of course these days. We are subject to scrutiny by the media and by other people who raise questions from time to time. What this does is simply put in a formal mechanism so that if there is a suggestion that our behaviour has actually been corrupt then that would be addressed via an investigation by an appropriate authority. So in my view the argument does not hold water that they should not support it simply because it would lead to investigation of certain people like that.

There is just one other thing I wanted to mention in relation to an independent commission against corruption, and that is that a member of the judiciary spoke to me recently, and in just an unsolicited comment happened to remark that in his view the most likely fertile ground for corruption in this state is in fact in local council. I do not want to suggest that our councils are corrupt, but certainly the lack of audit or scrutiny processes over local government in this state does lead us open to the possibility that people, either elected members or officers of the council, could be subject to offers of bribery to approve certain developments or not approve certain development, and so on. So, there is a real question in the public mind about the scrutiny that is applied to those processes. I believe that it is appropriate for there to be a commission against crime and corruption. As I said, we may not necessarily agree, ultimately, with the model which is proposed by the member for Mitchell, but it is the pleasure of the Liberal opposition to lend its support to the member for Mitchell in seeking to have such a crime and corruption commission introduced in the state of South Australia.

Debate adjourned.