INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Attorney-General.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! When I call the house to order, I expect it to come to order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: When arguing against an anti-corruption body in South Australia yesterday, why did the Attorney-General selectively quote and misrepresent the view of Mr Brian Carr to the house? Yesterday I drew to the house's attention remarks by the New South Wales Labor premier who told an anti-corruption conference in that state that any state that has failed to set up a stand-alone anti-corruption agency was 'crazy'. In defending the Rann government's position, the Attorney read from an opinion piece by Mr Brian Carr. Having quoted a section of the piece, he failed to include the following conclusion:

While there is no question an independent authority needs to be established in South Australia to deal with allegations of corruption—

Mr Carr went on to conclude his remarks by saying:

It is not a question of whether there needs to be an ICAC, it's just a question of what model should be considered.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:30): I agree entirely with Mr Carr's article; I think it is a comprehensive debunking of the state Liberal Party's position. I was delighted to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: One of these days, the Liberal spokesman for multicultural affairs will be able to pronounce names other than English surnames; he has not quite arrived at that point yet but, with a bit of training from Kevin Naughton and John Lewis, perhaps he will be able to pronounce the New South Wales Premier's name soon.

I think Mr Carr has authoritatively debunked the state Liberal Party's position on anti-corruption measures. I think he speaks from the perspective of experience in New South Wales. If the Leader of the Opposition had followed my remarks on this topic carefully, he would have noted that I had not ruled out changes to our anti-corruption laws. Time and again I have left the door open to the suggestions of our Acting Ombudsman, Ken MacPherson, that perhaps there does need to be a panel of people experienced in public life to vet the kind of allegations which are routinely thrown around by the state parliamentary Liberal Party, the minor parties and members of the South Australian community, and to make some assessment of whether there is a substratum of fact for the allegation to proceed to investigation.

As we all know, there are so many allegations made in public life here in this state that do not have a scrap of evidence to their name. So, I think there is some merit in that. Even Jerrold Cripps QC, the head of ICAC in New South Wales, conceded when he came to Adelaide that, of more than a thousand allegations sent to ICAC only about 50 were worth looking at and about five or six seriously investigated. So, all people of goodwill who come to this topic agree on the substance of what needs to be done. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place just throw off all kinds of allegations which, with the effluxion of time, prove to have no substance whatsoever.

I remember the member for Waite—the Leader of the Opposition—striding into police headquarters to thump down some lever arch files on the desk. What came of those allegations? Nothing! It is interesting also—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, apparently the Leader of the Opposition thinks the police Anti-Corruption Branch is itself corrupt because it didn't—

Mr Venning: Could be.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Oh, it could be, according to the Liberal Party whip. So according to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Schubert, the police Anti-Corruption Branch may be—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Attorney is clearly making false statements. You just can't allow this sort of putting words into the mouths of people when they have not been uttered. It is just inappropriate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If a member feels that an interjection has been misrepresented, then there is an appropriate way to deal with that by way of personal explanation. I was distracted; I didn't hear what the Attorney said. But, again, as I have said many times before, if members interject, the interjection becomes really the property of the member on his or her feet. So, don't interject. The Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: So, Mr Speaker, as you yourself have constantly ruled, if the opposition make interjections, which of course are always out of order, I and other members are in order to place those silly interjections on the parliamentary record. So if members of the parliamentary Liberal Party—

Mr HANNA: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Attorney-General is no longer answering the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! Yes, I ask the Attorney to go to the substance of the question please.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. Sir, I will not stand for the parliamentary Liberal Party accusing the police Anti-Corruption Branch of being corrupt because it does not take up every allegation that members of the parliamentary Liberal Party make. Indeed, on the question of Mr Carr, the Chief Executive Officer of the Light council, that was exactly the point he was making in his—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; he is in fact the CEO of the Light council here in South Australia. He was the chief executive officer of, or at least worked for, the Liverpool council. Mr Carr made the exact point that an ICAC can be used as a cover for making allegations, knowing them to be false or recklessly indifferent to whether they are true or not. I well recall in this house allegations that were made by members of the parliamentary Liberal Party against the police, which are now the—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will take his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney-General is clearly not answering the question, but just throwing allegations across the chamber against the members of the opposition. It is quite unacceptable behaviour towards the other members who are not interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will take her seat. If you are raising a point of order with me it is necessary to point out which standing order the member is infringing. It is not necessary to pass commentary. Has the Attorney concluded his answer?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Just one last remark, sir: but for parliamentary privilege there are some people who might find themselves in the dock.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!