INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:31): I move:

That this house calls upon the government to recognise the need for this State to have a truly independent commission against corruption and to support legislation to establish such a commission as soon as possible.

I had the privilege last year of attending in Sydney an anti-corruption conference, which was the first of its kind in Australia. It was put together by the various anti-corruption bodies—the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales, the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland, and the CCC in Western Australia. The interesting thing was that at the very beginning of that conference, Morris Iemma, the Premier of New South Wales, said in his opening address: 'Any state that thinks they don't need one is crazy.' Indeed, the overall feeling at the conference was one of embarrassment at being from South Australia because so many of the participants were questioning the fact that this state is so resistant to the idea that we might need a commission against corruption.

Certainly we on this side of the house think that we need a commission against corruption—and it is a positive undertaking by our side that we will introduce one as soon as we are elected—but we are not the only people who think that way. The Law Society has indicated that it thinks we need an independent commission against corruption in this state; the Bar Association has indicated that it thinks we need an independent commission against corruption; the public at large thinks that we need a commission against corruption. But for some reason this government thinks we do not.

In fact, the Local Government Association has already expressed its view that we should have a commission against corruption, but there are certainly forces at work within the Local Government Association—and dare I suggest that certain people within that association may be acting at the behest of our Attorney-General in trying to change the Local Government Association view that we should have a commission against corruption in this state. In my view, the elected representatives on councils (many councils) will come to the conclusion, ultimately, regardless of what the LGA might say, that they want to stick by their earlier view that we need a commission against corruption.

One of the arguments raised against it so often is that it is such a waste of money. The New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption runs on a budget of a little under $15 million per annum. This government has wasted $31 million on building a tram to nowhere but says that $15 million of the budget (which is heading fast towards $15 billion per annum, so that is 0.1 per cent) should not be put towards corruption in this state. That is, to my mind, a drop in the bucket, but a drop that would be very well spent in this state. It is not very much money.

Another criticism, of course, that the Attorney-General and Premier like to raise is that it is a lawyers' feast, but the reality is that, when you look at the structure of the commissions that exist in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales, they are not lawyers' feasts, because lawyers become involved only after corruption has been found.

Mostly, what happens is that a significant number of people are involved in investigations. For instance, I know that the investigation into the Wollongong City Council, where most recently a vast level of corruption was found, was an undercover investigation for a full 18 months before anything came out. So, it is not a lawyers' feast, it is not an overly expensive exercise, and it is clearly one that we need. Indeed, it seems to me to be either naive in the extreme or a need to cover up things that would make the government here say we do not need a commission against corruption. I am sure that they cannot be that naive—so naive as to think there is no corruption in this state.

Of course, one of the other arguments that is raised against commissions such as this is that we already have sufficient avenues in this state to counter any corruption that we may find. We have an Ombudsman's office, we have an Anti-Corruption Branch within the police force, and we have an Auditor-General. And those people all do valuable things. Let me tell members that in New South Wales they still have all those officers, but the reality of certain corruption is that it is not traceable by an Auditor-General and it is technically not going to be a breach of some legislation.

For instance, how do you deal with corruption such as happened in Wollongong where it is to do with a personal relationship and the making of favourable decisions? You are not going to be able to prove that there has been a breach of any legislation in that sort of situation. I have heard of suggestions here, for instance, where officers of councils become involved in giving preferential treatment to certain contractors who supply services to councils.

For instance, councils that have a lot of tree trimming work obviously often no longer engage the crews themselves to do the tree trimming because they are such vast councils now, so they engage contractors to undertake that work for the council. How would an Auditor-General discover the trail that would be necessary to find that the officer of the council making the decisions was actually preferring one contractor over another and that that contractor was then doing some sort of contra deal or actually paying money, or whatever it might be, to the person who is getting the benefit and making favourable decisions for the contractor?

The reality is that much of what appears in our society as smelly and what any person in the community recognises as smelly will not be found by a police anticorruption branch, an ombudsman who looks at the propriety of the rules as made by departmental agencies, or the Auditor-General who follows basically a money trail. There are many things that smell in our society, and to suggest that it does not happen in this state is, as I said, either naive or indicates that this government wants to cover up something. For instance, let us look at a couple of recent appointments by the Attorney-General and others in this state. The Attorney-General most recently appointed a chap by the name of Jeremy Moore as the President of the Guardianship Board. Jeremy Moore is a perfectly good practitioner, an absolutely fine practitioner. He practised out of Strathalbyn. He happened to be an ALP candidate for the upper house a couple of elections ago—

Mr Rau interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The member for Enfield says, 'Does that make him ineligible?' It certainly does not make him ineligible to apply for the job. What smells about the appointment is that there was no advertising of the position, that the person who had been the deputy president of the Guardianship Board for eight years and the person who had acted as the president of the Guardianship Board for eight months did not even have the opportunity to apply for the job, because an appointment was made without any advertising of the position. There we go, the Attorney has come in and, no doubt, he will try to justify this appointment. However, what I want to say is: it smells—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point order. I understood it was a convention of this house of longstanding that all members are here at all times, and I wonder whether that is just a question of politeness which has lapsed in the hands of the member for Heysen or whether it is a requirement.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the Attorney's point of order. It has been a convention since 1496, so I suggest that it is one worth being maintained.

Mrs REDMOND: I absolutely profusely and profoundly apologise unreservedly for having suggested that the Attorney was not here, because clearly the Attorney was paying close attention to my remarks about this smelly appointment of Jeremy Moore as the President of the Guardianship Board. As I said, there is nothing wrong with him as a practitioner. He has no experience whatsoever in the guardianship jurisdiction and completely overlooking the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection from the interjections.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I seek your protection from the interjections from the other side.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I was temporarily involved in a discussion with the Opposition Whip.

Mrs REDMOND: I am simply seeking your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the interjections of the Attorney so that I can continue my remarks—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —because clearly the Attorney does not like me talking about this appointment. I will say again: it smells in the eyes of the public. This person is a perfectly good practitioner—nothing against the practitioner—but it smells when there is no advertising of the position and someone who has no experience in the jurisdiction is suddenly plucked out of obscurity and appointed to the job. If that was the outcome of a proper process, that would have been fine—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney, please wait your turn.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, you are getting very much out of order.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also call attention to the fact that not only is he breaching standing orders by interjecting but he is using my first name.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was the point of my remark.

Mrs REDMOND: Clearly, the other side does not want to hear about this, but it is not the only appointment. For instance, look at the appointment of the Acting Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's legislation clearly says that the term 'Ombudsman' includes 'Acting Ombudsman'. Furthermore, it also says that the Ombudsman cannot be appointed beyond the age of 65 years. Who did the Attorney-General appoint as the Acting Ombudsman? He appointed the retired Auditor-General. He is over the age of 65 years and, in my view, that was therefore an unlawful appointment. The Attorney says, 'No, I have had advice,' but he will not give us the advice.

We have those two uncomfortable appointments, then we have the appointment of Paul McMahon to the Industrial Commission. Here is a wonderful appointment! The Industrial Commission did not reappointment three commissioners last year. They said, 'No, there is not enough work for any more commissioners. We cannot even reappoint the three commissioners that we already have.' Instead of that, no, we pluck out someone, someone who is strangely in a position that might influence things on the Labor side of parliament, especially over this WorkCover legislation that has been so uncomfortable for them. They pluck out Paul McMahon and say, 'We need a new commissioner.' There was no new evidence whatsoever that we needed a new industrial relations commissioner. Indeed, I understand that there was information from the President of the Industrial Commission to the effect that the Industrial Commission did not want the appointment to be made but, notwithstanding that, the appointment took place, anyway.

There are just three examples: Paul McMahon to the Industrial Commission; the former Auditor-General, over the age of 65, appointed (apparently indefinitely) as the Acting Ombudsman, in spite of the fact that the Ombudsman's act says that the Ombudsman cannot be over the age of 65 and that the term 'Ombudsman' includes 'Acting Ombudsman'; and the appointment of Jeremy Moore as the President of the Guardianship Board, in spite of the fact that someone was acting in the job and did not even have the chance to apply for it. That is where my real objection is; that that person did not even get the chance to apply for the job and be honestly contested against Jeremy Moore. Maybe he would have come out as the best candidate. Maybe the idea is to appoint someone who has no knowledge of it and no background in it; perhaps that is the best way to make appointments. But the fact is that there are smelly appointments, and there are things like that going on all the time. If that alone is not sufficient—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will remain silent.

Mrs REDMOND: The key to the point that I am trying to make is that all these things should be subject to independent scrutiny so that there can be—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The member for West Torrens said that parliament has the scrutiny. When did we get scrutiny over the appointment of the president of the Guardianship Board? We had no scrutiny over that. He was appointed, and maybe it is just coincidence that he had been a candidate for the ALP and so, with no experience in the area, he comes in and gets a $400,000 a year job, or whatever it is. It may not be that much; it might be only $300,000 a year. He is put into a position without any proper process being gone through to choose a person who has the appropriate background and qualifications. I know that, since going in there—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Correct that. Correct the salary or—

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney calls on me to correct the salary—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —and I will say that it may not have been more than $200,000.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heysen, you need to be quiet too.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the Attorney! If you have a point to make please either raise a point of order or make a statement when the member has concluded, if you believe that the house has been misled.

Mrs REDMOND: I am happy to correct it and say that it may be $240,000: it may be less. When you include the add-ons to any salary, it goes up by about a third. The point is not how much the salary is: it is the smell of the appointment.

Mr PISONI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Many times when speakers on the other side have continually interjected you have allowed them more time. I ask that you allow the member for Heysen more time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:47): I was looking forward to hearing the member for Heysen put together an argument about why the state needed an ICAC, because I am interested in hearing a well argued, well reasoned, well rounded proposition to explain why someone would want to go down this path. Unfortunately, all we got was a series of rather peculiar complaints about individuals, some of which I think are probably unfair. I do not know very much about Mr Moore's position but I have to say on the record that, if Mr MacPherson wants to be Ombudsman for the term of his natural life, I will be happy with that, because he is doing a good job. Where is the issue there? He is doing an excellent job. Is there some suggestion that Mr MacPherson has done the wrong thing in order to secure the position of Acting Ombudsman? I do not think so. It is bizarre.

What worries me about the proposition put forward by the member for Heysen is this. It is an example of me-tooism: 'People in New South Wales have got one. I want one. People in Victoria have got one and people in Western Australia have got one. I want one too. Why can't I have one? They've got one.' No question about whether it is useful, whether it achieves anything or whether it is a despotic outfit completely out of control, doing more harm than good: 'They've got one. I want one.' I think psychologists talk about some sort of envy in children. I think this is an ICAC envy, instead of something that young girls are supposed to experience.

The situation is pretty clear. If you are trying to justify the establishment of what amounts to a broad ranging standing royal commission or some sort of a star chamber or inquisitorial outfit, you have to make out your case. Making out your case does not involve: 'They've got one. I want one too.' That is not making out your case. Just because the chap two houses down from you does something ridiculous, does that mean that you have to do it? Do you not examine the question as to whether or not it has any value or whether the value is outweighed by the downside?

One of the problems with these commissions is that all around the world where they have been established there is a tendency for them to try to justify themselves by producing more and more sensational results, because they are a results-driven thing. So, you go out and try to make a big splash just before budget time so you can then lever a bit more money out of the government of the day, or you try to make some other big splash in the media so people think you are doing something. Will a media-driven standing indefinite royal commission benefit the people of South Australia more than it causes trouble for itself and all the people who might come under its gaze? I think these are legitimate questions, none of which were addressed by the member for Heysen in her contribution.

When one examines the few arguments that the member put forward—which were all basically just attacking individuals—there is an element of The X Files about it. She sounded like agent Scully: the truth is out there. There is a conspiracy. The cigar man is hiding behind the tree and he is pulling all the strings—the cancer man. He is up there pulling all the strings; he is behind the trees. Moore pops up on the thing: 'Oh, it must be the conspiracy.'

I suggest that the member for Heysen should go down to Woolies or Coles or K-Mart and get the full series of The X Files and have a look at the whole lot of them, because that will give her a lot more ideas when she finally comes to her summing up point on this debate—because the best you can say for what we got today was that. There was no smoking gun, no evidence of corruption, no discussion and no intellectual argy-bargy about the need for this as opposed to the present system, or whether there are any elements of the present system that are unsatisfactory. It was just: 'They've got one. I want one.' If that is the best argument the proponent of this motion can put forward, it is really sad: 'They've got one. I want one.' It is sloppy, it is lazy and it is not an argument.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:52): The issue before us comes down to what we, as parliamentarians, and what the community wants and that is (one would hope) to root out corruption, if it exists, and to deal with it . That should be the first point to look at: we are seeking to uncover any corruption, if it exists, and to deal with it.

I am fully in support of seeking to do those things but we do not need, in my view, a standing ICAC for $15 million because what that body will do is to try and generate work for itself. All bureaucracies do that: they are self-sustaining and self-justifying.

What we do need, though, are some changes to the powers of the Auditor-General. I have already encapsulated those in the bill which is before the house and I will not talk specifically to that bill. However, I did have discussions with a former auditor-general and he told me that his powers were limited in terms of uncovering activities, for example, in local government where people may be doing things that they should not be doing. That is particularly in relation to some of the businesses that local government can operate.

What are some of these businesses? Councils run a whole range of businesses. We all remember the Port Adelaide Flower Farm from many years ago. Councils run multimillion dollar businesses, and I will mention one: Centennial Park. This is a multimillion dollar business owned by the City of Unley and the City of Mitcham. I am not saying there is anything untoward happening there at the moment but, in the past, things occurred there that should not have. However, the auditor-general of those years (and currently) could not investigate to find out if things were happening that should not be.

I believe that local government is the area where you are more likely to get corrupt practices. That is not to denigrate local government (of which I used to be a member), it is just the reality that councils are dealing with developers and people who are more likely to be involved in illegal activities than probably any other area of government. Obviously, it is not exclusive to local government. However, under the current auditing arrangements, because they are not supervised by the Auditor-General, because they are not consistent in the way they report, the current Auditor-General, along with previous auditor-generals, is unable to detect corruption.

That view was expressed to me by Ken McPherson, for whom I have the greatest respect. He expressed that view to me some time ago. In fact, in drawing up my bill which is before the parliament, I took the liberty of seeking his advice. Nevertheless, I accept responsibility for the bill. I am not, in any way, trying to attribute it to him, but I did take counsel from him on that matter.

The Auditor-General needs to have the power of oversight over council financial reporting and, in particular, over council-administered businesses. It needs the reporting but it need not cost councils any more. In fact, I have had informal discussions with the LGA where it was put to me by one of their senior officers that they do not have a problem with my bill. What it did want was some assurance that the Auditor-General would not charge exorbitant fees for auditing their books. The reality is that the Auditor-General would not personally audit their books; the Auditor-General would use contractors, private auditors, the same as happens now.

The change would be that those auditing practices of the private contractors would be in a standardised format and would cover aspects relating to council-operated businesses so that if there was anything untoward, the Auditor-General would be able to pick it up and deal with it immediately. My argument is that we do not need a standing ICAC. We do not need to spend $15 million. If the government has a spare $15 million I can give it some areas as to where it could be better spent.

What we need also, as well as giving powers to the Auditor-General to oversee local government more comprehensively and more thoroughly, is to create a mechanism whereby the public, an MP or anyone in the community can trigger, on the basis of valid information, an independent inquiry into corruption. That could be done, and has been done in the past, where an independent QC from the independent bar could conduct, with the powers of a royal commissioner, an investigation into a matter which was not vexatious, trivial or whatever.

I believe the government should make sure that it has in place a trigger mechanism where people, an individual in the community or anyone basically—whether they are in public office or not—can put a case (and I would suggest initially to the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman; or there may be a better mechanism than that) alleging corruption in a particular area. The mechanism could be triggered for someone from the independent bar, a QC with the powers of a royal commissioner, to investigate.

That way you do not have an army of people sitting around waiting for someone to knock on the door and say, 'I believe there is corruption in the XYZ government department, council or whatever.' You do not need to spend $15 million a year having a standing ICAC. It can be done in a much more cost-effective, but still effective way, and that is to have a trigger mechanism to generate an inquiry with a commissioner having the necessary powers. You can also complement that by giving the Auditor-General, through the Auditor-General's powers, the opportunity to properly monitor what happens, not only in government departments—which the Auditor-General can currently do—but in local government, as well. I think if we do those things then we pretty well have all the bases covered for minimal cost and maximum effectiveness.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for West Torrens I will correct the record on my earlier ruling about the origin of the convention of assuming all members are present. It was not 1642. The tradition of calling members by the name of their seat originated in 1645.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:00): I was interested to hear what the member for Heysen had to say about corruption in South Australia. Basically, her point of view was this: she makes the accusation, therefore we are corrupt. No evidence, no background info; simply 'This person is a member of the Labor Party and they have been appointed to a position; therefore, it is corrupt.' The only example of corruption I have seen in this house since I have been here was when former premier John Olsen was forced to resign in disgraceful circumstances. This humiliated the Liberal Party and the government of the time and brought them to the brink of crisis. The then premier was forced to resign, and his able deputy took over the leadership and led the Liberal Party to disaster.

During that period the then foreign minister of Australia, Alexander Downer, knew they could not have their former premier treated as if he were a criminal, so they appointed him Consul-General to New York. Not one word from members opposite (when we were in opposition) calling that corrupt; not one word. No-one in this house said that it was corrupt behaviour, but we knew what it was about. Alexander Downer used his position as foreign minister to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's how they got his resignation.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That's one view. I do not know that for a fact, but could you imagine that an officer of the Crown would offer another member of parliament an incentive to resign, the beneficiary being the member for Frome? Now if we had had an ICAC, the premier of the time (Hon. Rob Kerin) would have been dragged up to that ICAC under the cloud of corruption and asked, 'Were any incentives offered to premier Olsen to resign?' The truth is none were, he never acted corruptly, and I am not accusing him of corruption in any way, but the appearance would have been there. That example aside, what has happened here—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No-one is accusing you of anything—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Let us get this crystal clear. The member for Frome is a man of impeccable integrity and everyone in this house believes so; no-one is accusing him of anything. What I am saying is—

The Hon. R.G. Kerin: That's not what he said.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No. What the Attorney-General was saying is that what the member for Heysen was trying to imply was the appearance. The member for Heysen was implying that, because there was a benefit at the end, it was, therefore, corruption. It is not.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Deputy Chair, you heard the words of the member for Frome. I ask him to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the words of the member for Frome, but—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Would the member for Frome please repeat them?

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: I withdraw what I said. I also ask that the Attorney-General withdraw the totally improper words he used—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Which were?

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: Which basically were about me corruptly becoming premier, which was absolute rubbish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It sounds to me as if it is best for everyone to remain silent.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I think this demonstrates the point of what an ICAC will do. Rumour and innuendo is enough to ruin careers and to ruin lives. The first premier to be taken before an ICAC was Nick Greiner. He was found to be corrupt by the ICAC and was forced to resign, but he went to the Supreme Court and was completely cleared.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will have an opportunity to speak.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Frome!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I think the debate is getting to the point where it shows that ICAC's ultimate goal is not to stamp out corruption, it is to score political points. ICAC is there to have a cloud of corruption hanging over a politician's head simply through an accusation. I cite the United States Senate (circa 1952) and Joseph McCarthy. It is all about McCarthyism: are you corrupt; have you ever been corrupt; have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of Australia? That is what this is about. Simply an accusation of corruption is enough to end a career, and that is what ICACs are there to do.

Members opposite should make no mistake, ICACs have media units. The one in New South Wales does, the one in Western Australia does, the one in Queensland does. Their job, every day, is to get a story out. All it takes is a letter to an ICAC saying, 'I think there has been corrupt behaviour going on in this parliament; this is my accusation', and there is then an investigation, even just a cursory one. Now, imagine what The Advertiser would do with a cursory investigation from an anonymous letter about a politician: 'ICAC investigates the member for Schubert for corruption allegations.' It would make the front page. When the member for Schubert was cleared it would make page 56. Now, who benefits from that? I will tell you who benefits: the opposition of the day, not the government of the day. McCarthyism never works.

This really shows two things. The Liberal Party has a fundamental lack of trust in South Australia Police and its Anti-Corruption Branch and it hates the Auditor-General. It hates him for exposing its misconduct when it was in government. Unfortunately for members opposite, a lot of them were not there in government when these things were happening: when Joan Hall had her car broken into and cabinet documents stolen from that car—not her purse, not her handbag, not the car itself or the camera or the mobile phone, just a few files in her cabinet bag that happened to pertain to the investigation before the Auditor-General.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Strange about that.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; strange about that. That is why they hate the Auditor-General. And what does the member for Heysen do when she comes in here? Whom does she target and accuse of corruption? Former auditor-general, Ken McPherson. She knows he has no right of reply. She knows that he always acted independently and that he reported to the parliament. He had to come to this parliament to seek our protection from the executive because the executive was trying to stifle him. He—an officer independent of the parliament—had to come here to ask for our protection when they were in government because he feared being sued by the then cabinet for exposing irregularities in accounting practices and corruption in the government.

The Hon. R.B. Such: He was only doing his job.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He was doing his job. Then the government itself appointed its own investigation into the then premier and the Motorola deal. It was found to be corrupt and the then premier was forced to resign, and they have never forgiven Ken MacPherson for it. They blame him for their demise rather than themselves, because if they had not have knocked off Dean Brown in 1995 they would still be in government today probably, but they couldn't help themselves. That is how incompetent they were. So, because they cannot score a political point on the government in terms of the budget, the way the state is being managed, our mining boom or the state's unprecedented prosperity, they want to establish an ICAC so that they can start throwing around accusations to try to grind the government to a halt. Instead of having ministers in here answering questions about policy and procedure, they want to have them answering questions at an ICAC about some unsubstantiated claim by the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Heysen or anyone—usually anonymous.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Usually anonymous.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Usually anonymous—rather than have an Auditor-General who is funded, doing his job; they are not interested in that. They will get caught out on that. They want an ICAC to investigate politicians' baseless accusations.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He certainly does—I agree with him there. As to appointing Paul McMahon to the IRC, do you know what? A panel of this parliament was set up under legislation to approve that appointment, and do you know who sat on that? The member for Morphett. Did he say 'No' at the time? No; he supported it, but now they come in here and say that it was corrupt. If it was corrupt, why didn't the member for Morphett say something at the time? He did not. The member for Heysen says that he has impeccable credentials, he is fantastic at his job, but it smells. What are we meant to say to that? How do you defend yourself against that accusation? 'He is eminently qualified, he has been a great practitioner, but it smells'—it is typical of the hypocrisy of members opposite.

Time expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:10): I had no intention of entering this debate but some of the things that the member for West Torrens has just said are plainly wrong. I have always taken the attitude that, if somebody wants to make an argument, if they can tell the truth they are worth listening to, but if they distort facts and say things that plainly did not happen and purport them to be facts, obviously there is something flawed about their argument, and I make the assumption that the rest of their argument (the bits that I do not have intimate knowledge of) is probably flawed as well.

Let me just deal with a couple of statements that the member for West Torrens made in the last few minutes of his diatribe which I want to straighten out because this government continues to make accusations and tries to change the historic facts for its own political purposes. The member for West Torrens said—and he may care to check the Hansard—in regard to Joan Hall's car being broken into that a few files were selectively taken out of her car. That, to my memory, is factually wrong. To the best of my memory—and I am not making any comment about the situation that occurred—the reported facts were that several bags were taken out of her car. The member for West Torrens intimated that somebody selectively took several files out of her car. That is factually wrong to the best of my memory.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And will you get back to the house if you are wrong?

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely. My memory is that a bag or several bags containing files were taken out of her car. He also made the claim—and this is a claim that is regularly made by this government—that the John Olsen Motorola affair, as it has come to be known, exposed corruption.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I will get to that and I will explain the truth to you and the facts. I do not expect that you will change your story because you have nothing more than a political motive. The reality is that John Olsen resigned because he was accused of misleading the parliament and he was found on the balance of probabilities to have misled the parliament.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And?

Mr WILLIAMS: And he resigned.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And?

Mr WILLIAMS: There was nothing corrupt. There was no hint of corruption. John Olsen was accused of misleading the parliament. If you want to go back, at one point in time in the mid-1990s, John Olsen was asked the question in the parliament about the Motorola contract. He was asked whether there was a side deal and he told the parliament that there was no side deal.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And he lied.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: The documents that were later revealed showed that a side deal was offered to Motorola and Motorola said, 'No, we do not need it' and, when the contract was signed, that side deal was not part of the contract. That is the fact. Notwithstanding that, finding was made by the Cramond inquiry that John Olsen—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Clayton.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Clayton inquiry, sorry, that John Olsen had misled the parliament.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right, not all of them, I remind you that members on my left did listen in silence to your contributions for most of the time, so please return the courtesy.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is important, particularly when we are having a debate, and I would hope it would be a mature debate on something like an ICAC, that we actually stick to facts. I know that this is a sensitive matter and it is always a sensitive matter for any government, and I accept some of the points that the member for West Torrens made. It always poses risks to a government, whereas it probably does not pose any risk to an opposition. I accept that. When government talks about John Olsen and Motorola, particularly, I wish it would acknowledge that the deal with Motorola was a damn good deal for South Australia.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Where are they now?

Mr WILLIAMS: I know where they are now: they have been driven out of the state by your damn government. That is where they are—450 very good, high paid jobs, which kept some of our best trained young scientists in this state, and now they have gone, because you played politics with Motorola for the political end—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —just as it has been demonstrated that the member for West Torrens will continue to play politics with it, and that is where Motorola has gone.

Mr O'Brien interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: He is not even in his place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very sad that Motorola is not still in South Australia. I am very sad that some of the businesses—

Mr O'BRIEN: On a point of order, the member has actually misled the house as to the reasons for Motorola exiting South Australia. The fact of the matter is that the decision was made—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. You can make a statement as a contribution.

Mr WILLIAMS: How long has the member for Napier been in this place? Might I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have the Speaker write a letter to members who have not been here for all that long, and get them to read the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, please focus on the debate. I do not know to whom I would send the letter first.

Mr WILLIAMS: The point that I am making is that history will show that John Olsen was a very good premier, a very good minister, and did a lot of good things for this state. I must admit—

Mr Koutsantonis: Why did you ask him to resign?

Mr WILLIAMS: I did not ask him to resign. At the end of the day, John Olsen took the decision on balance to step down as premier. I think your Premier has acknowledged that he did a fine job in behalf of South Australia in Los Angeles. I think your Premier calls on him when he goes to New York.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Can't take what? Your nonsense? I will tell you what I will not take: I will not take the sort of nonsense—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for MacKillop! Please return to the topic of the debate.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General continues to defy your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the matter of ICAC, it is interesting that just about every other jurisdiction in the nation has an ICAC. I cannot remember who it was, but in the last couple of weeks I heard somebody from New South Wales say that, if South Australians believe that South Australia is the only state in Australia which is corruption free, they are kidding themselves. I think that is right. I think if we believe that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No-one said that.

Mr WILLIAMS: Okay, so the Attorney-General acknowledges that South Australia is not corruption free, yet he and his colleagues argue that we should not do anything about it. That is the point of difference. We all know, now that we have heard from the Attorney-General, that there is a very strong likelihood that there is corruption within South Australia—

Mr Venning: The question is: what do we do about it?

Mr WILLIAMS: And the question is: what do we do about it? The Labor government says we do not do anything about it: the Liberal opposition says we have a properly resourced body, independent of other organisations, and we chase down people who are corrupt. We have to establish a culture. Once you establish a culture that you are going to do something about it, that you have an intention, I think you will find that corruption will not be so easily spread and it will not be so readily undertaken by people who are in situations where they can get away with it today. I think it is the culture that we have to get there. I think ICAC is potentially a very important step on the path to establishing that culture in South Australia.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:20): Police, court and local government officials in South Australia have been charged with abuse of public office and related offences, often because they are alleged to have misused confidential information obtained in the course of their job. People have gone to gaol, been heavily fined, had lifelong convictions placed on their record, had their reputations ruined, paid crippling legal defence fees, even if they were acquitted, and lost their job. I am not quibbling with the notion that corruption occurs in South Australia; now and in the past. Neither I nor the Premier have ever denied it. Indeed, for the member for MacKillop—and, indeed, for some journalist—to set up the idea that somehow members of the Labor government are in denial about the fallen nature of humanity is incorrect.

Can we improve our anti-corruption system? I think we can. It depends on how much taxpayers are willing to fork out and how they rate it alongside maintaining or improving other government services. Even on the Liberals' own estimates, an ICAC in South Australia is going to cost more than the entire budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. So when we are calculating election promises, there's a biggie.

Corruption is being investigated, charged and punished in our state, but law enforcement's successes get only a fraction of the publicity that malicious gossip gets in Adelaide's media. Some readers may remember a frontpage story, in The Advertiser, on a Saturday in 2004 that allegations against the Chief Magistrate had been referred to the Anti Corruption Branch of the police. The allegations were made by a certain magistrate, who would not go on the record; in fact, was very fond of backgrounding the media. Almost no-one would have seen the tiny story in the back pages, weeks or months later, that the allegations had no substance. Journalists and opposition MPs look forward to feasting on allegations being referred to an independent commission against corruption and hope that no-one will comment on their ignoring the targets being cleared months later. Mud sticks. I commend the member for Heysen for giving some thought to this aspect of the proposition.

South Australia has a dedicated Anti-Corruption Branch of the police and the police also have an Internal Investigation Branch. I know the member for Schubert reflected on that in a previous debate. Our Ombudsman has the powers of a royal commissioner. I will repeat that: our Ombudsman has the powers of a royal commissioner.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for MacKillop interjects that they have never been used. I hope, if he is wrong, he will come back to the house.

Mr Williams: You were wrong with every interjection you made this morning. And other days. Do you stand by that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I will not tolerate pointing across the chamber. Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Almost no-one knows that the Crown Solicitor's Office has a Government Investigations Unit, that specialises in investigating misconduct in the public service. We have an independent Police Complaints Authority answerable only to the law and to parliament. We have an Auditor-General's department independent of the government of the day. Remember what it exposed about the Olsen government. Also, let us remember the debts on a Public Service credit card of Vicky Thomson, Craig Bildstein and John Cambridge. We have laws to protect whistleblowers and we have freedom of information laws. I think that there is a creative tension between these organisations that makes them serve the South Australian public better than the costly, monopolistic, self-absorbed and over-mighty ICAC equivalents in other states. If a person takes an allegation to one agency and does not get satisfaction, he can take it to other agencies in South Australia.

Just recently, in another jurisdiction, in New South Wales, we have seen the arrest of Mark Standen, who was in a specialised criminal investigation branch and whose partner was an employee in ICAC. That matter is still before the courts, but it shows the danger of concentrating this authority in one government body. Who watches the watchdogs?

The New South Wales ICAC Commissioner says ICAC receives 2,500 allegations a year and, although every allegation is attended to, only 50 warrant serious investigation and a mere five or six lead to full-blown inquiries. That is a lot of collateral damage.

I notice that the member for Frome waxed indignant because he misheard an interjection of mine earlier. The full suggestion was made by the speaker on his feet (the member for West Torrens), and I ask members to refer to Hansard and what was said. All I did was draw the attention of the house, by way of interjection—which I accept is out of order—to part 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which is the relevant part of the law concerning the imputation that Mr Olsen was persuaded to resign from office by his federal Liberal colleagues and, within months, was appointed to the foreign service, which is a department of the commonwealth.

ICACs are a gift to malicious slanderers who want nothing more than a headline or a TV promo. They are also a gift to those who want to exert inappropriate pressure on public officials. These people say, 'Give me what my client wants or I'll call in ICAC,' or 'Your decision will be ICACable.' We can do better by giving one or more of the existing agencies authority to compel people to attend hearings and answer questions on oath; and there is scope to improve the independence of the Police Complaints Authority. I am working on it, but it will never arouse the lust that an ICAC will among journalists, oppositions and the vexatious.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (12:29): I had no intention of speaking on this matter but I feel duty-bound to respond to the comments of the member for MacKillop. The member claimed that the closure of the Motorola plant in Adelaide was a result of decisions made by the state government. I know I was out of order in interjecting but, irrespective of the manner in which the member for MacKillop expressed the proposition, the clear sentiment was that Motorola exited South Australia as a result of Rann Labor government economic policies.

I have done a quick google in the chamber because I always like to back up a proposition with fact. It is by no means exhaustive, but what I have discovered is that, in the period in which Motorola Adelaide closed down, there were other closures elsewhere in the world. As I said, it is by no means exhaustive, but I have been able to establish that in Harvard, Illinois, a plant closed, with the loss of 2,500 jobs; a plant in Cork, Ireland closed, with the loss of 330 jobs; a plant closed in Singapore, with the loss of 700 jobs; and a plant closed in Germany, with the loss of 400 jobs. In East Kilbride in Scotland, they were lucky to escape, but at one stage closure looked imminent.

In addition to the Adelaide closure, we have four other closures elsewhere in the world. As I said, it was not an exhaustive search and there may well have been a number of others. Four closed at the same time as the Adelaide plant and a plant in Scotland got through by the skin of its teeth. The proposition advanced by the member for MacKillop that the Rann Labor government was in any way, shape or form responsible for the closure of the Motorola plant in Adelaide is erroneous, and I hope my statement clarifies that well beyond doubt.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Motion negatived.