House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Public Integrity PUBLIC INTEGRITY The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Tourism The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Tourism) (16:09): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Madam Speaker, can I also— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: —offer my congratulations to you on your election. I am sure that you will do an excellent job. You are one of the few people—aside from the former speaker in this chamber—who appreciate the great pleasure of wearing a wig like that. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Yes. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: I just wonder whether it will become a feature of your presentation all the time, but it looks magnificent today, so thank you. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I did notice you yesterday, Attorney, in your wig, and I thought I would look as attractive as you today. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much. Prior to the recent state election, the government promised to push ahead with the Premier's plan to pursue the establishment of a national anti-corruption body. I am today travelling to Melbourne to a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to argue the case for a national approach. The South Australian government supports the establishment of a national body with the ability to root out corruption unbridled by state borders. Corruption does not respect state borders. Demands for the establishment of a state so-called ICAC have been noisy but unsupported by a substratum of fact or logic. No evidence has been presented to show that systemic failures by existing state-based agencies are allowing corruption to flourish in South Australia. Allegations, no matter how sensational, are not evidence. In the absence of evidence, logic does not suggest the need for an ICAC. Evidence in New South Wales suggests that, in 2008-09, from— The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport has a point of order. The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Leader of the Opposition gave notice about introducing a bill in relation to an ICAC, and the minister is arguing against the bill before the house. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: There is no point of order; it has not been introduced as yet. The Attorney. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I should read that bit again. Evidence in New South Wales suggests that, in 2008-09, from 2,714 matters reported, its ICAC made corrupt conduct findings against 52 people and recommended that the advice of the DPP be sought with respect to the prosecution of 51 people for criminal offences. This shows that only a tiny proportion of complaints led to findings of corruption. In this context, the police commissioner, Mal Hyde, has had some wise words, and I quote: ...we often have many politically motivated matters referred to us because what politicians and people involved in politics want to do is to be able to say that there is an anti corruption branch inquiry into one of their opponents and they get political mileage out of it. Does anyone in parliament seriously support wasting taxpayers' money on facilitating witch-hunts and cheap political stunts? Of course not. That would be an abuse of process that all honourable members would abhor. All members would abhor that. Currently, South Australia has a combination of agencies and statutory authorities working against corruption, as well as a fine judiciary. The diverse nature of these bodies is a strength, not a weakness. South Australia's current public integrity system includes: the SAPOL Anti-Corruption Branch; the Ombudsman; the Police Complaints Authority; the Auditor-General; the Government Investigations Unit in the Crown Solicitor's Office; whistleblower protection legislation; the DPP; an independent judiciary; and (in some circumstances) the Royal Commissions Act 1917. All this said, the government holds no illusions about the possibility of corruption at any level of government. It seems apparent to me that the public expects a higher level of assurance that concerns and complaints about public accountability are being dealt with effectively and transparently. The recent state election clearly dictates that the government should listen more closely to community concerns and feedback. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Attorney. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I will say that again. The recent state election clearly dictates that the government should listen more closely to community concerns and feedback. This was one issue of concern. We can, and should, do more to improve confidence in our public integrity system. This is central to confidence in good government and the rule of law. Therefore, I will review the operation and effectiveness of South Australia's existing public integrity system and, if areas are identified that might be improved, they will be improved. I look forward to keeping the parliament abreast of developments.