ICAC Investigation

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (15:36): Yesterday, I spoke about the investigation undertaken by ICAC into the employment in my office of Vicki Antoniou. I want to continue speaking about ICAC in that particular situation. We were told an ICAC was necessary to improve standards in public life. The ICAC has extraordinary powers. ICAC is not bound by the safeguards our criminal law and procedure have developed over the centuries but we have agreed to give it these powers for the good health of our system of government.

I fronted ICAC during this investigation without a lawyer or any support person: I trusted the truth. Ms Antoniou fronted ICAC without a lawyer or support person: she also trusted the truth. The member for Unley's agitation of these allegations was an attempt to destroy me politically, force my resignation from the ministry and irreparably damage me in my electorate. It was also an attempt to trash Vicki Antoniou's reputation. I truly think she was the target of the complainant but, for the member for Unley, she was simply collateral damage.

Her work was of such a high standard, her knowledge immense and her contacts unsurpassed. For the member for Unley, her proficiency rankled and any damage to her was of no consequence to him. Public servants are not used to this treatment. They are and should not be the front line of a political attack—not that the member for Unley is ever in the front line: he has others do his dirty work for him.

Undertake a Google search on Vicki Antoniou now and it will bring up the discredited allegations of the member for Unley and Michael Owen. If anything about this makes me angry, it is the damage these two people have done to her. Vicki Antoniou's clearance by Commissioner Lander does not quite have the online grunt of the discredited allegations. Michael Owen would have fantasised about getting a Walkley or some other gimcrack journalism award for his series of allegations.

Investigative journalism has a place in our society but the reporter should approach an allegation with an open mind, with a desire for genuine, intellectual inquiry and without malice. The reporter should not be 'doing a job', as the journalists refer to it. When the hope of a Walkley was vaporised by a finding that the allegations were without substance, that is when Michael Owen's integrity was tested. He failed.

I have no doubt the member for Unley would have been fantasising about finally claiming a political scalp, something that has consistently escaped him, no matter how deep the gutter in which he wallows, no matter how low he goes. The member for Unley has had more than a week now to go some way to righting the wrong he has committed. Supporting an allegation of corruption to ICAC and agitating it in the media is something the media has said we should allow for the health of our system but, when the allegation is found to be false by an investigation with the extraordinarily intrusive powers of an ICAC, those agitating it in the media have a corresponding duty to have the courage and integrity to admit the allegations were wrong. The member for Unley failed.

As I said yesterday, the member for Bragg could not contain herself; she had to be part of the member for Unley's sordid attack. Here she is, the shadow attorney-general, supposedly aspiring to be the chief lawmaker in this state, and she wades into this mess calling for the government to do something she knew it was not possible to do. She wanted answers. While the deputy leader was doing her best to be a part of the kill, the leader was slinking around whispering here and there, salivating at the prospect the member for Unley might finally come good.

Commissioner Lander gave them all the answers they needed, but not what the leader, not what the deputy leader, not what the member for Unley hoped for. Each of you on the other side—you allow the member for Unley to conduct himself in this manner which is consistent and ongoing. You cannot say you are surprised by it. Some of you are embarrassed by him; some of you come up and personally apologise for his behaviour and his attitude. You say you do not like it, you say you do not agree with it, but you do nothing about it.

Your leader, your deputy leader, all of you who remain silent, bear the responsibility for the damage that has been done to this innocent public servant—no longer apologise for his actions. You sit back and allow him to continue. If this person was a minister he would have been sacked long ago, and you all know it.

The kind of civil society South Australia is to become in the ICAC era depends to some extent on whether people in positions such as members of parliament and journalists have consciences, a sense of decency and respect the intent of the laws which govern it.

Time expired.