ICAC Investigation

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (15:42): Various sections of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act detail the requirement that information, except as authorised by the commissioner or a court, must remain confidential. In the case of a natural person, the maximum penalty is legislated at $30,000. I will explain why I raise this now. Members will recall my outlining the detail of the ICAC commissioner's statement of 4 May clearing me and Ms Vicki Antoniou of any wrongdoing, as has been alleged in a series of articles published by Michael Owen of The Australian. The aim was quite obviously to discredit me and a hardworking public servant in the eyes of the South Australian public.

Although members of parliament have the protection of parliamentary privilege, we are still required to comply with the legislation. I am aware of how disappointed the member for Unley, and Michael Owen for that matter, must have been on 4 May when Commissioner Bruce Lander issued his public statement making it clear that there was no substance to the allegations referred to him about me and the appointment of Ms Vicki Antoniou, a public servant, to a Public Service position, and that Mr Lander had closed his file. The member for Unley again did not get the political prey he was hunting.

True to form, having not achieved the result he was aiming for, the member for Unley was out again the very next week trying to reagitate the same discredited accusations. As I have previously stated, no responsible journalist bound by the code of ethics touched this matter, as they saw it for what it was. But then, there is always Today Tonight and Hendrik Gout. A segment regarding ICAC and its clearing of me was run on 18 May.

Again, in true Today Tonight style, full of inaccuracies and innuendo, it simply restated matters already dismissed by Commissioner Lander. The deceit in their portrayal of events was astounding, and of course it contained the trademark Today Tonight subliminal manipulation: dimmed lighting, colour to black and white, slow motion and sinister music.

Gout reports the complaint to ICAC was that I had 'created a job for a public servant who had once worked for her partner, Speaker Michael Atkinson'. Further into the story, he claims that documents FOI'd by the member for Unley 'appeared to show that, at the insistence of the minister's office, a unique new Public Service position was created specifically for Antoniou'. The imputation of this defamatory comment, of course, is that I acted corruptly.

Any attempt to check this by a credible journalist would have found that every multicultural affairs minister's office has had a departmental person filling this position. It was new to my office, yes, because I had just been appointed multicultural affairs minister, and it was new to the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, yes, because the agency had been transferred from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. It was not a new Public Service position per se.

But, according to Gout, this matter goes back to '2010, when Michael Atkinson lost his ministries of Attorney-General and Multicultural Affairs'—a Today Tonight take on the decision by the member for Croydon not to renominate for a cabinet position after the 2010 election. Of course, the truth does not fit the picture Mr Gout wants to paint, so he made it sound like the member for Croydon was removed from the ministry. They then use footage and comment that must have been at least five or six years old, or even older, to try to put the member for Croydon into the story they were trying to create—completely unethical, but typical Today Tonight.

Then there was the quote, 'This woman, Vicki Antoniou, a permanent public servant'—he goes on—'John Rau had someone else in mind', meaning of course that John Rau would not employ her when he became Attorney-General. Well, in fact, Ms Antoniou worked for the Attorney-General for some time in another role, but he was not the minister for multicultural affairs. A multicultural position was in the member for Croydon's office when he was minister for multicultural affairs. It was a position in minister Portolesi's office, and it is a position in minister Bettison's office. It was not new for me as the minister for multicultural affairs to have the very same position in my office. So, it was not newly created for me, but it was a unique position in that it required specialised knowledge and skills. In that way, it was different to other departmental officers. Gout continues his game:

Suddenly out of the blue on May the 4^th came the commissioner's statement clearing Rankine of any wrongdoing. Just why Rankine got this individual treatment is an even stranger story; in February this year she unexpectedly resigned from the ministry.

This 'out of the blue' statement came about as Commissioner Lander explained because of media reports—that is, the eight articles published in The Australian, written by Michael Owen, but Gout does not report that fact. So incensed is Gout that all matters have been finalised, clearing both Ms Antoniou and myself, he tries to create the picture in viewers' minds that, because of correspondence from the member for Croydon to The Australian letters to the editor claiming he believed exactly that would occur, somehow the ICAC commissioner was either influenced, coerced or corrupt himself. He claims I was not 'just exonerated, but politically exonerated by the otherwise inscrutable commissioner'.

The deceit in their portrayal is astounding, and if you think it stops there, you are mistaken. He goes on and on with continual innuendo and rewriting what actually happened. To complete his story, he goes on to state that I refuse an interview outside that protected precinct, that is, this parliament. What I told Mr Gout in writing was:

I would consider a request for an interview from a journalist. By that I mean someone bound by the MEAA Journalists Code of Ethics and, with television reporting, someone who adheres to the Code of Practice applying to news, without relying on the exemption clause for accuracy and balance for infotainment programs, as I understand you do rely.

His only reply was he did not know if that was a yes or a no. What was new and previously unpublished information revealed in this segment was the identification of the complainant to ICAC, and that is directly contrary to the ICAC Act. Gout said:

In a letter to the Ombudsman asking for an investigation, Mr Pisoni wrote that the documents appeared to show that, at the insistence of the minister's office, a unique…Public Service position was created specifically for Antoniou.

He went on to say:

We now know that Pisoni sent his information to the Ombudsman and…we've since discovered, forwarded the case to the newly formed but ultra secretive Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Let me repeat that so there can be no mistake. Gout said:

We now know that Pisoni sent his information to the Ombudsman and he, we've since discovered, forwarded the case to the newly formed but ultra secretive Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Michael Owen does not have ESP; someone told him about the information that ICAC was investigating. Only one person had that information: the complainant. The complainant shared that information. That is prohibited under the act.

Gout has now revealed the complainant was the member for Unley. In his haste to hop on the mudslinging bandwagon, Hendrik Gout has identified the member for Unley, who had, to that time, been trying to minimise his perceived role as far as the ICAC investigation was concerned. He was more interested in picking over a political carcass should it be delivered to him. In some way, my resignation thwarted his moment of glory. The member for Unley is now in the rogues' gallery occupied by the likes of Franca Arena and Senator Bill Heffernan. At least Senator Heffernan, once his allegations against Justice Kirby were found to be false, had the decency to apologise—but not the member for Unley.

Today, I will be providing the Attorney-General with the transcript of the broadcast, asking that the matter be referred to his legal officers. This time, they have taken one step too far. The member for Unley has been outed—outed by the clumsy Hendrik Gout—as the complainant. My accusation is that the member for Unley then passed on correspondence that was confidential, which was against the law, to Michael Owen of The Australian.

It is people like the member for Unley whose conduct denigrates the role of members of parliament. In all my years in this place I have never called for the resignation of anyone, but if the Leader of the Opposition is to maintain his probity, and if the parliamentary Liberal Party is to fulfil its proper political and constitutional role without a New South Wales-style stain, the member for Unley must be stood down as the shadow minister for education while this breach is investigated. It is my very strong view this man is not fit for public office.