Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee: Annual Review

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Picton:

That the first report of the committee, entitled Public Integrity and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Annual Review, be noted.

(Continued from 1 July 2015.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:46): I rise to support the report of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, the Public Integrity and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Annual Review, as recently adjourned. I note that this committee has been in operation for a short while now and that we are starting to see some fruit of the committee. In speaking to the annual review, obviously there are a number of recommendations in that review. I would like to speak a little bit to some of the recommendations in the tabled report.

Recommendation 1 is that section 46 be amended to insert responsibilities for a person to conduct reviews into the commissioner or his or her staff regarding abuse of power, impropriety, maladministration, invasion of privacy and other improper conduct. I support that recommendation and certainly the reasoning put forward by the committee.

I also support the recommendation involving establishing a one-stop shop model to receive, assess and allocate matters relating to public integrity, as well as the reasoning put forward by the committee. It certainly makes sense to cut out that extra layer of bureaucracy if it is not required. That came through well and truly as a recommendation and I absolutely concur with that as well.

Recommendation 3 pertains to police powers and ICAC investigators. There was a recommendation suggesting that the Attorney-General investigate the retention of police powers by ICAC investigators, especially the power of a general search warrant. I also support that recommendation and the reasoning put forward by the committee.

In regard to the Whistleblowers Protection Act, there was a recommendation, if I am not mistaken, that it should be amended as part of the work being done to achieve consistent public integrity legislation. Again, I support that recommendation. The Police Ombudsman should, arguably, not have the power to determine the external reviews into its own agency. I think it goes without saying that, when it does have the power to determine reviews into its own agency, that could potentially raise a conflict down the track. So I concur with recommendation 4 and with the general work to make sure that there is consistent public integrity legislation in that light.

Recommendation 5 relates to section 39(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1991, and 'relevant review authority' could mean the Ombudsman. Again, I would be happy to support that recommendation and the reasoning put forward by the committee. By the way, if you have not read the report, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you still speaking to the committee's report?

Mr TARZIA: Absolutely, I am still on the committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you endorse it?

Mr TARZIA: Yes, I did endorse it, and I am endorsing it in the house. It is important that members on both sides of the chamber stand here and that we support the findings of our committee. It is good reading, and we are very proud of our efforts so far. Not all of us wanted this committee, and not all of us wanted these acts, but my learned friends on the other side have come around and they concur, they agree, that transparency is a good thing. It is excellent that they have finally come around. There is also a recommendation in regard to—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: As the baby of the house, Deputy Speaker, I ask for your protection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like everyone to stop interjecting and I would like you to continue your speech, please.

Mr TARZIA: With respect to recommendation 6 and the legislative framework regarding complaints about police misconduct and corruption, the recommendation is that that be simplified. It is my view, whilst I do agree with the recommendation, that it does require further consideration and, perhaps, another day we should certainly flesh that out. In terms of the powers legislated with respect to the police, arguably we need some more work there to ensure that there is enough scope for them to handle sensitive matters. You have to be very careful when the police are compelled to release evidence of a sensitive nature, so I will perhaps draw the attention of the house to that on another day for further debate.

Recommendation 7 relates to the Minister for Local Government reviewing the Local Government Act and that the minister consider the recommendations of the Ombudsman and ICAC regarding section 263B and section 264. I would certainly support heavily the recommendation and the reasoning put forward by the committee there, as well as recommendations 8, 9 and 10. I agree wholeheartedly that the Civil Liability (Disclosure of Information) Amendment Act should be started sooner rather than later.

I would also agree wholeheartedly with recommendation 11 that section 24 of the ICAC Act be amended so that the commissioner may refer a matter to the inquiry agency without further oversight. In regard to the audit of government agencies being undertaken to determine how 'minor' misconduct and maladministration is addressed across the state and how public servants and agencies determine whether a complaint is forwarded to the Office of Public Integrity, I also wholeheartedly agree with that recommendation as put forward by the committee.

I did not want to speak for a long time, but I am proud of this first report. It has certainly highlighted some small wins. By all means, though, we have not got to the bottom of all the corruption in South Australia, but I think that the committee is doing good work. We have also engaged not only a number of well-read academics but also high-ranking public officials, from the judiciary, the police and other aspects. It is a committee that should continue for transparency in South Australia, and so I have no hesitation in commending the review and the report to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:53): The Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee has tabled its first report, and I wish to congratulate the Presiding Member and members for undertaking this first piece of important work in respect of the review of the ICAC Act, essentially, and other matters.

The report was tabled on 30 June 2015. Two days later, the report of Mr Bruce Lander QC, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, was tabled, and he set out a significant report confirming his 29 recommendations. His charter in respect of his report at the request of the Attorney-General was to consider two matters: the oversight and management of complaints about the police (recommendations 1 to 21), and then the receipt and assessment of complaints and reports about public administration (recommendations 22 to 29).

It is a comprehensive report, and it is well worth a read as there is significant overlap with a number of the matters that the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee has considered. The committee recognised in its report the fact that Commissioner Lander was conducting an evaluation of practices, policies and procedures of the Police Ombudsman and reviews of legislative schemes. They did so at page 13 of the report, and that has since been received. There is some significant overlap, but there is also the exercise of having to identify which of those we may press ahead with.

The commissioner also undertook a very comprehensive review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, and the former ombudsman undertook a very comprehensive review of the Freedom of Information Act, yet we have only seen, in respect of those two reviews, the energetic response by the member for Hartley in his bill to try and protect, for example, freedom of information officers against ministerial intervention and interference, and he has proposed offences to be introduced consistent with that report. I make the point that it is very important that we and the government have guidance from these reviews, but the government should have been acting on them. This is now three months old, and I would hope that the government will start to act on it.

I acknowledge the Attorney for his response to recommendation 10: that the Civil Liability Disclosure Information Amendment Act 2014 SA be commenced as soon as possible. I congratulate him because I did read a note yesterday about a regulation that was tabled; I quickly perused it. It was part of the process of being implemented, so I cannot say he has done absolutely nothing—that would have been a tick and flick response to be able to institute that. I do not want to be saying he has done nothing, but if that is all he has done it is not acceptable, and we need to do a lot more.

From our side, we are now looking very carefully at the two reports. It is absolutely critical, because if you read the paper today and are following the trial in our courts of a young policewoman who is charged with various serious charges—and I will not name her today; the suppression order was lifted yesterday—I make the point that the government needs to understand that we have corruption in the state. We have a situation where our law enforcement agencies, whether they are ICAC (and we think that should have a proper inspectorate of review) or whether they are the police—these agencies across the board represent us in very important work, sometimes even dangerous work, but they also need to be corruption free, misconduct free, and maladministration free.

When we see a young police officer paraded in front of the cameras in respect to prosecution of matters that relate to dishonesty, drugs and abuse of public office, this should send a very clear message to the government that these agencies and their models must be strictly scrutinised, and I thank the committee for doing its part in that process. I will read the report carefully.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:58): I briefly make some comments to close the debate. To the member for Hartley and to the deputy leader, I thank them very much for their comments, and I thank all the members of the committee for their great work so far. It is an excellent report and I encourage all members to have a read of it. I think the committee has been working very well; it continues to get more powers put in our legislation, so I think we are all very committed to diligently exercising those powers for the good of the people of South Australia.

Motion carried.