Bills

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Serious or Systemic Misconduct or Maladministration) Amendment (No 2) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:01): As a politician once said, 'In any race, you can always back vested interest.' That is what we just saw then from the Independent member; we saw vested interest at work. The Independent member even picks the same example the Premier used. Could you not find two examples? What an absolute disgrace. It was probably the same speechwriter as well. The Premier stands up and he pontificates, and he uses language like 'the bill was disposed of' and it was 'thrown in the bin'.

This is the sort of language that the Premier uses, as if it is almost a transaction, that because it is hurting the government he has to dispose of it; he has to get rid of it. He talks about the fact that he is worried that public hearings will become a soap opera. Well, what we have here is the next series of Survivor. They are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead, whatever it takes to slot the next one. This minister has been hopeless, so what have they done? They have slotted her and put her in the other house, thinking that she will fit in there out of the public eye in this place. It is an absolute disgrace.

The Premier says that the reason he refuses public hearings is that it has the potential to become a soap opera, but we know the real reason. The real reason is that he is worried he will lose all control over the process. It will be there, it will all come out in public and ultimately it will cost this government. It will be the final nail in the coffin for this putrid government he has led, time and time again, scandal after scandal, in all different portfolios. In public hearings, we know that the minister's complete incompetence will continue to be exposed, and we know that it will be lengthy. It will go on for a number of months.

Bruce Lander QC is a good man, an intelligent man and a wise counsel. He has dedicated his entire life to seeking justice for victims like the families involved at Oakden. He even says that this government does not have the appetite for transparency. He has been calling for more transparency measures since Gillman, where we not only saw a final report but what did we see? We saw an interim report. Who knows how that went, if that was edited. Then we saw a final report. It is essential that the ICAC, in this instance, be allowed open, independent hearings. It is imperative for the public's confidence in our hearings and our judicial system.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: It is imperative for the families of the victims of the disgraceful Oakden saga that they have the chance to see a fair trial in public. We know that a fair trial and a public hearing will give context. It will give context to the families because there are some things that you cannot see in black and white, Premier. You need context, and that is why these victims need to see this.

What have we got here? We have a secret state. If the minister had acted like this in any other forum, she would have been sacked, except under this protection racket that is the state Labor government of 15 years. But do not take my word for it. Why don't we ask the families involved? Let's ask Alma Krecu, who says that her late father was abused and overmedicated at Oakden. She said it was an absolute disgrace that hearings into potential misconduct and maladministration would remain behind closed doors.

What about Barb Spriggs? Barb Spriggs, whose husband, Bob, died after alleged mistreatment at Oakden, said she was disappointed and frustrated that the government had quashed the push for transparency. She said, 'We want it to be exposed so that it makes other people aware that if you do wrong then it's going to be made public.' Do not take my word for it; perhaps take the word of the victims and the victims' families, who have gone through so much and who do not deserve to go through more than they already have. We applaud the member in the other place for putting this bill forward. I again ask the Independents to have a good look at themselves and support our bill.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:05): I rise to signal that I will be opposing the measure, having given it considerable—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —thought over many years, and I am going to explain briefly why. This measure is not being brought forward by those opposite because they are deeply—

Mr Bell: Your new mates.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —convinced on the principles of the matter. It is not being brought forward by them because they are genuinely concerned about Oakden or any other matter. It is being brought forward for purely political reasons. I will view it on the basis of whether it is good for the state, good for victims and good for maladministration issues and that alone.

I want to cut straight to the premise upon which the measure is based. Essentially, the argument coming from those opposite is that it is secret, that the commissioner, Mr Lander, and his ICAC is incapable or is unable to release at the end of his inquiries a publicly disclosed and fully thorough revelation of all the issues raised over not only Oakden but subsequent matters, including the accusations and the counteraccusations—all the facts.

The assumption in the bill is that the fully public, fully open, fully disclosed report that we will get at the end of the process is somehow flawed and secret. Of course, the commissioner even has the option of producing an interim report. The reality is—

Mr Bell: When did he last do that one?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —the commissioner can reveal everything. The premise upon which the bill is based is flawed. There is no secrecy. Everything is in the report. The commissioner has the option of outlining chapter and verse every accusation and claim made by the victims at Oakden—and everybody's heart goes out to all involved in those tragic circumstances on both sides—and I am very confident that he will do that.

I met with the commissioner recently and talked through with him the issues he has raised and we had a very good discussion. I must say, I think he is doing a fantastic job and I have great confidence that he will give us a fully public, fully disclosed, fully open, fully accountable account of everything that has happened here. There is no secrecy. The accusation that things are going on behind closed doors is completely flawed.

If the commissioner chooses to, whatever evidence is taken privately he can certainly get right out there. The fact is that nothing will be or stay behind closed doors except if the commissioner wants it to remain there. The fundamental proposition is wrong, and that is that there is no secrecy. It all will be revealed. The Oakden victims will get to put everything down in evidence.

Everyone involved on the Public Service side will also have their opportunity to be heard before the commissioner. We will get it all and it will be fully open, it will be fully public and the media can crawl over it. So, it is based on a false proposition. What the opposition actually wants is a media circus in the lead-up to the commissioner's report. As has been explained by my honourable friends on both sides in earlier contributions, that brings with it some complexities, issues and severe damages. There is a second reason that I will be opposing it, and that is that such a circus is not good government.

Be careful what you wish for over there. Members over there may not realise but, other than ministers, you have no legal protection at all to cover costs—none. None of you in opposition has any legal protection at all. Any matter you are involved in you will pay for out of your own pocket. This media circus that you want to bring upon South Australia will require people to lawyer up on all sides. It will be a circus. The media will love it, of course, and they have encouraged you and you have taken the bait, just as you have with blocking the budget. They will love it because they will sell newspapers. It will be very entertaining, hearing accusations and counteraccusations, but will it lead to a better outcome? No, it will not.

The current arrangements will give us a fully public, fully open, fully disclosed report. I know that this commissioner, because he is a very good man, will make sure that everything that needs to be said publicly is said. The only difference is that you will have to wait so that both sides of the argument are fairly and reasonably presented and a considered and balanced report is given. Those opposite may not like that, certain elements of the media may not like that, because the circus will not be in town. But they will get the truth from Commissioner Lander, I have no doubt. He will reveal whatever it is he thinks it is in the public interest to reveal.

The system we have at the moment is the right one for the truth to come out in a way that is fair to all involved; the right one to ensure that everything is publicly, openly and properly disclosed for media, public and parliamentary scrutiny; and it is the right one to ensure that government, whether it is Labor or Liberal, is not tied up in circus after circus dealing with process issues rather than the good government of the people of South Australia. For those reasons, I urge all members to vote against the measure.