House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Independent Commission Against Corruption Independent Commission Against Corruption Mr CREGAN House of Assembly Kavel Independent Commission Against Corruption Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (16:46): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the house of plans to enable the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption to hold public hearings and of how this complements the government's commitment to open and accountable government? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Independent Commission Against Corruption The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:46): I thank the member for Kavel for that question and again congratulate him on his election, along with our other colleagues on both sides of the house, at the last election. Apart from the cracking pace that the Premier imposed on the new government in respect of the enormous list of objectives in the 100-day plan, in addition to those he also made it very clear that he wanted some things done in seven days. So the first week after the cabinet was sworn in was a very busy time, I might say. Nevertheless, apart from that week absorbed in those matters, in the 100-day plan one of the very clear commitments of the new government relates to legislation that is to be introduced, and reintroduced in some cases, to expand upon a new government being open and transparent. Why? Because the previous government had demonstrably failed in every possible category to ensure that there was any kind of transparency in their governance and, indeed, had failed to expose the reasons why and what initiatives would be taken to protect those. The Premier has outlined already today areas of failure which severely affected and impacted upon the most vulnerable in our community, including those who were the subject ultimately of the inquiry known as the Oakden scandal, from which, ultimately, a most scathing report was issued by Mr Lander in respect of that investigation. One of the things that has been consistent over the last three or four years has been the then opposition's desire to look at and consider ICAC having the capacity, at the discretion of Mr Lander, to convene public hearings for all or part of an investigation. To facilitate this, we canvassed his advice on it and considered what he had entered in his annual reports on it. We presented to this parliament legislation to enable public hearings in respect of maladministration and misconduct matters. It was the subject of consideration by the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee of this parliament, which is a joint parliamentary committee and which will be, according to the business of our day, of course reconfirmed as our contribution to that committee. Each time we attempted to do that the then government voted it down—voted it down. Again Mr Lander made it clear, not just from his scathing report in respect of findings of two serious public sector maladministration findings in the Gillman report, that it is very important to have public hearings. I just refer to the most recent inquiry in relation to Oakden, which of course exposed not only the scandalous failures of the provision of a service in mental health but attempts, we now know, of senior officials, including those who were being investigated as a member of the former government, to keep that information secret by virtue of having their name suppressed in any subsequent report. This is the type of standard set by the former administration. We committed in the 100-day plan to ensure that that legislation would be revisited, reintroduced, and that is what has occurred. After the first week of provision, that is what is happening, and the bill is on its way next week.