House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Adjournment Debate Attorney-General Attorney-General The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:18): The independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is everything, I believe, for the implementation of fair and equal justice for all citizens. The opposition has sighted documents showing that the Attorney-General was the original complainant to the Office for Public Integrity in the matter of the Hanlon-Vasilevski case. I asked her in parliament today and she refused to answer. She refused to tell the parliament that she had been the original complainant. Let's consider how that plays out. The Anti-Corruption Branch of South Australia Police conducted an inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General had made a complaint to the OPI and I understand was aware that an investigation was underway. Did the Attorney-General declare to those SAPOL investigators that she had prior knowledge of an ICAC inquiry into Hanlon and Vasilevski, and did she declare to those Anti-Corruption Branch investigators that she had already made a complaint that would have had a bearing on their investigation? That is point 1. Point 2 is that we find out in question time today that the Attorney-General has sought advice or briefings from the DPP regarding what course of action that office might or might not take on this matter. That is deeply inappropriate. There is a process set out in statute about how the Attorney-General and the DPP should interact. If any direction is to be given, it should be tabled before the parliament. The DPP's independence is everything in this matter. I have raised concerns about the potential impact of an ICAC influence on the DPP. Indeed, we have seen some matters before the courts where that has been thrashed out before lower courts, which have upheld interference from the ICAC into the DPP. Our current DPP and our former DPP are fine public officers who, I believe, uphold the very best standards of independence, but if the DPP is receiving briefing requests from the Attorney-General, who was an original complainant in this matter, surely the Attorney-General must recuse herself from all deliberations in the matter. How can she possibly be involved in any matter to do with the prosecution or otherwise of Hanlon and Vasilevski? Why is the Attorney-General anywhere near this? The Attorney-General cannot consider compensation—as she did for an accused murderer—for Hanlon and Vasilevski because she made the complaint to ICAC. The Attorney-General cannot be talking to the DPP about whether or not the DPP plans a further prosecution or an appeal or another charge because the Attorney-General made a complaint to the OPI alleging corruption. The Attorney-General should not be anywhere near this. Indeed, the Attorney-General should immediately inform the police commissioner and the DPP that she was the one who made a complaint to the OPI regarding this matter. I have to say, if Vasilevski and Hanlon are up against the Attorney-General ringing up the DPP and asking questions about whether further charges will be laid, or whether there is any other way around what happened in court last Friday, that shakes the foundations of our justice system. The Attorney-General should not be calling the DPP, and the DPP ultimately will have to explain to the people of South Australia, as will the ICAC, why it is that their prosecutors told the court that they had no evidence to support their charges. These are questions that need to be answered, and they will be answered. I am sure there is an explanation for that and, if I know our DPP, a man of great integrity and an excellent choice by the Attorney-General and the government in making him DPP, we will hear that. However, if the Attorney-General is playing any role at all in this investigation she cannot be part of the prosecution. The Attorney-General must recuse herself immediately from all considerations and explain to the parliament why it is she is not telling us that she was an applicant and whether she told the Anti-Corruption Branch, because I bet if the Attorney-General had told the Anti-Corruption Branch she was the original complainant there might very well have been a very different outcome to that investigation.