Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Received from the Legislative Council and read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:13): I move without notice:

That standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Bill, being a private member's bill, to take precedence forthwith over government business.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to be taken through all stages without delay.

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (17:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill that has progressed through the Legislative Council, sponsored by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. It amends the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012. The origins of that legislation are well known to members and it has been the subject of amendment in its lifetime. The bill that is currently before us, commencing in the other place, has had its origins from a report prepared by what is often known as the CPIP Committee, that is the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, most specifically in its fifth report tabled in the House of Assembly on 1 December 2020.

There had been a comprehensive review in relation to a number of matters. It was initially chaired by the Hon. David Ridgway but in more recent years had changed to the Hon. Dennis Hood and had been populated by members of this house on both sides, together with those from the Legislative Council. I thank all those who participated in the CPIP consideration of the review and for their report.

Can I also acknowledge that, although this bill does purport to implement recommendations contained in that report, it is not to say that it actually includes all the recommendations or indeed that there have not been other aspects added to it. But in general terms it replicates recommendations that are from that report.

I wish to also acknowledge the reviewers; firstly the former reviewer under the act, Kevin Duggan QC, and the current reviewer, John Sulan QC, both of whom have provided support to the operation of the commissioner and in particular their role as reviewers in reporting to this parliament over a number of years and the provision of their evidence.

Retired commissioner Bruce Lander QC has also provided evidence and, of course, his work as the former commissioner. Current commissioner, Ann Vanstone QC, has provided both evidence to the committee and indeed has undertaken this role in more recent years. The Ombudsman, Mr Wayne Lines; the Commissioner of Police, Mr Grant Stevens; and the President of the Police Association of South Australia, Mr Mark Carroll; just to name a few have provided, sometimes on multiple occasions, a contribution to the development of these reforms.

Not everything in this bill is what everyone wants, in relation to the cross contributions from various parties involved in the development of this reform, but it is fair to say that the Legislative Council have very carefully looked at a number of matters. For example, they have excluded from consideration a new concept of adding a power of compensation to be paid under this act. That seems to have been abandoned along the way.

For the sake of the record, these are the things that have been incorporated. Number 1 is the provision under the recommendation that the commissioner is to be responsible for corruption and to establish a commission. Number 2 is that the Ombudsman, who is to be responsible for misconduct and maladministration, is to be set out in the Ombudsman Act. Number 3 is that the Office for Public Integrity is to be established as a separate entity. Number 4 is the repeal of the classification of misconduct and maladministration as serious or systemic, and number 5 is amending the confidentiality provisions.

Number 9, if I jump to that, is to rename the ICAC review of the inspector of ICAC and confer further functions. Number 10 is the reviewer of the Ombudsman and number 11 is the reviewer of OPI, which is the Office for Public Integrity. Number 13 is to confer further functions on CPIPC, which is the committee I referred to. Number 16 is to provide that members of the public can attend Office for Public Integrity agencies in person. Number 17 is in relation to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner not being an administrative decision-maker during the course of his or her employment or six months prior to the appointment—that is, overlapping with the commissioner.

There was a recommendation, which I have identified as number 6, which is the amendment to the definition of 'corruption' and the review of persons defined as 'a public officer'. In part, that recommendation has been accepted.

Areas that have not been accepted were setting out when a person may be named in any report of the Ombudsman and allowing them to make representations to be named. Number 12 is that the adoption of the recommendations of the CPIPC review into the ICAC bill 2018 is relevant to public hearings. That has not been picked up. Recommendation 14, establishing an integrity standards adviser, has not been picked up in this bill.

Largely, the areas of reform are covered. I thank those on the committee for the work they undertook to not only receive the evidence but to consider the matter and prepare from their deliberations the recommendations that we now have.

I also indicate that the question of the direct referral from the current ICAC, soon to be a commission if this bill passes, is also the subject of some questions that are in matters before the High Court and that includes the direct referral of matters from the commission to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We, of course, are always in the hands of what superior courts might make provision for and we will wait and see what happens in relation to those matters. Upon there being any conclusion of those legal points, as Attorney-General I would expect that I may need to come and report to the parliament as to any legislative reform that may or may not be required arising out of that.

As I am aware, a number of members wish to speak on this matter, at least from the opposition. There are two amendments that are foreshadowed and these really relate exclusively to transitional provisions which, on the face of it—this is absolutely no disrespect to the other place—appear to have been overlooked in relation to allowing for transitional provisions.

One is to ensure that, under the Surveillance Devices Act, the material that is issued for the purpose of investigation of a matter by the commission does not lapse and it enables the transition provision to be made. The second is to ensure that the role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, which will die with this bill as an office position, will have a transitional provision, so we can ensure that any conduct of that commission is not interfered with to ensure its transfer. That, members might recall, was a recommendation of the former commissioner, Bruce Lander, shortly before he retired, which has also been endorsed and recommended by the current commissioner who at this stage is still the judicial conduct commissioner and undertakes that work.

Can I say that the matter has had some considerable gestation in the development, but I acknowledge the Hon. Frank Pangallo's introduction of the bill in the other place, ultimately setting out a number of these recommendations and incorporating them. They have received the support of the Legislative Council, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:25): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. We acknowledge that this bill was introduced into the other place by the Hon. Frank Pangallo and acknowledge that the Attorney-General is bringing it through and supporting it in this house.

I understand that the bill was developed after recommendations by a parliamentary committee in consultations with the government and others. The Attorney, in particular, has supported the legislation. I refer to the extensive commentary made in the other place, of course, through the course of the debate. Of course, my colleague, the shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Kyam Maher, spoke on it there, and as his representative in this house I will summarise some of the key aspects of this legislation.

The bill proposes to separate corruption from maladministration and misconduct matters in regard to which body investigates which element. Under the proposed model, the Independent Commission Against Corruption will be the inquiry agency with the responsibility for corruption, just as the name says. The Ombudsman will be the inquiry agency in most circumstances for misconduct and maladministration matters.

Importantly, I have been advised by the shadow attorney-general that the Ombudsman has advised support for being responsible for the investigation of misconduct and maladministration matters. The bill also proposes changes to both the front end and to the back end of the complaints investigation system.

At the front end the Office of Public Integrity, which receives, assesses and refers complaints about corruption, misconduct and maladministration, will be made newly independent. The new back end of the system will have a new inspector to replace the current reviewer. The inspector will provide oversight of both ICAC and the Ombudsman with expanded powers.

This reflects stronger oversight bodies that are in place in other states and territories, and addresses issues that have been considered for some time by the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee for a number of years. I recall when I was on that committee that it was an issue that was raised back then.

These new powers will include the ability to recommend compensation where a person has suffered undue reputational damage as a result of inquiries. As I noted earlier, this is a private member's bill but is progressing with strong government support. As the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, said in the other place last night:

Almost five years ago to the day—in fact, it was 20 September 2016—I put on the public record in this chamber my very strong views in relation to the need for the reform of ICAC.

Clearly, this is something that the current government, or at least the Treasurer, has been contemplating since before they were elected. Obviously, the Attorney-General has indicated her support by bringing and adding her weight to this legislation in the parliament and moving it through this chamber.

Moving significant and complex legislation from the crossbench without the benefit of the bureaucracy to support you is no easy task. To get this far, and indeed for the bill to pass this chamber, it has required government support. The government, and in particular the Attorney-General, is in a unique position in South Australia to offer that support. In fact, section 49 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012, states:

Provision of information to Attorney-General.

(1) The Commissioner must keep the Attorney-General informed of the general conduct of the functions of the Commissioner and the office and, if the Attorney-General so requests, provide information to the Attorney-General relevant to the performance of the functions of the Commissioner or the office (but not information identifying or about a particular matter subject to assessment, investigation or referral under the act).

(2) However, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that to provide information as requested by the Attorney-General would compromise the proper performance of the Commissioner's functions, the Commissioner may instead provide to the Governor a detailed written explanation of the reasons for the Commissioner's opinion.

The law does not just encourage the provision of information to the Attorney-General that no-one else can access; in fact, it mandates it. Obviously, our state's highest law officer has the expertise, the departmental support and unique access to ICAC information to have the most detailed understanding of any person in this chamber or the parliament in regard to the operations of ICAC and the implications of this bill. My colleague the Hon. Kyam Maher said it well in his speech in the other house, and I quote:

There is no-one better placed in this parliament than the Attorney-General to make those decisions about this sort of reform, and it should provide some comfort that the Attorney has turned her mind to it as the first law officer of the state, with the extra information the Attorney has available to her by virtue of section 49 of the act, and decided that these ought to be supported,

With that knowledge and capacity, clearly she has lent her weight now in this chamber to the legislation. While we do not always agree or support the Attorney, we need to place a degree of trust in her views on this matter, given the unique position and knowledge that she holds. So I indicate that the opposition is supporting the second reading in this chamber and is likely to support the amendments that are being proposed in this chamber, as well as the amendments that have come from the other place.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:30): It is very clear—as my good friend the member for Kaurna has just said—that we would not be at this point in time had it not been for the dedicated support of this change by not only the Attorney-General of South Australia but by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, who is Chair of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, and my colleagues on that committee, who have been diligent, hardworking members of that committee. They have heard the stories and seen the calls for change.

As the member for Kaurna has said, we are not in the same unique position that the Attorney-General is in to have a closer understanding of the operation of the ICAC Act. She is in a unique position, not only by statute but by commission in this state. Quite frankly, we have to rely on her guidance on this, and she is the one who has guided this legislation through this house. I understand she is proposing two amendments, which the opposition will support. Again, the unanimous support is based largely on the support for change here by the Attorney-General of South Australia.

I also want to point out that the Leader of the Opposition today made a statement issuing an instruction to every member of the parliamentary Labor Party that, if any member of the parliamentary Labor Party was (1) subject to an investigation by ICAC, (2) facing charges by ICAC, or (3) the subject of a referral to the Office for Public Integrity by an independent statutory officer, they were to recuse themselves from voting on these matters. Standing order 170 says, 'No Member to vote if personally interested.' The standing order states:

A Member may not vote in any division on a question in which the Member has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of the Member who has such an interest is disallowed.

The Statement of Principles that this parliament has endorsed has the strong support of the Attorney-General, our guiding light during this debate. Point IV of the principles provides:

IV. Members of Parliament should declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and decisions in which they participate in the execution of their duties. Members must declare their interests as required by the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1983 and declare their interests when speaking on a matter in the House or a Committee in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Point V and point VI of the principles state:

V. A conflict of interest does not exist where the Member is only affected as a member of the public or a member of a broad class.

VI. Members of Parliament should not promote any matter, vote on any bill or resolution, or ask any question in the Parliament or its Committees, in return for any financial or pecuniary benefit.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I might just pull you up there. The relevant question arises only after a vote in the house. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon the Chair to remind honourable members that this is in the course of the second reading debate on the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that, sir, yes.

The SPEAKER: Should there be any question in relation to a vote, it is appropriate that might be considered after.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I was not moving point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: In that sense, the course of the second reading is concerned with the substance of the bill itself and the member will direct remarks in the course of the debate to that relevant subject matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. This bill is making some fundamental changes to the way ICAC conducts its investigations. Currently, the ICAC commissioner has jurisdiction over the Office for Public Integrity and can initiate investigations on her own motion and conduct investigations and cooperate with the DPP, South Australia Police, agencies as the commissioner sees fit to make public statements as they see fit, and it is our very strong view that any member who is subject currently to an investigation should not vote on this matter.

The three members who come to mind are the member for Mount Gambier, the member for Narungga and the member for Dunstan. They should not participate in this debate. The member for Dunstan, in particular, the head of the government, has been mentioned by office by an independent statutory officer, the Ombudsman, who has—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will resume his seat for a moment. The Minister for Energy and Mining rises on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You directed the member for West Torrens to direct his remarks to the substance of the bill. It seems to me that he has not done that. Regardless of the merits of what he is talking about, whether they be strong or weak or otherwise, voting and people's eligibility to vote is very clear. It exists, there are rules about it and it has nothing to do with this bill.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. This is not the occasion to address the question of members' eligibility or not to vote. As I have indicated to the member, the question may be raised following any vote that might occur subsequently. The member for Lee rises on the point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Standing order 119: reflections on votes of the house. You have ruled on a point of order made with reference to no standing order. The member for West Torrens has not offended a standing order, let alone standing order 119. I do not believe there is a basis for your ruling to require the member for West Torrens to move on from his comments. The purpose of the second reading debate—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —is to convince members to vote or not vote in a particular manner, which is exactly what he is doing.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The direction in relation to the member for West Torrens' contribution in the course of the second reading debate is as to relevance. The member for West Torrens, in addressing the second reading, will address the bill. In relation to any question of a vote and members' eligibility or otherwise, that is a matter that is appropriately raised following any vote. The member for West Torrens will address the substance of the bill. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The ICAC commissioner has made public statements about the changes to this bill, and she has stated quite clearly and unequivocally that parliamentarians should not be voting on this legislation if they are conflicted. She has said it publicly on radio—she thinks there is a clear conflict. I am not a judicial officer like she is. I do not have her judicial or legal experience.

She is one of the most respected Queen's Counsels in South Australia, she is one of the most respected Supreme Court justices ever to have served on the bench and she was the government's pick for ICAC commissioner, and unanimously supported by the Statutory Officers Committee, and is someone who has carried herself with great dignity in the role. When someone with those credentials says that there are clear conflicts about who votes on this bill, and I am being told I cannot even talk about it in the parliament, I think that is inhibiting—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: That's not what the Speaker said.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to your speech.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: It's not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, but I look forward to your speech. My point on this legislation, which is meritorious and I am supporting, is that there are some members for the good order and passing of this legislation, as to remove any doubt to its intent which is for the good order and operation of an Independent Commission Against Corruption—

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will just resume his seat for a moment. The Minister for Energy and Mining rises on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, the member for West Torrens is defying your very clear instructions, which are to contain his contribution to the substance of the bill, not a totally different topic, which is about whether people should vote or not vote or when they might vote. As you have said, that is a totally different issue and nothing to do with this bill.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna rises on the point of order.

Mr PICTON: On the point order: this is the ICAC legislation and the member was referring to comments by the ICAC commissioner. It is hard to imagine that that is not relevant to the debate that we have at hand.

The SPEAKER: It is not that hard for me to imagine, member for Kaurna. Just to be very clear, the matter is a standing order 127(1) matter. This is the second reading debate on the bill. If any member wishes to address my attention to any aspect of the bill that deals with the eligibility or otherwise for individual members to vote in circumstances of conflict, then I will hear it; otherwise, I have directed the member for West Torrens to address the subject matter of the bill and otherwise not to offend against standing order 127(1). The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just to explain myself, I am advocating on behalf of this bill. I think it is a good piece of legislation. My concern is that there is public debate about the integrity of this legislation, not because of what is contained in it but because some people are questioning the intent. To remove that discrepancy about what the intent is, what you should do is make sure that anyone who is under any suspicion does not vote on the bill.

That way, everyone's hands are clean and that way the public cannot accuse parliamentarians of attempting to do something for their own benefit but rather the good order and operation of an ICAC anticorruption system that will ensure the state has a system in place that protects it from public officers abusing their office with corruption, maladministration or misconduct.

If the public does not have faith in the manner in which this legislation is passed, that weakens the intent of the bill. In advocating for that bill, in advocating for the passage of this legislation, I say that three members should recuse themselves: the member for Dunstan, the member for Narungga and the member for Mount Gambier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will resume his seat. The Attorney-General rises on a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, the member is straying into what he may or may not pursue in relation to a conflict of interest position. Secondly, he has made a scandalous allegation—he has made this allegation outside the parliament—that the Ombudsman has referred the Premier for investigation. He has not done that at all. He has not said that. It is scandalous to think that the member here is trying to use this debate as a means to upgrade this.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: is there a point of order here or a complaint?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is just disgraceful.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will deal with the matter, member for Lee. I am not sure ultimately what, if any, further point of order is raised. Perhaps it might suffice to indicate there is no point of order. Again, I direct the member for West Torrens to address his contribution to the house to the substance of the bill to avoid offending against standing order 127(1).

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In conclusion, the author of this legislation, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, I think his intentions are honourable. I think he is a man of great substance and a caring and compassionate man. He cares for the people who have been adversely impacted by the exercise of extraordinary powers that waive common law rights by compulsion. The public, I think, want certainty.

I have not accused the Premier of being referred to anything. I said the office of the Premier has been referred to the Office for Public Integrity, and that is a fact. The office of the Premier of South Australia has been referred to the Office for Public Integrity by an independent statutory officer—not by me. My argument is that anyone occupying the office of the Premier, whether they are public officers or parliamentarians, should not be involved in this debate, should not be involved in here. Why? For the good order of the passage of this legislation, for the good order of the operation of the bill. If the Premier wishes to soil this legislation with his presence, then I think what you will find—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens will resume his seat.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again asserting that there is no proper stand of the Premier to either contribute to or vote on this debate. That is completely out of order. It is disgraceful.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: What standing order was that?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee will cease interjecting. I have addressed the matter now a number of times—several times—in a short period of time. The member for West Torrens, in contributing to the second reading debate, will do just that: he will contribute to the debate by addressing the substance of the bill and will avoid transgressing against standing order 127(1). The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the greatest thing in the previous ICAC legislation that has offended me is the way the coercive powers were used after a referral. That concerned me the most, using those coercive powers to gain further information after an investigation had ceased and charges had been laid. I think that needed to be remedied and remedied quickly. I am glad the Hon. Frank Pangallo has done so in his legislation.

When you ask for equal justice before the law, and to be tried by your peers in an open and fair case, the idea that coercive powers could be used while that case is underway is unfair and against the interests and the standing of a free and open democratic society. We should know who our accuser is, we should all play by the same rules, and the state should not have an advantage. When I say 'the state', I mean the Crown. I think the way some of that power was exercised was unfortunate.

I hope this legislation passes without anyone questioning the intent of the legislation. I hope members who should not vote do not vote. I hope they do the right thing. If they do vote, people will question the intent of this legislation. I know that the member in the other place, who is the author of this legislation in coordination with the Attorney-General in the lower house, is attempting to create a system that will still deliver oversight of public officers, with an independent Office for Public Integrity, with a reviewer with real teeth.

I just point out to the house that both reviewers, Mr Duggan and Mr Sulan, have told our committee that they personally paid out of their own pocket for executive assistants in terms of drafting letters, rather than having those resources provided to them. That is unacceptable. That is why we need a reviewer who is properly resourced to do their job and have oversight of these extraordinary powers we have gifted to a commissioner.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:48): I will not speak for very long on this bill. I want to echo some of the sentiments that have already been expressed in the course of the debate so far. It is no mean feat for a crossbench MP in the other place to try to undertake a significant series of amendments to such a crucial piece of legislation, to try to strike an improved balance between the capacity of the ICAC to undertake investigations and for successful prosecutions, perhaps potentially, to follow some of those investigations and also for the parliament to ensure that the rights of South Australians, who may find themselves the subject of investigations, are protected throughout the process.

Not at the time it was broadcast but later via the ABC iview app, I watched the television news on Tuesday night. I think anyone who saw the media report of the proposed changes to this bill, that was telecast by the ABC, would have been absolutely mortified by the impact on a number of people who have been subjected to investigations.

I do not think it is fair or reasonable to characterise the efforts of the ICAC and its two highly esteemed commissioners to date through the prism of those experiences that were represented in that TV report. Like pretty much everyone in this parliament in either chamber, I think both Mr Lander QC and also Ms Vanstone QC are held in the highest regard, not just within here but also elsewhere throughout the legal fraternity and generally throughout the South Australian community. That is certainly my view. Although I am not as familiar with Ms Vanstone as I am with Mr Lander, certainly I think for both of them their records in the legal profession speak for themselves. In many instances their records as commissioners, in this regard as ICAC commissioners, speak for themselves.

The ICAC, and the legislation which establishes it and governs it, is not without fault, which is why it is being amended. I congratulate the Attorney-General on her stewardship of the bill in this place indicating that, other than a couple of minor infelicities which need to be tidied up in what was passed by the other place, she strongly supports the reforms to this bill. I think when you have the state's Attorney-General standing lockstep with the remainder of the parliament about the need to reform the ICAC Act, it is an indication that the concerns are genuine and that the proposed reforms are not only widely supported but supported by the first law officer of the state. That is an important thing to note.

In another debate, as the Deputy Premier has made it clear, I have been required to participate in one of these inquiries, including giving evidence as a witness in one matter. While I do not think it is appropriate that anyone, including me, let alone the Attorney, reflects on that or provides any running commentary on that, I was very cognisant of the gravity of the situation—not only the responsibility that I had as somebody providing evidence but certainly what it meant for the people who were facing charges—as well as the impact and the resources dedicated to either prosecuting those charges or defending those charges by the DPP or by defence counsel.

This is a very large and very resource-intensive exercise on any measure when it comes to the investigation, let alone the investigation and prosecution of a matter of alleged corruption or indeed maladministration or misconduct. We all take, I know, all of us together, our obligations as members of parliament very seriously.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know we all take our responsibilities as members of parliament extremely seriously and assertions have been made from some quarters, not all but some quarters publicly, that this is a bill that is designed to protect the interests of members of parliament by making it more difficult, more impossible, to investigate members of parliament. I reject that.

Certainly it increases the complexity of the structures involved in that, and it increases the accountability and transparency, but I do not believe it is fair that any of us are subject to an allegation that we are considering this legislation to provide ourselves with some sort of cloak or shroud from scrutiny or investigation by any of these integrity agencies. I reject that.

I hope we are able to conduct ourselves, for the remainder of the consideration of this bill, in a way that demonstrates to the community that we are not acting in self-interest but instead are acting in the interests of all South Australians, who may or may not find themselves the subject of investigation, that the processes are fair and that those who are conducting them are accountable and their operations transparent. That is my understanding of what the basis of this bill is.

As to the undoubted harm that has occurred to some people who have found themselves the subject of investigation, only for those investigations and even prosecutions not to go any further, I know they have suffered irreparable damage, including the most grievous outcome of one person taking their own life. If that does not underline how important this debate is, the consideration of this bill is, I do not know what will. It is clear that the status quo cannot continue and that change needs to be made in this regard.

I will finish by saying that I think it is appropriate that the member for West Torrens raised the points he did. I know you do not share that view, sir, but it was the ICAC commissioner themself who said on the radio this morning, 'It is extraordinary. It is a classic conflict of interest.' If we cannot believe somebody with more than 40 years of extraordinary legal experience, who is held in the highest esteem within the legal fraternity as a former District and Supreme Court judge and the current ICAC commissioner, then who can we believe on that point?

The SPEAKER: I think the member for Lee has concluded his remarks. I just indicate that it does not much matter what I or anyone else thinks about the expression of an opinion by someone outside the chamber. The relevant matter I draw to the attention of all members is that in the course of the second reading debate the relevant standing order is standing order 127(1).

I remind all members that insofar as the second reading debate is concerned, and as it continues, all members are on notice that that is the relevant standing order for consideration. Again, I indicate that if the Attorney-General speaks she closes debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (17:58): First, I acknowledge and thank all those who have made a contribution to the expression of support in relation to the bill before us. At the outset, I have to say that I do not get praise from the member for West Torrens very often, but when he suggested that I was in some way the architect of this or influential in it, I remind members that due regard has to be given to the fact that this is the Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill and it was presented from the Legislative Council.

I have already outlined that it started in a manner that I suggest was outside the report that has been referred to; nevertheless, those barnacles seem to have disappeared as the debate has continued in the other place. As the Attorney-General, on behalf of the government I again indicate our support for the bill.

Two things were raised during the course of the contribution that I also need to be clear about. There was an assertion that at least one of the reviewers incurred personal costs in relation to the administrative duties they undertook whilst they were a reviewer—I think it was described as secretarial duties or expenses—and that they had personally met those. Can I say that I am aware that one of the reviewers had retained his own secretarial services, and that was a matter that he had certainly conveyed to me during the course of his duties.

At no time has either of the reviewers who have served in the time I have been Attorney-General asked me for any other personal reimbursement of expenses. They have been provided with support staff and other expenses to cover for the purpose of undertaking their duty, which is not only to operate as a reviewer on matters that are raised but also to undertake an assessment for the purpose of reporting to this parliament every year.

In fact, several times reports have to be prepared in that year to identify that they have undertaken largely their work in ensuring that the process—such as issuing warrants, authority to take possession of documents or subpoena people, undertake surveillance, all those sorts of things—has actually properly complied with the law. That is a very important check that this parliament insisted be in respect of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption from its inception.

It may be that one or other of them may have indicated that they had their own personal assistants in undertaking their duties, but I just want to reassure the house that if expenses are required to be met for the purpose of providing that, it is a little bit unusual. I also want to assure the house that from time to time we get other reviewers for specific purposes to undertake work. Sometimes it is to review legislation.

We pay them a fee. We provide them with usually a contractual hourly rate, and appropriate researchers and support staff are provided, often from the Crown Solicitor's Office, to facilitate that and provide that information to me as Attorney-General, or to the government generally, or to this parliament. That is the process. I certainly invite the member to provide any particulars, if there was something else that he is aware of that raises some concern.

The second matter was an issue raised by the member for Lee in his contribution, and again I thank him for his endorsement and indication of support. He outlined an experience that he has had. I think anyone who has in any way been involved with the processes of any integrity body can be reassured or bruised or have a view as a result of some experience they may have had.

I do not in any way reflect on the member for Lee. I have not in relation to his experience. I note that he has disclosed it for the purpose of this debate—I think that is entirely appropriate—but if in fact he is in some way weighed by his experience and it blurs his judgement or anything of that nature, then of course that is a matter for him to disclose to the parliament.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: No, your judgement is blurred: you quoted my testimony in parliament—

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: But I do not—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: —while an appeal was still being considered.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: The first law officer of the state, do you think that's appropriate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I don't accept that assertion; in fact, I utterly reject it.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Well, you did it! It's on the Hansard.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just conclude by indicating that whilst there has been some indication of our commissioner, Ann Vanstone QC—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: How did you get access to my evidence?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —I appreciate her contribution to the general debate and the development of the reforms in this area. So I do place on the record my thanks for that and commend the bill to the house.

Time expired.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 60 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 74, lines 32 to 34 [Schedule 1 clause 59(1)]—Delete 'as if it had been issued for the purposes of the investigation of a matter by the Commission'

It is proposed, because this is a transitional position, to ensure that those currently extant are able to continue to operate and provide a transition, so the deletion of those words has that effect, as I am advised. I am getting a nod from Ms Travers, who is an all-seeing expert on parliamentary drafting.

Amendment carried.

New clause 65A.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 76 after line 13—Insert:

65A—Judicial Conduct Commissioner continues in office

Despite section 12(3) and clause 16 of this Schedule, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner holding office under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 as in force before the commencement of this Act continues to hold that office on the commencement of this Act.

Similarly, this is to make provision for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, which, as members are aware, effectively is abolished in the processes we have under this legislation. To ensure that there is a transition to enable that, so there is no lapse or period during which we do not have somebody in this office, it is necessary to introduce this amendment so that we can ensure the continuity. As members would know, the Hon. Ann Vanstone QC is not only our Independent Commissioner Against Corruption but also our Judicial Conduct Commissioner, just another role she undertakes on behalf of the people of South Australia.

Consistent with her recommendation, and that of her predecessor, that position will continue but will be populated by a person independent of the commissioner against corruption. This is purely a transitional clause to ensure that we do not have a period during which there is no commissioner at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When did the Attorney-General first tell the ICAC commissioner she was supporting this legislation, these amendments?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am referring to amendment No. 2 in my name, which relates to ensuring that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, as a populated position, does not lapse as a result of this progressing. I do not have anything further to add on it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Attorney, have you consulted with the ICAC commissioner at all on any of the amendments moved in the other place that you are asking this house to accept or these current amendments you have moved?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the sake of completion on this, let me say that since we have had the report, as the member ought to be aware because he has had the ICAC commissioner before the CPIP Committee to consider all those recommendations several times, that has been a matter we have canvassed with her and myself as a member of the government.

This is Mr Pangallo's bill; this is not my bill. We have accepted it from the Legislative Council in its amended form. However, there are two items that have been brought to my attention during the course of today, which, if this bill passed without these amendments, would leave us without a Judicial Conduct Commissioner and, furthermore, without a capacity to ensure that the surveillance devices requirements are able to be maintained for the current investigation. That is the purpose of these amendments.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point that I am trying to make to the committee is that the Attorney-General has formulated a view, either on advice, that these amendments are necessary for the operation of the ICAC. My question is: what role has the ICAC commissioner had in developing these amendments? What is her view on the amendments that the house is accepting from the other place?

The other place had a private member's bill presented to it. There were numerous amendments to it, and it has come down to us as amended. The Attorney-General has carriage of the bill in the house. The ICAC commissioner on radio today and in the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee said she was stunned that the government was supporting this legislation.

My question to the Attorney-General, which she is so far refusing to answer, is: did the Attorney-General, as the conduit between the executive and an independent statutory officer—that is, the member of the executive who is responsible for this act—speak to the ICAC commissioner about this legislation? Did you go through it with the ICAC commissioner, clause by clause, to form a view? Or have you outsourced all your thinking to other members of the parliament? If you have, why are you still Attorney-General?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will largely take that as a comment. I think all members would be aware of the view of Ms Vanstone in relation to her statements both publicly and to the CPIP Committee, and so I will take that as a comment.

New clause inserted.

The CHAIR: We now come to the schedule as amended.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I still do not have an answer from the Attorney-General about this. I do not want to labour the point much longer. This is a private member's bill that is now in government time in the House of Assembly. The Attorney-General is responsible for the ICAC Act. The Attorney-General has assured us and given us confidence to support to this bill and her two amendments on the basis of the work she has done. I have asked a very, very pertinent question, which I would like an answer to: have you discussed this bill that we are about pass in its current form with the ICAC commissioner in person?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I do not think there is anything further usefully I can add. The member for West Torrens frequently comes in to call for my resignation and various other things, but I take that as a comment. I utterly reject his assertions.

The CHAIR: Can I come in here, member for West Torrens. I do not know that the member for West Torrens did make any assertions; he asked a question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have never asked for the Attorney-General to resign. I do not—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am sure it is coming.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, please!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point is that the Attorney-General tells us this is a good bill, that this bill will give us a good ICAC system. What I am asking is: has the Attorney-General given the courtesy to the ICAC commissioner to sit down with the ICAC commissioner and the employees at the OPI and the reviewer to inform them of the changes that are coming?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have nothing further to add.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are just not going to answer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is Pete's big moment.

Schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (18:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:15): I rise to make a brief contribution to the third reading of this bill and congratulate everyone who has worked to get this better outcome in regard to the operations of ICAC. What these amendments do today is confirm what was the original intent when we passed the ICAC legislation of referral to the police for the prosecution process. I commend that that is where we have landed with this current legislation and I want to note that that was the intent of the original legislation. The work by the Hon. Frank Pangallo in the other place and people in this place and others has finally got us there. I commend the legislation.

Bill read a third time and passed.