Independent Commissioner Against Corruption

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:51): I rise to again raise some concerns about the government usage of ICAC. My concerns are directed as to how the Weatherill government is using the ICAC, in my view, as an instrument of intimidation against public servants and staffers who are suspected of leaking in the public interest to journalists, the media and members of parliament.

In recent months, I have had further examples where public servants have indicated that the government has been referring issues to ICAC which, in the past, have been treated as leaks and if persons were found guilty would be guilty of breaches of codes of conduct and subject to disciplinary action within the public sector management regime. However, the Weatherill government has had some fondness for referring issues to ICAC.

I placed on the public record before the examples where ICAC commissioners, on two occasions, asked me to reveal the sources of information—one in relation to various dispute issues going on at senior levels of the Department of Premier and Cabinet; another in relation to claims I had made in Budget and Finance Committee and in the Legislative Council about rorting by public servants on the APY lands. In the politest possible way I told the investigators to get nicked and said that parliamentary privilege protected information provided to members of parliament and the ICAC could not require a member of parliament to reveal his or her sources in relation to these particular issues.

But there are also other examples. There is the Mary-Lou Corcoran example, the leak in relation to Premier Weatherill's agenda and strategic plans. I understand there has been a reference in relation to leak of information with the Sunday Mail story in relation to the number of complaints against teachers. Also, as I said, in recent months I have had further public servants raise issues with me about issues which they believe the government has referred to ICAC in terms of leaks of public information.

Many of us who supported the ICAC supported it on the basis that, essentially, it was there to root out corruption—I guess corruption in the form that most of us in everyday terms understood it. I guess many of us did not expect that the government would seek to use the ICAC in a very significant way to try and suppress the leaking of information which was embarrassing to the government and to ministers.

So, what has occurred since the establishment of the ICAC has been a deliberate strategy from the government and its officers of referring a number of these leaks to the ICAC for its consideration. Clearly under the ICAC legislation, if a public servant leaks something to a journalist and it is published, the ICAC can force a journalist to answer questions and to reveal the source of the leak. It is clearly in the government's interest to scare the bejesus out of public servants. It is in the Weatherill government's interest to try to get as much of these issues, if it can, to be considered by the ICAC.

In March of this year, to try to seek out how widespread this issue was, I lodged FOIs with all government departments and agencies to try to find out the extent of the government referring leaks or unauthorised release of information by public servants to ICAC for investigation. It will not surprise members to know that here we are in June, and I have had a reply from only one agency from the FOIs that went to all agencies back in March of this year. I am not holding my breath and expecting that this series of FOIs will reveal too much detail at all: again we will rely on leaks from public servants to try to get an indication of what has and has not been referred to ICAC.

There is potentially a very serious threat under the Weatherill government's usage of the ICAC to limit the flow of information to journalists, and I think that the media and journalists ought to be more aware of this particular issue. The ICAC clearly has the power to tap the phones of journalists and public servants, and these are critical issues. As I have indicated before, and I do so again, I think this particular aspect of the operation of the ICAC does need to be reviewed. I hope that the work of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee will consider this as part of its ongoing work. I know from my discussions with my hard-working colleague, the Hon. Mr McLachlan, who is a member of that particular committee, that this is an issue he will continue to oversight and pursue.