Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Investigation Powers) No 2 Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:01): This bill comes before us in an amended form. It was originally introduced last year, and before the winter break the bill was sent from the Legislative Council to the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee for a quick examination of the bill. The committee took evidence from a range of people, including the Law Society and people who have had dealings with or interest in the operation of ICAC, and some very sensible recommendations were made from that committee, with the input of some very sensible members of this chamber.

As a result of that, a new bill was introduced, which included some of the recommendations of the committee and some things that the committee decided on, including a right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a decision to hold a public hearing. We made some important headway in affording some greater fairness to people who were potentially subject to a public hearing of ICAC.

The opposition has lodged a set of amendments to this bill that further incorporate recommendations of that committee that were not in the second bill introduced by the government and that also incorporate other amendments, some of which were suggested by witnesses to that committee, including the Law Society, and others were suggested by groups such as the Bar Association.

In essence, a lot of the amendments seek to treat a hearing, if it is a public hearing, as much more akin to a trial where a defendant is before the public eye and receiving publicity about the proceedings that are occurring. Pursuant to the opposition amendments, a number of things would come into play if a public hearing is called. This would include: the rules of evidence applying to hearings; a witness being entitled to call other witnesses and make submissions; a witness having a right to refuse to participate in an investigation; a person having a right to cross-examine witnesses; that the summons must set out why a person is being summoned; if a public hearing is to be held, that the commissioner must head that public inquiry; that an examiner appointed by the commission must be a legal practitioner; and that the commissioner must decide whether or not to make an inquiry public before witnesses have been examined.

Should the commissioner return a public hearing to a private hearing or return parts of it to a private hearing then all the rules that apply to a public hearing continue to apply to those parts that then go back into a private hearing. A legal practitioner can represent a person at other examinations forming part of an inquiry. A person is to be told if allegations of misconduct or maladministration have been made against them, and a disclosure statement to provide additional details is to be supplied before such appearances.

In our suite of amendments there are a range of things that we think create more fairness should a public hearing be decided upon by the commissioner. We have seen in interstate jurisdictions where there have been public hearings that there has been significant damage to people's reputations. Of course, public officers but anyone else in South Australia could find themselves called before a public hearing.

We have had centuries of legal thought and processes that have grown around what is considered fair to people who front such public hearings and such trials, and we have sought to include a number of those into what will be required for public hearings. We look forward to the committee stage of this bill and having a discussion about what is fair and reasonable for people who may find themselves subject to public hearings in terms of how they are treated at such hearings.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.