Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Investigation

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:34): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer, representing the Attorney-General in another place, a question about ICAC's investigation into two South Australian public servants.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Last Friday, in the Magistrates Court, charges against Mr John Hanlon, former chief executive of Renewal SA, and another executive, Ms Georgina Vasilevski, were thrown out because there was not a shred of evidence against them. The hearing proved extremely embarrassing for one of ICAC's expert witnesses in telecommunications, who was not an expert at all, had not given evidence to a court before and had no idea of the vague information that was put forward by the DPP, ostensibly briefed by ICAC investigators, except that she knew a lot about phones.

Based on records, emails and handwritten notes by investigators and others that I have personally sighted, it would have been clear to anyone, including the DPP, that there was no case to answer and the matter has been a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

In Mr Hanlon's case, ICAC investigators Amanda Bridge and Andrew Baker were attempting to show a trip he took to Germany wasn't for government business but a family holiday. There are emails Bridge sent to a business in Berlin known as CRCLR seeking information for which the business makes clear why it could not provide it. Bridge's persistence then resulted in an email from Alice Grindhammer from the business, asking ICAC to desist or it would initiate legal action. I seek leave to table that email.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This was dated 6 September 2019, several days before Bridge and Baker embarked on a business class, taxpayer funded trip to Germany where they still decided to attend the business, which had already told them not to come. The trip yielded nothing, yet Bridge provided an affidavit which didn't tell the whole story and omitted facts they should have included in it. Bridge, in her handwritten notes, reveals that she, too, took a holiday in downtime to visit Hamburg. I seek leave to table those notes.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT: I hope the honourable member is coming to a conclusion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Nearly finished, Mr President. Then yesterday, the Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, whose name features several times in ICAC's Resolve Entries record into this sorry case and in a clear conflict of interest, said she is now talking to the DPP—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member has tested my patience a little bit with the amount of opinion in this explanation. I think he should bring the explanation to a conclusion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will bring it to a conclusion. Then yesterday, the Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, whose name features several times in ICAC's Resolve Entries record and in a clear conflict of interest, said she is now talking to the DPP—

The PRESIDENT: I just asked the honourable member to bring the explanation to a conclusion. You have said that last part twice now.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay. She is now still pursuing the matter. My question to the Attorney-General is:

1. Before discussing with the DPP whether or not this matter should proceed further, has she viewed or is she requesting to view the Resolve Entries file in which she appears as well as all the handwritten notes and emails by the pair of investigators which reveal how badly flawed this investigation was?

2. Is she aware of a separate investigation carried out by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment into workplace issues at Renewal SA, and what were the results of that investigation?

3. Why was approval given, and who gave it, for the two ICAC investigators to travel business class and for one of them to undertake a private side-trip?

4. Can the Attorney-General, through ICAC, provide the total cost of this investigation and subsequent proceedings?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:39): I am happy to refer the honourable member's questions to the Attorney and see what response she is able to provide, but what I will comment on is that if the member is going to make a significant accusation against a member of parliament, where he claims someone is in a clear conflict of interest—which I might say I am sure will be contested—the standing orders require that he should do so by a substantive motion, not as a drive-by in terms of an explanation to a question in the house.

So, on behalf of the Attorney, I take offence at an accusation like that being made as part of an explanation to a question, purportedly as a statement of fact. It's obviously an opinion of the honourable member's. He is entitled to his opinions, but it's an issue that I will refer to the Attorney-General, because these are issues clearly within her purview, and see what response she is prepared to provide.