Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT (17:14): I have to advise that I have received a letter from the Hon. Ann Vanstone KC, Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, requesting a right of reply in accordance with standing order 455A. In her letter dated 28 February 2024, the commissioner considers that she has been adversely affected in her office of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption by statements made in the Legislative Council by the Hon. F. Pangallo on Thursday 8 February 2024. Following the procedures set out in the standing order, I have given consideration to this matter and believe that it complies with the requirements of the standing order. Therefore, I grant the request and direct that the commissioner's reply be incorporated in Hansard. Dear President Proceedings of the Legislative Council on Thursday, 8 February 2024 I write pursuant to Standing Order 455A of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, in relation to statements made in the Legislative Council by Mr Frank Pangallo MLC on Thursday 8 February 2024. Pursuant to Standing Order 455A, I submit that I have been adversely affected in my office of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and I request that this response be incorporated into Hansard. Mr Pangallo made an allegation (1) to the effect that an article appearing in The Advertiser on 8 February 2024 regarding the investigation and prosecution of Mr John Hanlon and Ms Georgina Vasilevski was published at the behest of the Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions or staff of the Attorney-General's Department, and that it was done in an effort to damage Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski and, ultimately, to influence the outcome of legal proceedings. This is a serious allegation to level against statutory office holders and senior public officers utilising the shield of parliamentary privilege. To my knowledge, it is not an allegation that Mr Pangallo has repeated outside of Parliament. Moreover, the allegation is untrue, certainly insofar as it concerns me or my staff. The article in The Advertiser was published wholly independently of anything done by any person associated with the Commission. Mr Pangallo went on to make wholly unfounded claims about, in effect, the inequitable treatment of two persons before the courts for the commission of offences against the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA) (the ICAC Act). Mr Pangallo contrasted the penalty imposed on Ms Stephanie Hardy for one count of breaching s 54(3) of the ICAC Act—namely, a $1000 fine—with the penalty imposed on Mr Nick Fletcher for what Mr Pangallo suggested was similar conduct in 2013. Mr Pangallo claimed that Mr Fletcher was 'shown no mercy' by the Commission, fined $500,000 and that, in fact, Mr Fletcher was only charged and found guilty due to changes made to the ICAC Act which resulted in 'capturing Mr Fletcher's offending retrospectively'. Much of what Mr Pangallo said about the matter involving Mr Fletcher is patently false. First, Mr Pangallo has overlooked the fact that Mr Fletcher was not a public officer and was not investigated by the Commission, and nor did it play any role in his prosecution. Accordingly, the Commission was in no position to show mercy or otherwise to Mr Fletcher. Secondly, Mr Fletcher was convicted of 22 counts of breaching the provisions of the ICAC Act which prohibit publication rather than simply dissemination of information. This is a more serious offence than that to which Ms Hardy pleaded guilty. Thirdly, the penalty Mr Fletcher received was in the nature of a community service order and the imposition of prosecution costs, court fees and the victims of crime levy, all of which amounted to less than $3,500—a far cry from the $500,000 fine that Mr Pangallo would have the public and Parliament believe was imposed. Finally, the amendments made to the definition of 'publish' in the ICAC Act by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2014 to which Mr Pangallo referred had the effect of narrowing rather than broadening the concept of publication. The then Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau described the effect of the amendments as follows in his second-reading speech (2): First, the Bill amends the definition of 'publish' because upon a broad interpretation of that definition, information could not be communicated person to person. The intention, which is to prevent information becoming public, will be clarified by the new definition of 'publish', consistent with the definition of 'publish' in the Evidence Act 1929 where the emphasis is on communication to the public. Mr Fletcher published information relating to an investigation on a public blog. His conduct amounted to unauthorised publication of information both before and after the amendment to the definition of 'publish'. In my submission, Mr Pangallo's statements regarding the cases involving Ms Hardy and Mr Fletcher amount to a breach of Standing Order 193, being injurious reflections on the Parliament of South Australia and on the courts of law in this State. They have the capacity to damage the public perception of the operation of the legal system and of the Parliament and ought to be corrected. Yours sincerely, Hon. Ann Vanstone KC COMMISSIONER (1) South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 8 February 2024, 4739 (Frank Pangallo MLC). (2) South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 29 October 2014, 2489 (John Rau MP). At 17:15 the council adjourned until Tuesday 19 March 2024 at 14:15.