HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2008. Page 1170.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:43): I am very pleased that the member for Heysen has introduced this private member's bill for the establishment of a South Australian independent commission against corruption, commonly known as an ICAC. The state Rann Labor Government is completely opposed to having an ICAC and has said that it would be a waste of money. However, the Liberal Party remains committed to the establishment of an ICAC.

An ICAC would investigate allegations of corruption in sectors such as politicians, the police, government agencies and planning authorities, amongst others. Members of the public would be able to make complaints and senior public officials would be required to lay a complaint where they become aware of corruption. The establishment of such a commission in South Australia would ensure that corruption is investigated quickly, efficiently and in fairness to all concerned.

It is interesting to note that South Australia is one of the few states and territories that does not have an independent body to investigate claims of corruption. New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland all have one. The state Coroner, Mark Johns, last year backed our plan to review the Police Complaints Authority under our model for a proposed anti-corruption body. Following his investigation into the death of Christopher Stuart Wilson, he handed down a recommendation that secrecy provisions in the Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act be amended so that relevant evidence can be disclosed in the Coroner's Court. In 2007, when Ken MacPherson retired as auditor-general, he called for an independent commission to be established to deal with corruption. That should be enough. These are two men of notable standing in South Australia who are calling on the state government to introduce an anticorruption commission; however, all Premier Rann and his government appear to be concerned about is the cost—dollars, funding. Whichever way you put it, it means the same in terms of what it would take to establish an ICAC.

I believe that the establishment of an ICAC would give all members of parliament a chance to earn better respect from the public as it would increase transparency between the public sector and all South Australians. As politicians, we know that there will be erroneous accusations at times in relation to this matter, but I believe that we have to be strong enough and noble enough to say, 'Well, we'll put it up there for the sake of transparency right across the public sector generally'—whether it involves the public service or us as politicians. Of course, one has to understand the bottom line here, namely, that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

We are all aware of corruption. You might say that something is a bit corrupt—not much, just a bit. We all come close to saying at times, 'Gosh, this is a bit close to the grind.' We all see it in our everyday lives. The temptation is there to take advantage of one's office. We know that the Local Government Association is recommending that its councils adopt an ICAC, and I believe that the Local Government Association will be the first body in South Australia to recommend and put in place an ICAC for all councils. I also believe that—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Finniss says that he has some concerns about that; I believe it is on the agenda.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Finniss reminds me that it is not. I will stand corrected on that; but if it is not an ICAC it is something similar; it is a watchdog. I believe that local government is being responsible in this matter, because there have been various accusations, particularly in the area of planning where there are opportunities for a sniff of corruption. I believe that, to win public confidence, one has no choice but to adopt an umpire. Again, I cannot understand how anyone can oppose it.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the minister for agriculture!

Mr VENNING: I have been in this place 18 years, and you can always ask, 'Why didn't you do it?' We could go right back to when my father was in here. Why didn't he do it?

Ms Chapman: They didn't need it when he was here.

Mr VENNING: They didn't need it. With the way things are today, there is a point in time when you say, 'Hang on, irrespective of the past, we are not making legislation for five, 10, 15 or 20 years ago; it is now, 2009, when we need to address a problem.' Whether it has been an oversight, deliberate or intentional, it does not matter, but for the minister to come in here and say—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: The minister is interjecting from the middle of the floor of the house. He is out of order, and I suggest he should leave. He has gone. Good riddance! I think it is quite appropriate that the Liberal Party has introduced this measure, and I congratulate the shadow minister responsible for dealing with legal matters (the member for Heysen). I understand that our deputy leader will continue the debate right now, and I look forward to what she has to say. I support the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:49): It is with pleasure that I support this bill. I recollect that I spoke on a previous occasion, when I outlined my support for the shadow attorney-general's measure before the parliament. This matter involves a fundamental issue of difference between the South Australian Labor government and the Liberal opposition. We are diametrically opposed on this issue. The opposition wants a watchdog that has sufficient teeth to ensure that we have open, accountable, honest and transparent government, and the state government says that we do not need it. Largely, their argument is, 'Look, we have a number of other watchdogs and statutory officers who help to secure the integrity of the parliament and of other people in leadership positions, in particular those who have control of the money.' However, there have been a number of cases and events in the short time I have been in the parliament (and it is not as long as the member for Schubert) which have attracted a public outcry and a call for proper scrutiny and review by an ICAC.

The Liberal opposition has listened, and it has acted to ensure that it will offer a clear choice at the 2010 election. The people of South Australia deserve, need and are entitled to a watchdog with teeth to ensure a standard of integrity which, sadly, over the past seven years, I have observed has been falling in this state.

Last night I attended a public meeting convened by the Hon. Paul Holloway of another place in his capacity as planning minister. He is required by law to do that when a change of zoning is proposed for a particular area—in this case the Glenside Hospital site, which is now a campus of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and is the subject of a redevelopment proposal by the state government, including the development of a private housing precinct and a retail precinct to include supermarket development and to provide for commercial offices and the like. To do that it has to change the DAP and, therefore, convene a public meeting.

A panel appointed by the minister convened that meeting at Burnside Town Hall last night. On my estimate, 150 to 200 people were in attendance. From 7 o'clock until 10.30, one by one they made their submissions, including from local government, that is, Burnside and Unley councils, and representatives of the Chapley family, whose company is the proposed developer to get the preferred deal to develop a large precinct there for retail and commercial activity.

There were representatives from the Cohen Group of Companies, which owns the Burnside Village. There was a representative from other supermarket interests, including the Arkaba Shopping Centre, owned by a company under the name of Peter Hurley. There was a myriad of people who live around the area, including patients, health professionals, psychiatrists and mental health nurses, who were brave enough to stand up last night and put their case. I was one of them.

I want to recount one interesting thing. The theme of the night, from some of these submissions, was claims of fraud and corruption about the process undertaken in this government redevelopment proposal. I will highlight two of them. Firstly, there was a claim that the Alistair Tutt report, which outlined the need for extra retail and supermarket space and shopping centres—which had, I think, been prepared at the cost of the Chapley Group of Companies in support of its submission—was not available to the public to read, yet this report had been relied on in the DAP that had been put out to present for public consultation.

So, it is referred to in the report as having been taken into account and relied upon, but we are not allowed to see it. One of those putting a submission last night was scathing about this, because even under our freedom of information application we are not allowed to receive it. Yet, the representative of the preferred purchaser of this land—that is, the government elected this particular group to have the first option—relied on it in its submission and referred to it again last night. But we are not allowed to see it.

The chairman of the panel, Mr Barone, who is also the Chief Executive of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council, indicated during the evening that he was going to read this report, but still we are not allowed to receive it. Incidentally, we do not even get to see the report that the panel put to the minister unless he agrees. So last night when I asked 'Will your recommendations to the minister be made available to us?', the answer was 'No; we can't do that. That is a matter entirely for the minister.' Well, we put the minister on notice that we want to know what this panel said as a result of the public, commercial and professional submissions put last night.

The second aspect I want to raise—apart from the concealment of documents upon which not only a person making the submission but also the planning department had based the decisions on what they will do on this site, and the secrecy of those documents—is a claim by one of those putting a submission that, in the glossy brochures presented to the public last year, and at public meetings, it was claimed that on the cultural precinct proposal (which is in the centre of the site) there could be a community meeting hall. This was discussed at a public meeting, deliberately I suggest, to encourage the public to think that it would be a great idea. Yet at the meeting last night it was claimed—by a person who is a member of the community consultative committee and who presented this, and who used the word 'corrupt' himself—that at the very time this was being presented to the public he had a letter confirming that the deal had been done to put a film centre at that site.

We need some answers, and the only way we will get them is through an ICAC. It is important that the public know the truth about these types of allegations, and we need to have that information before us.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: A third claim was made last night, again using the word 'fraud' although 'corruption' is probably a better one. He presented to the meeting a letter—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What about you and—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —signed by minister Gago saying that there will not be high-rise (I think the reference was that there would not be multi-storey). Yet when the DPA came out for consideration by the public—which, incidentally, was over the Christmas period when no-one was around; but I can tell you that they are not happy out there, so they turned up at that meeting last night very angry—from the department of planning, under minister Holloway's required disclosure, there was no mention of multi-storey to protect against what has occurred. Clearly, there is a capacity to put up to six storeys in the housing development.

We want honest, accountable government. It is unacceptable. This is just one little issue that might be small to the government, but I can tell you is a big deal to the mental health community in this state, to country people who rely on this, to the people who work there—the staff and professionals who support these people, and the local community, who want to protect their own open space not just for themselves but also for others.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How come Iain Evans gave permission for a shopping centre there?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, we must have an ICAC. Just on this one issue three examples are raised of corrupt and unacceptable behaviour by one or more ministers of this government. We want an ICAC to ensure that an inquiry is undertaken.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (10:54): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Mr PENGILLY: I was on my feet—

The SPEAKER: Let me explain to all members how it works. The call passes from side to side. If no-one gets up from the side that the call was passed to then I am more than happy to give a member from that side the call, but the member for Torrens is well within her rights to move that the debate be adjourned.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Is that motion seconded?

Motion carried; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT