HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:16): I also rise today to speak in favour of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2014. We have seen in the past, as the member for Bragg alluded to, that this government has a problem with releasing information. They have had a problem with shield laws, they have had a problem with whistleblowers protection. It seems to be a government addicted to secrecy.

Although we are supportive of the bill, the ICAC is still the most narrowly focused and secretive in the nation. I will talk a little bit about the reality TV metaphor that the Attorney uses. It seems that the only person to use metaphors better than the Attorney is Shakespeare himself, but I will tell you a little bit about the New South Wales model and how it is working and why we should learn something from our New South Wales colleagues over there.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Yes, the Deputy Premier has made a couple of points in relation to that. I will talk about that in a second. Corruption should always be stamped out. I will give the government some credit; the amendments are important. I believe there are further debates that need to occur and that we could be having about the role of ICAC, because there needs to be more done in this area. As we heard from the Deputy Premier, he said, 'Wait. There's more.' I know that there will be more to come. Nothing would have been wrong with getting it right the first time.

We have a great example working interstate. If we followed through with that example, we probably would not be in this position. In relation to the New South Wales ICAC, premiers have been found out, ministers from Labor have been found out and there is even a Liberal backbencher, I believe, who was recently brought to the attention of ICAC. As at 20 June 2014, 22 people were appearing before courts in New South Wales as a result of referrals to the DPC from the ICAC, and in the last 30 months from 20 June 2014 in New South Wales, in addition to a few cases, 32 people had actually pleaded guilty or had been found guilty of charges arising from ICAC investigations. So, we see in New South Wales that the ICAC is performing its duty; the ICAC is working. It is doing its job.

I note that this bill was introduced on 29 October in response to Commissioner Bruce Landers' annual report and recommendations tabled on 14 October 2014. It amends the ICAC Act of 2012. I would like to reiterate to the house that the proposal for an ICAC was initiated by the Liberal Party, and I thank the tireless member for Heysen for her pursuit of this. We are much better off because of her work in this area to bring this to fruition, because we know that this government refused to have an ICAC for many years.

I understand the Attorney has called the New South Wales model a reality TV model but, as we have seen, that model in New South Wales is achieving results. At the end of the day, if it results in a more transparent, open and clean government, is that not a good thing? Absolutely it is a good thing.

The principal areas of this amendment, as we have heard, are firstly to relax the strictly confidential provisions, which the commissioner has claimed causes some confusion. It is important to listen to the commissioner, and I understand that there will be a new definition of 'publish to allow for communications between two persons'. Fair enough. Another principal area of amendment involves confirming that SAPOL officers, while working for the commission, retain their full powers, including the use of general warrants. Also, there are a number of practical amendments with respect to the inspection and copying of, and access to, documents.

In relation to amending the Crown Proceedings Act 1992 to remove the obligation to give notice to the Crown Solicitor before a summons is issued to a minister, at the moment this is required. The commissioner has said that ministers should be treated the same as everyone else.

The Liberal Party has consistently argued in favour of an ICAC and consistently argued that an ICAC should go further, and that confidentiality requirements at the moment are far too strict, far too severe. I would speak in favour of any act that goes to strengthen the ICAC. As I said, if it results in a more open and transparent government, I would be happy to support any such bill. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:22): I thank members for their contributions. I have a couple of very quick remarks on the matter. The first one is to say—this is largely in response to the comments of the member for Bragg; the member for Bragg mentioned lobbying—yes, it is our intention to bring a bill before the parliament relating to lobbying, and I think the Premier has already made statements to the effect that we think, for example, success fees are not a positive thing and should be outlawed. To that extent, there has been some clear articulation by the Premier of where we see that going, but I do agree with the member for Bragg that there are questions which do need to be thought out carefully.

I actually say to the member for Bragg that she and I should have a bit of a chat about this at some point because of the question of how far the net goes to talk about a lobbyist—who is a lobbyist, who is not a lobbyist. Sometimes it is easier to say who is and who is not, or vice versa. So, that is a bit of work that needs to be done; also, exactly what it is in lobbying that we are trying to do. Are we trying to prohibit things or are we trying to make things transparent? I lean towards the transparency side of that equation, although I think success fees, for example, is something that we should put in the prohibited category. Anyway, that is just by the bye.

The other comment is about the Electoral Commission. With all due respect to the commissioner, his remarks there were based on the Electoral Act as it was prior to the amendments that this parliament dealt with at the very end of last year. Members who were in the last parliament would recall that we spent some time and effort on the issue of disclosure.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, the effect of it was basically—and I am concertinaing this—that members of the opposition said that, for certain administrative reasons connected with the way the Liberal Party functions, it would be helpful if the actual implementation of these rules were put off for a couple of years, until 2016, to enable the Liberal Party, from an administrative point of view, to be able to deal with disclosure requirements, which is why these disclosure rules do not cut in.

As the members opposite would know better than me, I understand the Liberal Party is a many-splendored thing, with lots of little isolated units (perhaps hundreds of them, maybe even more), each having its own autonomous existence, each reporting to none other than themselves and each accountable to none other than themselves.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have never been in the Liberal Party so I do not know it from the inside. This is just what I am told.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I suspect that is true. As I understand it, the Liberal Party is a mosaic of many little entities which jealousy guard their own right to be themselves. The Labor Party is more of a centralised show, which means, for example, that if the Labor Party is asked to produce a list of all of those people who have made donations to the Labor Party in the last six months it involves going up to one of those machines and pressing a button to say enter and out comes the information. I gather—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, I am just trying to explain something here.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am trying to defend the Liberal Party, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know. They will provoke you shortly into a tirade on Catch Tim or something else, so let us all be quiet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just trying to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that because they do not have that opportunity presently and because it is going to take them a little while to tool up for that, I do not criticise them for wanting the thing not to come in until 2016 because they do need a bit of time to get organised, but as from that time—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members, the Speaker has already drawn up today's list and I can easily call someone to order now, or warn them, and I would hate to have to start that before lunch.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So, that is all in train; the electoral bit that he mentioned is all in train. Member for Hartley: whistleblowers. The situation with whistleblowers is that I actually made the point, I think, when I introduced the ICAC legislation, that I intended to have him look at whistleblowers and I did ask him as soon as he was appointed, 'Please have a look at whistleblowers,' and his report has just been received. So, we have been on the whistleblowers reform caravan for a little while now. We will have a good look at what is in there and we will bring something back to the parliament in the new year.

As to the suggestions by the member for Hartley that a number of people have been prosecuted successfully by the ICAC in New South Wales, I was under the impression that their success rate was something like one in a hundred, or perhaps not that good, but he may know things that I do not know. What I can tell the member for Hartley, and other people, is I remember (for most of last year) reading the front page of The Australian and I got to know a great deal about Mr Tripodi, Mr Obeid and Mr Macdonald and I do not believe that any of them have even been charged, let alone put in gaol.

If one is to read what appeared in the paper, these individuals collectively have siphoned off something in the order of several tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars, either by taking public money or exploiting a position of authority in order to offer gifts or a preference to themselves or others. So, that, I think, is the most glaring indictment of that reality TV which is funded at great expense by the taxpayers of New South Wales called the New South Wales ICAC. Back to here—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Heysen to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Back to here, there is one further matter that I wanted to put on the record, and I say this for the benefit of the member for Bragg, who obviously is the most directly involved in this bill. Under section 46 of the legislation there is a requirement for the attorney of the day to appoint a person, and the way I read it is it is an annual appointment, to conduct a review of the operations of the commission.

As the member for Bragg would be aware, I have appointed the Hon. Kevin Duggan to do that, and the Hon. Kevin Duggan has made a report. In that report, he makes the point that perhaps that could be a little bit more robust than it presently is. I just wanted to say that I have taken that on board. We cannot have another ICAC to sit on top of ICAC—that would be an absurdity—but I do accept Mr Duggan's suggestions that we can be a bit more robust in section 46.

Through my officers, there has been a conversation with Commissioner Lander, and we have prepared some amendments to section 46 which pick up the comments made by Mr Duggan. I have not yet had a chance to discuss those with Mr Duggan; I will do that tomorrow. I was pleasantly surprised that our first bill went through so quickly, so I have been advanced a little more than I thought. I will provide the member for Bragg with a copy of our draft. I could introduce it now as a draft amendment in here, but I would be doing so on the basis that I have not yet spoken to Mr Duggan about it, and I think that would probably be premature.

Can I just say on the record that, first of all, I am flagging that we have that amendment. If we are still going on this bill in here tomorrow, then perhaps we will be in a position for me to move it, otherwise my intention would be to move it in the other place. Can I indicate to the member for Bragg that I will organise for her to receive an electronic copy of what the current thinking is on that.

I think probably, given that I have not discussed it yet with Mr Duggan and he has not seen it, it would be prudent for me to not actually introduce it as an amendment. It has not been filed yet. If the member for Bragg is content with that, I just wanted to have it on the record so there is no suggestion that, when an amendment arrives elsewhere, it has come out of nowhere.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. If you just bear with me a minute, I will give you a little bit more insight as to what it might be doing. Just as a couple of general propositions, what we are talking about is making it a three-year term, not an annual appointment, so that there is more continuity. There are a couple of other sort of minor matters, but I think the best thing I can do is provide a copy of what I am intending to do to the member for Bragg, on the understanding that this has yet to be shown to and discussed fully with Mr Duggan. I just make the point again on the record that one could erect a whole other ICAC on top of ICAC to investigate ICAC, but that would be getting ridiculous.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cacky.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, very cacky. What we intend to do is have this opportunity here as I have indicated. With those few words, I will conclude my remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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