HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee: Annual Review

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:05): I move:

That the first report of the committee, entitled Public Integrity and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Annual Review, be noted.

As members would be aware, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 came into operation on 1 September 2013 and the Office of the ICAC opened its doors the next day. At the same time, the Crime and Integrity Policy Committee was also established in September 2013 and the current members were appointed in May last year.

A key function of the committee is to consider the operations of South Australian integrity bodies, including the ICAC, whose roles include the investigation of corruption and oversight of the investigation of misconduct and maladministration in public administration; the Office for Public Integrity, which receives and assesses complaints and reports about potential matters of corruption, misconduct and maladministration in public administration; the Ombudsman SA whose office investigates complaints about SA government and local government agencies; the Office of the Police Ombudsman which provides independent oversight of SAPOL and its members; and the Anti-Corruption Branch of SAPOL which ensures that allegations of corruption in public administration referred to the police by the ICAC are appropriately investigated.

Between August 2014 and March 2015 the committee considered 10 annual and other reports tabled in parliament from the ICAC, the Ombudsman, the Police Ombudsman, the Commissioner of Police, and the independent reviewer of the ICAC. The committee is charged with examining these reports while also inquiring into and considering the operation and effectiveness of the ICAC act. In particular, the committee must consider the performance of functions and exercise of powers by the ICAC and the OPI, inquire into and consider the performance of functions and exercise of powers by the Ombudsman, and report to parliament on any matter arising of public policy.

In 2014 the committee received oral evidence from the ICAC Commissioner Bruce Lander, the independent reviewer of the ICAC the Hon. Mr Kevin Duggan, the Acting Ombudsman Ms Megan Philpot, and the then Police Ombudsman Ms Sarah Bolt. Then, in early 2015—and I think it should be noted what a hardworking committee this is—the committee also heard evidence from the newly appointed Ombudsman Mr Wayne Lines and the new Deputy Ombudsman Ms Emily Strickland, as well as South Australia Police, namely: the Commissioner of Police Mr Gary Burns; Assistant Commissioner of Crime Service Paul Dickson; Chief Superintendent Peter Harvey, Officer in Charge of the Ethical and Professional Standards Branch; Superintendent Christine Baulderstone, Officer in Charge of the Anti-Corruption Branch; and Superintendent Craig Patterson, Officer in Charge of the Internal Investigations Section.

As detailed in this report, the committee found that at this preliminary stage it appears that the ICAC and the OPI have made a positive impact upon the anticorruption framework in South Australia. However, I think we all agreed that a number of years would need to go by before the full impact can be seen of how these agencies are performing. Despite some of the complexities and recommendations for change, the committee commends all the agencies that are working together to try to make the new system work.

The committee has made 12 recommendations relating to matters of public policy detailed in this report. Overall the committee found that:

a mechanism is needed to allow people to make complaints about how the commissioner exercises his powers, and we have recommended that a new set of responsibilities be added to the external reviewer to enable that to happen;

external reviews of the FOI decisions regarding SAPOL documents should be undertaken by the Ombudsman, not the Police Ombudsman;

action should be taken to address the uncertainties in the Local Government Act 1999, given that possible sanctions depend on whether reported breaches of the code of conduct are made to the Ombudsman or OPI;

the legislative framework regarding complaints about police misconduct and corruption should be simplified;

a review should be undertaken to determine if it is practical to legislate for the sharing of personal information to better protect children, young people and vulnerable adults;

government documents should be more readily available under the FOI Act, with proactive disclosure of information; and

further work needs to be done to achieve an integrated model of public integrity in South Australia which is accessible, efficient, effective and simple.

The committee in its report that was tabled yesterday notes that Commissioner Lander was also undertaking an evaluation of the practices, policies and procedures of the Police Ombudsman and reviewing the legislative schemes, and that would likely have some significant impacts upon the work that we are also looking at. As it so happens, the commissioner released his report into those matters yesterday. It recommends a significant shake-up of the way that police integrity matters are reviewed, namely, that the Police Ombudsman be removed as a body and that most matters of police integrity be reviewed internally by SAPOL, and that significant matters be reviewed by the ICAC.

I understand that that is going to be reviewed now by the Attorney-General, and he will make recommendations to parliament in coming months. We were lucky enough to be briefed by the commissioner of ICAC yesterday, as a committee, on the reports, and I think that the recommendations that he has made are in line with a lot of the evidence that we heard during the course of our inquiry.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who gave evidence. I also thank the members of the committee, particularly the members of this house—the member for Little Para and the member for Hartley—as well as the members of the other place, including the Presiding Member, the Hon. Mr Gerry Kandelaars MLC, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan MLC, who replaced the Hon. Stephen Wade, who was a former member of the committee.

I also would like to particularly thank our executive research officer of the committee, Ms Katherine McLachlan, who I think did an absolutely outstanding job not only in the conduct of preparing members and organising meetings and witnesses but also in preparing the draft of this report, which is a fantastic read; I recommend it to everybody. If you are looking for something to read late at night, get a copy of this report. There are some very interesting issues detailed in here and Katherine did a fantastic job.

The only other point that I would like to add is that I heard ABC 7.45am radio this morning and almost choked on my Weet-Bix when I heard that it reported that the state opposition says a parliamentary committee has backed its push for an inspectorate to oversee the ICAC, that the committee says there needs to be a way for people to complain about the ICAC itself and that the shadow attorney-general, Vickie Chapman, says that the ICAC would be stronger if it was more open, transparent and accountable. Quoting Ms Chapman:

When things are done in such a covert way it is important to have someone else. The public have to have confidence in these institutions and that's why it's important to have the inspectorate.

I have to say that is not at all what is recommended in this report.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: How could she get it so wrong?

Mr PICTON: How could she get it so wrong?

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: Again.

Mr PICTON: That's right—again. Just as Ray Martin once said about the member for Bragg: how could she get it so wrong? What we did recommend, as I mentioned, was that there is an independent reviewer of the ICAC that is already established, and that is the Hon. Mr Kevin Duggan. He, I think, is doing a fantastic job in reviewing the ICAC. What we have recommended is that his responsibilities in the act be amended, including a number of responsibilities to deal with any complaints made against ICAC or its officers in the discharge of their duties.

What we are not recommending is to establish a separate inspectorate, which I understand a number of other states have and which are quite large bureaucracies that oversee the ICAC in other states and will then conduct a further review of the independent review. We were very careful as we did not want to have a situation where you can just keep endlessly getting reviews because you are not happy that your complaint, however vexatious it might be, has not been looked into.

But we do think that there is a proper need for there to be someone to go to for a complaint about how the ICAC commissioner has discharged their duties, and that the appropriate person to do that is the Hon. Kevin Duggan, without some sort of inspectorate being created to support him, or perhaps her if it is not Mr Duggan in the future. I commend the report to the parliament and I commend the work of all the members of the committee and look forward to further deliberations.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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