HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2008. Page 331.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (23:15): The government opposes this bill. I draw members' attention to the contribution I made on 21 November 2007 in this place, in which I spoke in some detail about the reasons why the government opposes the establishment of an ICAC. In that contribution I spoke about the current system and methods we have for investigating allegations of corruption, including the anti-corruption branch of the South Australia Police, an Ombudsman with the powers of a royal commissioner, a Police Internal Investigations Branch, the Crown Solicitor's Office (which has a government investigations unit) and our whistleblower legislation and freedom of information laws.

I highlighted the role of the Auditor-General's department, and the government contends that South Australia is better served by these agencies than by an expensive ICAC being proposed by the honourable member, which would cost in the vicinity of $30 million a year. I also remind members of the comments I made in that contribution regarding an article published in The Advertiser by Mr Brian Carr, who was chief executive of the Liverpool council of New South Wales. Mr Carr highlighted the problems that have arisen in that state in relation to the ICAC system, particularly the way it is misused by certain people to influence the administration of local government.

The government opposes the establishment of an ICAC. We have seen today the approach that some members in this chamber take to allegations of impropriety with the discredited select committee on the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke matter. There is no evidence or proof required: simply a jumble of hearsay and conjecture as far as the opposition is concerned. Yet the very members who are dedicated to this absurd method of investigating allegations of corruption and relying on hearsay and conjecture are the ones proposing an ICAC. They have shown in their approach to business in this place that thorough, thoughtful investigation, leading to a conclusion, is not their preferred method; instead they want a media flurry that comes with the sensational evidence of a select committee, and that is why they want an ICAC.

How extraordinary that the Liberal Party, whose last period of government saw ministers falling to scandal and corruption at a frequency unprecedented in our history, now seeks to present itself as the guardian of the public good. The Rann government does not suggest that impropriety and corruption have not occurred from time to time in South Australia, but members opposite have asked for details. I draw their attention to the previous Liberal administration, which saw ministers dropping like flies, including the then premier, for lying. The government contends that an ICAC is not warranted in South Australia and we do not support this legislation. There will not be an ICAC under this bill.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (23:19): Liberal members will support the passage of this bill. I also announce that today in another place our preferred model of an independent commission against corruption was introduced in the form of a bill presented by the shadow attorney-general, the member for Heysen, Isobel Redmond. We have come to the conclusion that an independent commission against corruption is necessary in South Australia.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: We can have twin ICACs: they can investigate each other.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The honourable member says there will be twin ICACs. I can assure him that when the parliamentary process is completed there will be only one model which will be adopted in South Australia. However, we want to keep the debate alive as much as this government wants to close it down. It does not want to talk about an independent commission against corruption.

We heard earlier today the evidence relating to the Premier's former senior adviser Randall Ashbourne, charged with corruption in relation to an incident involving the Attorney-General. That was interesting, because the investigation had to be conducted by a parliamentary committee, which was unsatisfactory in many ways. It was quite suitable for the government, because it was able to foist off insistent cross-examination. That is something that an independent commission against corruption would have investigated. It would not have waited for seven months to report to the parliament. It would not have been—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The ICAC would have operated immediately. It would not have compromised the police investigations.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The honourable member suggests the Liberal Party does not have any confidence in the police. It was the Rann government that did not have any confidence in the police and did not report the matter to the police. It kept it secret. It had the Premier's own chief public servant do it, who ran off underground to Melbourne to get legal advice.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is late at night.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: There was alleged police corruption and incompetence in relation to the McGee hit-run investigation, which ultimately necessitated the establishment of a separate free-standing royal commission, at vast expense. There was the 'stashed cash' affair involving the Attorney-General and the Crown Solicitor's Trust Account that had to be investigated by two parliamentary committees. If there was an independent commission against corruption that matter would have been resolved many months ago.

The former speaker (Hon. Peter Lewis), who installed the Rann Labor government in 2002, was demanding a royal commission into alleged public and judicial malfeasances. However, those issues never saw the light of day. They would have been investigated by an independent commission against corruption if there had been one. There was the long saga concerning the sexual abuse of wards of the state, and the government eventually and reluctantly had to establish the Mullighan inquiry into that, at vast public expense. These are matters that would have been investigated in the ordinary course by an independent commission against corruption, because they involve the activities by the state and state organs.

We also have seen on many occasions the Premier, ministers and Attorney-General attacking and seeking to undermine the independent Director of Public Prosecutions in this state in circumstances where he is denigrated in parliament and undermined out in the community. These are matters that ought appropriately be the subject of investigation and inquiry.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Tell us all about Easling.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: What does that have to do with this? I am interested to hear what the member has to say about Easling. Is he going to bad-mouth him in the same way the minister downstairs has done?

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order, and the Hon. Mr Lawson will stop responding to them.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: So there have been abundant occasions which have demonstrated the need in South Australia for an independent commission against corruption. I have to say that, years ago, I was very sceptical of the need for one. However, when the Rann government came into power—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: So there is abundant evidence to support it. The model which the Liberal Party has today released calls for an independent anti-corruption body. It follows eight months of consultation on a model that was first released in April of this year, and our proposed preferred model is based upon the New South Wales independent commission against corruption.

The establishment of a commission in South Australia is supported by many figures—many Labor premiers. People cannot understand why in South Australia we do not have an anticorruption commission. Many say, 'What has the Labor government got to hide? Why is it scared about it?'

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Gazzola and the Hon. Mr Lucas will come to order.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: In the only public interview by the former auditor-general, Ken MacPherson, after 17 years in the role, he told The Advertiser, as follows:

We don't have the mechanism which will enable us to deal with the types of issues which have been identified in some other jurisdictions.

Notwithstanding the claims of Attorney-General Atkinson and the rather feeble effort made today by the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, we do not have the mechanism, according to Ken MacPherson, who is frequently relied upon by the Rann government, and it is appropriate that we have such a mechanism.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is very late at night, and the staff are tired. Half the members are tired, and the other half are cranky.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: And the Hon. Mr Lucas is cranky.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: An independent commission against corruption has the opportunity, for example, to investigate the appointment of retired officers after the expiration of their term in a government position. The structure of an independent commission against corruption which we in the Liberal Party prefer will ensure that corruption is combated and the integrity of the South Australian public sector is upheld and improved.

We envision that the commission will be responsible to parliament, be subject to audit by the Auditor-General and have the oversight of an inspector. These are mechanisms still to be worked out. It will provide all of the necessary mechanisms to provide for thorough investigation. We do not propose that the commission would undertake prosecutions itself but would make recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, an officer we respect and would seek to uphold.

Our mechanism will provide protections against malicious allegations, vendettas and false complaints and the like. It will incorporate the current Police Anti-corruption Branch and part of the Police Complaints Authority. As Ken MacPherson indicated, at the moment, police are left to investigate police, and that is undesirable.

We also envisage that an important role for the commission would be the promotion of an ethical climate in all public sector agencies and departments, including local government, by examining systems to minimise risks and by educating the public, as well as departmental agencies and council staff, about corruption.

I am proud to be a member of a party which is, in fact, promoting its own bill. However, we believe that it is appropriate to support the second reading of the Hon. Sandra Kanck's bill.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: No, there will not be two ICACs. I acknowledge the fact that the Hon. Sandra Kanck has, on a number of occasions, presented similar measures, and her predecessor the Hon. Ian Gilfillan did likewise. The honourable members have had a longstanding commitment, and we are glad to see the Hon. Sandra Kanck's bill read a second time.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (23:30): I rise to speak on behalf of Family First to advise the council that we support the second reading of this bill. However, in saying so, we have some concerns about the modelling and we will be having a look at the modelling proposed by the opposition in another place. In principle, we endorse what the Hon. Sandra Kanck has put before the house.

Corruption is something that in many countries of the world has come to be accepted as a way of life. In trade overseas it is accepted as part of the cost of doing business. Mr President, I will put your mind at ease. I am not trying to defend corruption: I am simply putting this debate into its context. I think it foolish to think that in Australia and South Australia we are immune from corruption. There is no cultural superiority or anything of the like that makes us less likely to be corrupt nor would immigrants from other countries bring in corruption.

Unfortunately, it is part of the human condition that some people will try to get ahead in the world by dishonest means. We are naive and foolish to think that those people do not find their way into places of highest office in the land.

This bill has significant ramifications for the state and, at one level, I can understand the government's hesitation in pursuing it. However, it has to be said that an ICAC has the potential of bringing a great deal of change and healing to this state. If corruption in high office or organised crime has been so pervasive that it merits wide scale prosecutions, convictions and removal from public office, we do not know if that is the case. That is the nature of things that are deliberately kept in the dark. Light is a great antiseptic.

I accept that if this bill becomes law, the commissioner is to be in all likelihood a retired judge or a judge who retires specifically to take up the role of commissioner. I would not support a former premier, as the government has advocated tonight, no matter what political party they may come from. I do not think that would be appropriate. However, a retired judge or a judge who retires specifically to take up the role of commissioner is the most appropriate avenue, but I think it worth considering appointing someone who has no previous significant connection with this state. This judge would then assume some very significant powers.

I think the honourable member has struck a reasonable balance here. These powers do not include the power to proceed from investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The significant power of the ICAC is in clause 12(1)(d)—namely, to communicate to the appropriate authorities the results of its investigations. One would assume that would lead to charges being laid but, if this bill reaches the committee stage, I will address my misgivings on how clearly we will know whether law enforcement agencies are listening to the communication the ICAC gives to them about its investigations.

We must consider the question of what corruption has alleged to have occurred or to be occurring in South Australia to justify creating an ICAC. This is a question one must answer with an element of guess work as corruption by its nature is secretive and hidden from public sight.

I acknowledge that, as minor parties, we see people who claim corruption is so widespread that they have lost interest in the majors and consider everyone else corrupt. Honourable members will probably know scenarios like this that they have had suggested to them from constituents. They might not have any real corruption to complain of but then again they might. However, the merit of having an ICAC is that the commissioner can hear them out and make a determination. If their claim is deemed frivolous or vexatious, then I suspect they will have a hard time saying that the commissioner is also corrupt.

I have a question concerning the oversight committee because I saw in The Australian earlier this year an article which I have kept on file with the headline 'CCC claim wins over QC'. Amanda O'Brien, a Western Australian political reporter, explains:

Western Australia's powerful Corruption and Crime Commission has had a significant win in its damaging feud with its parliamentary overseer, Malcolm McCusker QC, over his repeated rejection and criticism of its misconduct findings. The bitter war has undermined the CCC's ongoing investigations into the influence of disgraced former premier Brian Burke over a string of politicians and bureaucrats after Mr McCusker suggested that its work was flawed.

I will not read the rest of the article, but I think the article and the situation in Western Australia demonstrate the merit in the seven-member oversight committee rather than one individual charged with oversight. Of course, two of those members are the commissioner and his or her assistant, but one would think that the remaining five would be considered to be reasonable in making a finding that the commissioner was acting unreasonably.

I turn to the question of cost, because I have heard repeatedly over the past few years that one of the primary reasons for government opposition to ICAC is cost. In fact, I can see that as the only real reason that it is opposed to ICAC. Let's have a look at the cost. The salary of the presiding officer and his or her assistants will, of course, in the case of the presiding officer, have to be something comparable to his or her salary in the judiciary. Other costs include seconding administrative staff, seconding police officers, witness protection, legal representation and legal aid.

In April this year, we know that the opposition said that its ICAC would cost around $15 million per annum and have a staff of 80, which is, from my recollection, about $10 per capita per annum for South Australia. In The Age newspaper of 6 April 2004—that is, almost four years ago—Colleen Lewis wrote in her editorial that the New South Wales ICAC had a staff of 112 and a budget of $16.5 million per annum, and that Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission had staff of 280 and a budget of $25 million. However, I note that Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission does some of the work that SAPOL does here now; so, one would expect the cost in Queensland to be higher.

On 25 October last year, in another place, the member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman, stated:

...New South Wales [Independent Commission Against Crime]...has a staff of 110 and a budget of $15.6 million [per annum, founded in 1988]. The Queensland [Crime and Misconduct Commission]...has a staff of 300 and a budget of $35 million per annum. The Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission...has a staff of 150 and a budget of $25.5 million.

My research reveals that New South Wales budgeted $17.1 million for 2006-07 and $17.9 million for 2007-08 for its ICAC. Western Australia had about 153 staff in 2006-07, budgeted $24.1 million for 2005-06 for its ICAC, and its expected budget in the forward estimates will run to $28.6 million by 2010-11. So, on this argument about cost, I think the opposition's cost estimate is on about the right mark. It is worth making the point that three other states have seen fit to incur the cost—three other states in Australia have actually seen fit to incur the cost, and have done so for several years in running an ICAC or its equivalent. I also note that, for several years, there has been debate in Tasmania as to whether it should have an ICAC, but as yet, the Labor government there has not seen fit to support one; however, it may in the future.

In terms of ICAC facts, in South Australia we have, among others, the following independent officers: the Auditor-General—and I put on the public record that the former auditor-general claimed in his final report that there was a lack of oversight of, say, the DPP and he said that an ICAC would fulfil that role; an Ombudsman; a SAPOL anticorruption task force; and a Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Also, Monsignor Cappo is an independent commissioner, and we now have a Commissioner for Victims Rights, the Police Complaints Authority, the courts, and all the tribunals that exist.

Of course, there is the protection afforded in the Whistleblowers Act. On 27 March 2007, on FIVEaa morning radio, Police Commissioner Hyde, in addressing the question of an ICAC, suggested that upgrading the anti-corruption branch of South Australia Police might be an appropriate option and said that one would want to have good reasons for going ahead with an ICAC rather than creating a costly body to monitor something that might not actually be a problem.

Then on 31 May 2007, we heard from Labor's retiring federal member for Port Adelaide, Mr Rod Sawford, who is very highly respected by the citizens of Port Adelaide and, I note, a diligent and hard-working federal member. I am not sure why he is not still the federal member down there; I am perplexed about that. Rod Sawford, as the honourable leader said, has achieved so much and I agree with him. On FIVEaa morning radio, Mr Rod Sawford said that he believed there was merit in all states, including South Australia, having an ICAC. That is the view of the federal member for Port Adelaide, Mr Rod Sawford.

Then, Simon Slade, a highly-respected lawyer and a regular media commentator, said on a program in early August that he supported the idea of an independent commission against corruption. On 16 August 2007, on 891 Afternoons, the opposition leader said that he was not sure that the Democrat bill for an ICAC was the right solution but did not offer his thoughts on what the right solution was. However, a week later, on 23 August, the research was put together and a plan announced with an estimated budget of $15 million.

There are just another couple of examples that I want to put forward because I think it is important in this debate that they are on the public record, even though I acknowledge that it is late at night. On 23 August 2007, someone whom I very much respect, Mr Peter Alexander, who was then president of the Police Association of South Australia, said on FIVEaa morning radio that he thinks the public is not averse to there being an ICAC but wants to see the model that is being proposed. I completely agree with Mr Peter Alexander, who is a very intelligent man and also a qualified lawyer, and that is where, as I said, Family First do have some concerns with the absolutes of the modelling within the honourable member's bill.

The Local Government Association has indicated by a letter dated 21 September 2007 to the Hon. Sandra Kanck—and we have received a courtesy copy—that it considered a motion calling for the LGA to support something in the nature of an ICAC but stopped short of endorsing that or indeed this bill. However, it did undertake to investigate the matter further internally. Then, on Wednesday 12 March 2008, in the context of this year being a time, of course, when awareness of corruption in councils has reached new levels, highly-respected Advertiser reporter Miles Kemp said, 'The LGA wants an independent body to investigate corruption and official misconduct in councils.'

The list of examples goes on and I will not go through any more now, but there are pages more examples that I could list where people from high positions who have been involved in public life and have had a high profile for some time are advocating an ICAC or something similar.

For Family First, the fundamental point in this debate on whether we have an ICAC is that the government argues that we have enough anti-corruption measures with the anti-corruption branch of SAPOL (South Australia Police), the Ombudsman, and the like, and it argues about cost. Put simply, that is not a compelling argument to us. The functions of the anti-corruption branch can be complemented or subsumed by an ICAC. For instance, the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission website states:

The Queensland Police Service and the CMC work together to fight major crime, protect witnesses and strengthen integrity within the police service. This partnership began at the time of the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

Some other states have an ICAC—New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. It is interesting that even Hong Kong has had an ICAC since 1974. I place on record my view that there would be merit in considering a federal ICAC with referred jurisdiction from all states. I believe that we would be naive to assume that corruption does not spread across borders (certainly organised crime does) and over international borders, too. The one concern I have with creating a South Australian ICAC is the issue of jurisdictional reach. Victoria, for instance, does not yet have an ICAC.

The concerns I have raised are not sufficient for Family First to retreat from the sound principle that we must root out corruption, and it is worth the cost to try to do that. We do not necessarily like every provision of the bill but, in this case, we invite the government if it also does not like all aspects of the bill to amend it and give due consideration to amendments in another place. Irrespective of the amendments, I think this bill worthy of consideration in the other place and for members there to place their positions on record.

Not always do I agree with other members, as, indeed, do they not always agree with me. However, I believe that the honourable member has put this up with good, right and honourable intent, and I think there is a strong message from this parliament to the people of South Australia. There seems to be only one party at the moment that is clearly not interested in an ICAC, and that is the government. The crossbenches indicate support for an ICAC, as I understand it; the opposition indicates support for an ICAC; but the government is not happy about an ICAC.

At the end of the day, it is paramount for the wellbeing of South Australia's future that we ensure that there is no corruption, that there is no abuse of high office and that things work in an orderly fashion. We lead from the top and, if there is a problem, we need an absolutely unfettered and independent body that can investigate and make recommendations as to the outcomes of that investigation. Family First therefore supports the honourable member's bill with respect to the second reading.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (23:47): The Greens are happy to support the bill for an independent commission against crime and corruption, and that position is consistent with the position Greens have taken in other jurisdictions. We believe that the cost of an independent commission is well worth the money when we consider the potential that such a commission has to root out corruption and make for a more civil society. I will speak briefly to this bill. A number of members have said they are intending to support the bill at the second reading stage. My understanding was that the honourable member was going to attempt to push it all the way through, in which case I will be supporting the bill without amendment.

The two main arguments it seems to me that have been raised against an independent commission against corruption are, first, the expense, and, secondly, that we do not have corruption in South Australia; therefore, we do not need an ICAC. In relation to the expense argument, I note that the Liberal Party introduced its own model of an ICAC in the lower house today, and, as I understand it, it has an estimate of $15 million as the cost of that scheme. To put that in perspective, you could get 100 Liberal ICACs for the cost of one desalination plant. The desalination plant is now the yardstick against which all other programs will be measured. So, it is not that expensive.

Of course, the administration of justice costs money: the police, the courts, the DPP and the Ombudsman cost money. All these operations cost money, but, at the end of day, as a society, if it helps to be a more civil and democratic society, it is well worth the cost. In relation to the question of—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am being baited by members of the government inviting me to present the Greens' alternative budget now at 10 minutes to midnight, and I am not going to respond to that request. As tempting as it is to go through all the wasteful government programs and work out which of them we get rid of in order to fund a sensible initiative like an ICAC, I am not going to be baited.

In relation to the question about whether or not we have corruption, I attended (as other members might have) a breakfast meeting some months ago at which his honour Gerald Cripps, the Chair of the New South Wales ICAC, spoke. He pointed out that, by volume and by findings, local government was the major target of complaints and findings in relation to corruption. All of us are well aware of the situation in New South Wales, in particular regarding Wollongong council. It was a very serious set of circumstances of corruption involving a venue known as the 'Table of Knowledge' (I think it was) outside the kebab shop where corrupt deals were done.

The Minister for Urban Development and Planning has said in this place that one of the features of our system mitigating against corruption is that the decision to approve developments is made by development assessment panels which comprise roughly half elected members and half outside people, and therefore they cannot be corrupt because only half of them are elected members. I do not accept that that model of itself is a recipe against corruption, particularly when we consider that that is only one of the types of decisions that are made in the planning system. The other types of decisions are rezoning decisions, which, overwhelmingly, are made by elected members of local councils, with the right of Planning SA through the minister (I guess) to have a veto over that.

I am sure I am not Robinson Crusoe in having a trail of people come to my office to tell me about situations which they regard as corrupt. I had one property owner who came to me and said that they had tried for years to get their property rezoned. Ultimately, after many tries, they failed. It was sold and, within months, the new owner had succeeded in getting that rezoning and elected members of the council subsequently became part of the development consortium for that land. It is not enough evidence for me to make allegations of corruption but it smells pretty bad and that is the sort of thing that an ICAC would look at.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The other thing is that, when it comes to the Labor Party—and I am indebted to the Hon. Russell Wortley's interjection because he reminds me that the unions are no longer the biggest donors to the Labor Party—the biggest donors are the development industry, and if that is not a recipe for corruption, then I do not know what is. I think that an ICAC is an important tool in our arsenal of having a civil society and having a more democratic set of institutions, but that does not mean that, just because it is called an ICAC, it has to be supported without question.

Certainly, what we do not want is unaccountable super cops. We do not want to have unaccountable bodies policed by yet more unaccountable bodies, so you do need checks and balances. I think that the honourable member's bill which we are debating now does contain those checks and balances. I have not had a chance to look at the Liberal bill. We will look at that to see whether that contains checks and balances, but the principle the Greens support is that we do need an independent commission against corruption.

In closing, I suggest that all members have another look at the excellent report produced by Dr Zoë Gill through our own parliamentary research library into corruption and integrity systems throughout Australia in which she compares the different accountability models in the different states. You can see that South Australia is one of the few places that is not heading in this direction. The report also reminds us that, as I understand it, this is the Democrats' fifth attempt to get such a bill up.

It seems to me that an independent commission against crime and corruption in this state is inevitable, whether it is this bill, whether it is the Liberal bill, or perhaps the Greens might introduce a bill at some stage in the future, but it will happen, I am sure. It is the direction in which the other states are heading and, for now, I am happy to support the model that the Hon. Sandra Kanck has put before us.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (23:55): I thank all honourable members for their contribution. There was really only one question that was raised, I think, and that was by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in respect of the oversight committee. He was talking about the Western Australian situation where there has been more or less a stand-off. There are two committees that I have included in this bill. There is the operations review committee, and I cannot imagine that that would happen there because a function of the committee is to advise the committee and also to provide advice to the commissioner, where the commissioner seeks advice from that committee as to whether it should investigate or discontinue a particular complaint. I cannot imagine that that would result in a stand-off. Then we have the parliamentary joint committee and, again, I cannot imagine—in terms of the functions that are set out in the bill—that anything such as that would happen. The parliamentary committee does have an opportunity because, in clause 68(1e) it says:

To inquire into any question in connection with the commission's functions referred to it by a house of parliament and report to the house on that question.

I do not see it as being a confrontational thing between the committee and the commission, so the sort of problems that have arisen in Western Australia I do not envisage would happen with this bill.

As the Hon. Mr Parnell has observed, it is the Democrats' fifth attempt and I am hopeful that it will pass. There are different models and I do not claim that this is the perfect model. It is based on the New South Wales model with some amendments to make it more applicable to South Australia. The government has been intransigent on the question of an ICAC for quite some time, so it is not surprising to hear tonight that it will oppose it again. The government keeps telling us that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide in regard to other bills, so I would like to repeat that to it.

On the question of cost, obviously there has to be a cost, but, once you set up something such as this, you begin to rationalise what you already have. The police Anti-Corruption Branch, for instance, has its limitations and, if you had an ICAC, you would look to see what role, if any, the police Anti-Corruption Branch would continue to have.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: The member interjects that it is about closing the ACB. You have to look and you have to rationalise your services. The reality is that the police Anti-Corruption Branch cannot compel someone to give it evidence, so in many ways it is a toothless tiger. We have the Police Complaints Authority where police investigate police, and I am sure that many members, at different times, have had complaints from their constituents who are most upset about police investigating police. We would not need the Police Complaints Authority if we had an ICAC so, again, money that keeps that operating could go into an ICAC.

We have talked today in this parliament about a number of issues that could have been investigated by an ICAC. In particular, we have the issue of the Copper Coast council. Had we had an ICAC, I think that the allegations would have gone straight to an ICAC and it would not have been part of the role of the Legislative Council, or anywhere in this parliament, to be looking at it.

There is a lot of sense in doing that, and using the New South Wales model I have incorporated those same responsibilities here as happen in New South Wales where the ICAC spends a great deal of time working with local government so it can make sure that local government not only is squeaky clean but is seen to be squeaky clean. That is a really important role.

At the moment, in relation to the Copper Coast, we have resources from the Minister for State/Local Government Relations department attempting to sort out some of what has been happening there. If we had an ICAC I think that some of these things that look a little bit dicey would have been dealt with a long time ago.

In dealing with some earlier things; for instance, the Dunes development, which the police anti-corruption branch is looking at at the moment, that would have given some signals to an ICAC to say, 'Hang about, there are some questions here about the way this council processes things. Let's sit down with you before you make another decision and work out how you are doing it wrong, and work out how you can do it so that there is the greatest amount of transparency and the greatest amount of accountability.' That is a really important role in this ICAC.

I thank members for the support that they have given. As I say, this is one model. I am not wedded to this particular one. Mine is a 2C ICAC; the bill that has been introduced by the opposition in the lower house is a 1C ICAC. These are not crucial questions. What is really important is that we have support for the whole concept of an ICAC.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I do not think the opportunity could be let go without saying how extraordinary it is that in the Legislative Council, the body that has prided itself on discussing legislation, should allow a bill as comprehensive as this, that a majority of members, even though supporting it, have said it is not the best model, are not going to investigate the individual clauses. I think that says something about private members' legislation and the Legislative Council. There are 40 private members' bills. If we allow this bill to go through without any sort of scrutiny at all, really, it says something about this place.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: As I said in my second reading contribution, the Liberal opposition in another place has this day introduced a bill very similar but in some respects different to that proposed by the honourable member. In those circumstances, given the hour, we do not propose to go through, in the committee stage of this bill, seeking to amend every clause to conform to that which the Liberal Party has adopted in another place. We do not want to be accused of adopting inconsistent positions. In those circumstances, and given the time, we cannot support the third reading of this bill.

As I indicated, we supported the second reading. We agree with the principle of it. We think it is important. We congratulate the member for bringing it forward, but we are not going to waste the time of the council in seeking to bring this bill into conformity to the one which we have proposed. So, I indicate our position on that. We will not be supporting the third reading, and we do not propose to go through it clause by clause. We do not believe that that would be a fruitful exercise.

Clauses 1 to 104 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third reading negatived.

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