HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:59): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to establish the Independent Commission Against Corruption; to define its functions and powers; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill I introduce today will be familiar to the council. It is the ICAC bill that this council sent to the other place on 15 October 2009. I acknowledge that this bill is the product of collaborative legislative work over a number of years by the Legislative Council, drawing on contributions from Australian Democrats, Liberal and Family First legislative councillors.

Democrats MLC Ian Gilfillan first moved a bill to introduce an ICAC in October 1988. The Democrats tried again in 1990, 1998, 2005 and 2007. In 2008, the then shadow attorney-general (now the Liberal leader in the other place) moved a bill in the House of Assembly reflecting the Liberal model. In 2009, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire introduced a bill into this place which was in the same tradition as those bills, and that bill was further amended by the Legislative Council.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: And passed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And passed, indeed, as the honourable member says, with the support, as I understand it, of all members except the government. Therefore, this bill represents the eighth attempt by members of this council to introduce an ICAC to South Australia and embodies 22 years of collective wisdom. We do not assert that it is therefore perfect. The Liberal opposition is keen for the collaboration to continue and we will be engaging all interested legislative councillors to improve this legislation. We reserve the right to put forward amendments as a result of that consultation.

The fact is that there is only one party that has opposed every single one of the eight ICAC bills that have come before this place, and that party is the Australian Labor Party. Admittedly there has been one major development in the Labor Party position in the last 12 months, and, to put it in context, I will quote from an article headed 'Rudd pushes on anti-corruption body' published in The Australian on 31 July 2009:

Kevin Rudd has ramped up pressure on the Rann government to take a stand on regulating political donations and the role of lobbyists and to acknowledge the benefits of an independent anti-corruption body. Following Tasmania's announcement last week that it would set up an independent anti-corruption commission, South Australia and Victoria are the only states without such a body...The Prime Minister said in South Australia this week there were problems with corruption in public administration around the country and independent anti-corruption bodies played an important role in public life.

The article goes on:

[Mr Rann] maintained his government's stance against establishing an independent anti-corruption commission, but said he favoured a national body to investigate corruption in public administration across the country.

Instead of taking up his own prime minister's call, premier Rann set off the great federal ICAC furphy.

What has the government done since that statement in July? In November, then attorney-general Atkinson failed to even raise the issue of a national ICAC at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (commonly known as SCAG). In a ministerial statement in the other place last Thursday, the new Attorney-General said:

Prior to the recent state election, the government promised to push ahead with the Premier's plan to pursue the establishment of a national anti-corruption body. I am today travelling to Melbourne to a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to argue the case for a national approach.

The attorneys-general's argument was so strong that the communiqué issued after the meeting did not even mention the issue. It did state:

The South Australian Attorney-General suggested that SCAG consider a national approach to anti-discrimination law at a future meeting.

I can only surmise that perhaps his advocacy was so strong and so clear that the committee thought that he was talking about anti-discrimination legislation and not anti-corruption legislation. This government is not serious about a national ICAC. It should get out of the way and let this parliament establish an effective state-based one. As a side comment, I acknowledge that the Australian Greens have announced that they are going to introduce legislation for a national anti-corruption commission, but this is not the Rann government proposal.

The Greens' proposed commission has a focus on corruption across all commonwealth departments and agencies, the activities of federal parliament, federal parliamentarians and federal law enforcement agencies. It would not have jurisdiction over state entities. To underscore that point, I will read from a media release of 12 March 2010 issued by Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, in which he called on the South Australian premier to back the national legislation and establish a state-based independent commission for anti-corruption. Senator Brown states:

Australia needs an independent national anti-corruption commission to operate alongside state schemes. A national ICAC would not replace a South Australian ICAC.

The Liberal Party went to the election with the state-based ICAC as the central plank of a range of measures on transparency. The Australian of 23 February 2010, a mere three days into the campaign proper, carried an article headed 'Redmond pushes Rann on trust, corruption. ' It stated:

The premier yesterday scotched rumours he was planning to back down on his opposition to an ICAC...During the launch yesterday of the Liberals 'transparency' policy, the opposition leader recommitted to establishing a corruption watchdog within 100 days of winning office on March 20. The staking of firm campaign positions by the major parties on this issue insured the issue of trust continued to dominate the election campaign. 'I think the public will make up their mind about whether they trust Mike Rann on this issue any more than they trust him on other issues,' Ms. Redmond said yesterday.

Other parties, such as Family First and the Greens, had declared positions in support state-based ICAC. At the election, more than 60 per cent of voters for this council voted for parties supporting an ICAC. The Liberal Party won more votes than Labor at the general election. We have the mandate on this issue.

The Labor Party has suffered in terms of people's willingness to trust them. In February this year, only 34 per cent of people surveyed by The Advertiser said that they trusted premier Rann, compared with 51 percent of people who said they trusted opposition leader, Isobel Redmond. Another Advertiser poll found that only 21 per cent of people polled thought that premier Rann told the truth.

I think that one of the factors at play here is that people are not prepared to trust politicians who simply say, 'Trust me.' Trust is more likely to be engendered in politicians who are willing to be accountable and open themselves up for scrutiny. The Liberal Party knows that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We know that our party will suffer from time to time from an ICAC, but we also know that future Liberal governments will be better, more effective governments for the presence of an ICAC.

I know that I was not alone in hoping that the new Attorney-General would help his party take a step back and look afresh at this issue, but it was not to be. On the first day in parliament as Attorney-General, he chose to give a ministerial statement reiterating the government's opposition to a state-based ICAC. The new Attorney-General's top priority was not to have an ICAC. In the statement last Thursday, the Attorney-General, Mr Rau, named nine distinct elements that compose our current what he called 'public integrity system', a system that he asserted is adequate. The nine elements are:

the SAPOL Anti-corruption Branch;

the Ombudsman;

the Police Complaints Authority;

the Auditor-General;

the Government Investigations Unit in the Crown Solicitor's Office;

whistleblower protection legislation;

the DPP;

an independent judiciary; and

the Royal Commissions Act 1917.

The Attorney-General claims that these are an acceptable alternative to an ICAC. As has been highlighted in debate on the predecessors to this bill, this set of agencies is inadequate. Perhaps most telling is that most of the entities that the attorney lists who in a position to make free public comments have publicly supported the introduction of an ICAC or highlighted problems with current arrangements.

The current Ombudsman, Richard Bingham, has chosen not to state an explicit position on whether the government should introduce an ICAC, but has noted a number of shortcomings with the current complaints process, such as a lack of uniformity, the frustration experienced by complainants who are referred back and forth between agencies and the lack of efficient complaint management between them. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Pallaras, is quoted as saying:

An anti-corruption authority with full law enforcement powers over both the public and private sector is the best tool yet to educate the community on issues relating to corruption.

Mr Pallaras called for an ICAC in his annual report to parliament on 14 October last year.

Former auditor-general and former acting ombudsman, now the investigator responsible to investigate allegations of corruption at the Burnside council, Mr Ken MacPherson, has also been a consistent advocate for an ICAC. In August 2007, he delivered a speech outlining the many reasons why an ICAC is needed in South Australia. He said:

Whilst the powers of the Auditor-General may be extensive, the matter of corruption does require that there be power to conduct covert operations. That's the only way that people like Brian Burke and co were flushed to the surface. And this is not a traditional role of the Auditor-General in the Westminster system.

In relation to the Police Complaints Authority, there is concern that the authority is effectively police investigating police. The Police Complaints Authority is not sufficiently independent to avoid the perception, and therefore gain the public confidence, of being a truly independent body capable of pursuing its own members. Again, I refer to the former auditor-general, Ken MacPherson, when, in relation to the PCA, he said:

In the absence of the existence of an independent entity, with authority to oversight the law enforcement agency, there's no accountability other than those internal to the agency itself. And it frightens me every time I hear something along the phrase of 'there's going to be a Commissioner's inquiry—a Commissioner's inquiry into the police'. It's like the chief lion looking into a problem in the lion's den. It just doesn't work.

The Law Society has also persistently advocated for an ICAC in South Australia. Law Society President, Richard Mellows, earlier this year stated:

In the Society's view, the current mechanisms in place in this State are limited in what they can investigate. An independent, broad-based anti-corruption commission is the answer. Such a Commission is better placed to deal with corruption issues than the hotchpotch of State watchdogs which we currently have.

Attempts last year to strengthen whistleblower laws by providing protections for complainants who go to the media were opposed by this government. Considering this is an endorsed alternative to an ICAC in the Attorney-General's ministerial statement, it would not have been inconsistent with the government's position to have strengthened this agency. Perhaps the government fears this too might be a little too effective.

The fact that the new Attorney-General asserts the adequacy of current arrangements also flies in the face of comments during the election campaign by his predecessor, Hon. Michael Atkinson. On 15 March, then attorney-general, Michael Atkinson, admitted on radio FIVEaa that changes are needed to deal with corruption in South Australia. He said:

Improvements can be made and should the Rann government be re-elected there are things we'll be doing to improve our anti-corruption measures.

Last Thursday, the Attorney-General said that he is going to initiate an unspecified review. The government needs to come clean on what it had in mind going into the election and whether it will follow through on them after the election. Elsewhere in the ministerial statement, the Attorney-General said:

The South Australian government supports the establishment of a national body with the ability to root out corruption unbridled by state borders. Corruption does not respect state borders. Demands for the establishment of a state so-called ICAC have been noisy but unsupported by a substratum of fact or logic.

Logic tells me that, even if the Rann government is right and South Australia is inhabited by the pure and untainted by corruption, we will still need an ICAC, because, as they say, corruption does not respect state borders and mere mortals might come from other states and territories, take advantage of us and engage in corrupt practices. As the Premier used to say so often, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. It is time we caught up with our interstate counterparts and the realities of the modern world and restored confidence in government by making sure that it is able to demonstrate the integrity it claims to have.

I conclude my remarks by reiterating that the Liberal Party continues to stand with our Legislative Council colleagues who are determined to see South Australia have the best state ICAC it can get and to have it as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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