HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION BILL

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to amendments Nos 1 and 2, 4 and 5, 7 to 23, 25 to 38, 41, and 44 to 47 made by the Legislative Council without any amendment and disagreed to amendments Nos 3, 6, 24, 39, 40, 42 and 43.

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

Amendment No. 3:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council insist on its amendment.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 6:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the council do not insist on its amendment No. 6.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I presume this is the appropriate time to suggest to the committee that we should insist upon our amendment. This is the amendment in relation to the Hon. Ann Bressington, which is that the appointment of the commissioner be made on a recommendation made by resolution of both houses of parliament. It is the case that this amendment is unlikely to form part of the bill in its final form. The discussions are moving very much towards a parliamentary confirmation, but clearly the government is wanting us to move to deadlock and the quicker we do that the better. There is a growing awareness of the need for multi-party confirmation of the independence of the commissioner. What we need to do in deadlock conference is to resolve what is the best way to do that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will make a few brief comments, if I may. I think everybody in this room wants an ICAC and we have all been involved at varying levels of discussion about what the best model should be. I think that probably, deeply, none of us are completely satisfied with the model we have before us today.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. There is the issue of secrecy which has been something that has entertained a good deal of comment, particularly in the media. There was a column written on the weekend that dealt with that issue in particular. There is also, of course, the other primary issue, which we have discussed a lot, that is, the appointment of the commissioner.

Family First has taken the position that we need to get a way through this, we need to find a way that a majority of members of this place can agree with a model that is presented to the chamber. We believe we are not far from that. I would encourage members to consider their positions. It is an opportunity for us to get an ICAC, ideally, sooner rather than later. However, I accept the arguments that if we want one we want it to be right.

I would ask the minister, if I may: are there any budgetary considerations around the two varying models? Is there any information the minister has with respect to those two models, if you like, and what impact it may have in terms of what it might cost?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to budget impacts, I am advised that this will delay the bill and that there will be budget impacts because of the need for parliament to vote on a proposed commissioner rather than an existing parliamentary committee. That is about the only difference. Is it timely that we speak on—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, if I could—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I haven't sat down yet. I have the call.

The CHAIR: The honourable minister has the call.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am just seeking clarification as to whether I would make my comments on the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion now.

The CHAIR: He has not moved his yet; he will soon, otherwise I will bring proceedings to a close.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is most important that the government makes it clear that it will support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment on this clause and that the opposition is obviously just absolutely intent on and obsessed with delaying this bill until next year—completely obsessed with delaying it until next year. We have basically given them what they have asked for and now they seek to delay it.

The government commends the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for his continued efforts at brokering a compromise on this bill. The opposition today—just today—stated that it will support a compromise that involves a veto right lying with the committee that is not government controlled. It said that today. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment involves a veto right lying with the Statutory Officers Committee. The opposition has stated that the Statutory Officers Committee is controlled by the government. This is completely false.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is false.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, it is false, but nevertheless—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —and without conceding that the current membership of the committee gives control to the government, the Statutory Officers Committee will, from today, comprise two government members, two members of the opposition and two Independents. That commitment has been given today by both the Attorney-General and the Premier. We have given them exactly what they want, and that is a power of veto that is not controlled by the government.

I am advised that Mr Lee Odenwalder MP will tender his resignation from the committee in the other place this afternoon. The government will then support the appointment of an Independent to that committee. I am further advised that the government will seek the opposition's support to appoint an Independent as the presiding member of that committee, rather than a member of either major party. I think the tradition is that it usually rests with the leader of the upper house and I am more than happy for this arrangement to be put in place.

With these changes to the membership of the committee, the independence of the committee is put beyond doubt. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment is therefore consistent with the compromise sought by the opposition. It is also important to note that the number of Independents on the Statutory Officers Committee is now only one less than the number required by the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment which commenced the very useful meetings between the Attorney-General, the opposition and the crossbench last week.

The government now calls on the opposition to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion. The government has delivered today what the opposition said it wanted: a committee that is not controlled by the government. The key test here is whether the opposition is serious about passing this bill and having an ICAC in South Australia or if the opposition will continue to block this bill out of some misguided belief that if it blocks the bill long enough it can include an ICAC on its list of policies for the next election. Goodness knows, the opposition needs some policies because it certainly is a policy-free zone at the moment. The government commends this compromise to the Legislative Council. The government therefore asks that the Legislative Council amendment not be insisted on.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In response to the minister's comments, I would like to make a few comments. First of all, on the one hand the minister claims that the Statutory Officers Committee is already not a government-controlled committee and then says how gracious she is being in relinquishing the tradition of the Leader of the Government being the chair of the committee. She argues against herself. This has traditionally been a government-controlled committee.

The Brokenshire amendment which the government is now arguing for is not consistent with the Parliamentary Committees Act. The Parliamentary Committees Act requires that committees report to the parliament not to ministers. Secondly, it is not consistent with the Statutory Officers Committee functions in the Parliamentary Committees Act. The Parliamentary Committees Act gives the committee the function to report on appointment resolutions that are going to both houses of parliament.

Of course, both of those matters are matters that could be addressed by an amendment to the Parliamentary Committees Act, but the fact of the matter is that if we passed this amendment today we would not have those other amendments in place, so I urge the council to insist on our amendment. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment and the other amendments that have been offered by other members can all go to the deadlock conference and be considered.

In relation to the government's action today in asking Mr Odenwalder to resign and for that position to be filled by another member, let me stress that that provides no guarantee. The act still states that the House of Assembly appoints its members. The government still controls the House of Assembly. They can pass another resolution tomorrow in another way.

Let me not be negative, because I do welcome the fact that the government has shifted. The bill it tabled wanted an appointment of cabinet alone. Last week, it wanted a government nomination rubber stamped by a government-controlled committee. At least now, it is willing to talk about the need for an independence guarantee and a committee that is not government controlled. Let's go into a deadlock conference and let's discuss the best way to achieve what is now a shared objective.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Hon. Stephen Wade is completely misguided. This misguided belief is his view that parliament cannot amend its own act. He has it completely around the wrong way. Subsection (1) of section 15I—Functions of Committee states, 'The functions of the Statutory Officers Committee are,' and lists them, and subsection (1)(a)(iii) provides:

(iii) on any other matter referred to the Committee by the Minister responsible for the administration of any such Act

So, it is an absolute nonsense. What the Hon. Stephen Wade is really saying is, 'Let's not have an ICAC, at least not before next year.' He is really saying let this government not have it at all, but what this amendment is saying is, 'Let's not have an ICAC here in South Australia before next year.' It is a disgrace and it is irresponsible.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The question before us is whether or not we should insist on the amendment passed by this council and originally moved by the Hon. Ann Bressington. At the heart of that amendment is the fact that the Governor, on behalf of the executive, would appoint the ICAC commissioner on a recommendation made by resolution of both houses of parliament. That is the element the Greens have supported from day one and we continue to support. That is the ultimate check and balance on the executive to make an appropriate decision.

The debate, to a certain extent, I will not say hijacked but diverted—and the reason I do not say 'hijacked' is that amendments have been moved by people of great integrity and goodwill trying to find a way through. I think that we have inadvertently diverted the debate away from the fundamental question about both houses of parliament signing off on the commissioner.

The debate is now which parliamentary committee should have the veto: is it the existing Statutory Officers Committee or is it the new committee established under this act? Then there is: who should be on that committee, who should chair it, how many crossbenchers, how many other members? In fact, there is a far simpler method available to us, and that is to stick with the Hon. Ann Bressington's original proposal, which is a recommendation made by resolution of both houses of parliament.

I have tabled an amendment, which we may or may not get to, because our position is to support the Hon. Ann Bressington's original amendment. But we have formed the view, and this is where the Greens have moved over the last little while, that we do not believe that the committee adds a whole lot of extra value to the process. We are happy to dispense with the committee altogether and, once you have dispensed with the committee, you do not have to worry who chairs it, who controls it, who is on it, which house is in charge of it. You can let all of that go by the wayside.

The Greens' preferred model is that the Attorney-General, or his or her representative in the other house, would simply table the name and the power of veto then applies. That would require, not an amendment to the Parliamentary Committees Act, but at least an exemption from the process in that act, which basically says that, if ever either house of parliament has to make the decision, it automatically goes to the Statutory Officers Committee, and I would propose that we do not need to do that. We can avoid the Statutory Officers Committee, take it straight to parliament. That speeds it up, and it makes it a much simpler process.

It may well be that that is one of the options that the deadlock conference will consider, and that is why I thought it was appropriate to at least get an amendment filed, so that it becomes part of the discussion at that conference. But, for now, the Greens believe that the Legislative Council got it right when we originally supported the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment. For the purpose of getting to the next stage of parliamentary scrutiny of this bill, we will be supporting the amendment as originally passed.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I urge members to continue to support my amendment, as we did during the committee stage of this debate. Like the Hon. Stephen Wade, I do not believe that my amendment will stay unamended. At the end of the day—at the end of these negotiations—I do believe that the best road to take with this is a deadlock conference. What we have seen over the last six weeks is the Attorney-General running from crossbencher to crossbencher playing a wonderful game of divide and conquer to try to divert away from a deadlock conference process.

I believe that we could have had this problem solved some five weeks ago if this had run its course. Nobody was intending to go into the deadlock conference to be immovable on this. We have seen that deadlock conferences produce good outcomes for legislation, instead of all of this amendment after amendment being filed to try to find a solution. Really, we are seeing opinion that is just poles apart.

For example, last week, in one of the meetings the Attorney-General referred to my amendment as 'the ugly amendment', and the other side referred to it as 'an inspiring amendment'. So, there is middle ground there somewhere that a deadlock conference will help us to sort out and to get the best outcome for the people of the state. The fact of the matter is that this ICAC bill is a pig of a bill, it really is. Do we want a bad ICAC? Do we want a bad ICAC bill, or do we want to take the time and sit down like reasonable adults and reasonable members of parliament and produce the best outcome that we can for uncovering crime and corruption in this state?

I will put on the record here and now that for months my view has been that this government never wanted an ICAC. It has been dragged kicking and screaming to an ICAC for 10 years. Now, all of a sudden, almost one year out from an election, we make a populist move and we introduce a bill. There are components of that bill that I believe the government knew would never get past the Legislative Council—not in a fit would this Legislative Council allow a bill like that to go through.

At the end of the day, we all play this game of 'amend and try to find this resolution', and if the bill fails whose fault will it be? Who will the government blame? Not their inability to negotiate, not their inability to draw up reasonable legislation that would prove to be a model ICAC for this country but one of the worst ICAC bills in the country. Whose problem will it be, and whose fault will it be that it does not pass? Of course, the Legislative Council's.

What a great way to shift blame and appear as if you are trying to appease the public! You know what? The public know the plot. They understand this. They do not trust this government to have control of choosing a commissioner, and they certainly do not trust the motivation of this government for putting up this bill in the first place. So, let's move to a deadlock, get down to business, solve the problem, and move on.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I need to rise to set the record straight. There is just a real distortion of reality here. I do not mind people disagreeing—we will have policy differences, and that is democracy, and I respect those differences—but I cannot abide a distortion of reality. For instance, I have been advised that it was not the Attorney-General who referred to the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment as 'the ugly amendment': it was, in fact, the Hon. Stephen Wade.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Is that it? Is that the entire distortion?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have not finished yet; I have only just got started on working through your debate. We need to stick to the facts here, and we need to focus on the facts and figures. The issue of this sudden interest in an ICAC is, again, a complete distortion of history. This was not a sudden decision: this government—the Jay Weatherill government—made an announcement about this ICAC almost 12 months ago, when the Hon. Jay Weatherill first became Premier. He has a view about this, and he announced it at the time—almost straight after he became Premier—and that was almost a year ago. So, it is absolute nonsense that this is some populist response to an election which is still almost a year and a half away.

In terms of, 'We need an ICAC,' well, we could have an ICAC. We could resolve it here today, and I think it is absolutely completely irresponsible and dishonest to suggest that this government is not genuine about wanting an ICAC. The Attorney-General has gone through this exhaustive process of discussing and consulting with the opposition and minor parties and Independents. When ministers put legislation through and do not do that, we hear them howling from the rafters that ministers do not give them the attention and briefings that they need.

Now, when we have the Attorney-General going through this exhaustive process one by one trying to pull together a compromise and a position and ensure that everyone is well briefed, what do we have? We have had the Hon. Ann Bressington roll out her conspiracy theory again: the Attorney-General is somehow wanting to avoid a deadlock conference and divide and conquer Independents and minor parties. What absolute nonsense!

He has been working extremely hard with all members to try to find a compromise, and we have seen that time and time again as he has developed positions to try to land on this and bring everyone along with him. So, to suggest that it is some sort of conspiracy theory of the Attorney-General to divide and conquer is absolute nonsense. The Attorney, like everyone in this place, can do the numbers. He knows there is no balance of power in this place and he has worked hard with the opposition, Independents and minor parties to land on a compromise.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I rise to make a brief comment but, perhaps more importantly, to set the record straight on my position regarding the appointment of the commissioner. A lot has been said, predominantly in the media, about the various positions that have been proposed in relation to the appointment of the commissioner. I would like to emphasise that I did, at a very early stage of the debate, propose an alternative position to that of the government that would provide the Statutory Officers Committee with the power of veto, a method similar to that used in Victoria and New South Wales.

That committee is not government-run. It is made up of one Independent (being me), two Liberal members and three government members. As an independent member, I would vote on the appointment of a commissioner on the merits of the applications before me alone, just as I do on any other issue. Any suggestion that my decision would be tainted by the views of the government or, indeed, based on any other position is, quite frankly, both offensive and blatantly untrue.

At a recent roundtable discussion, I suggested that we go back to the drawing board, starting with the original bill, and attempt to reach a resolution that day. I made some comments about the fact that the current appointment process for police commissioners, judges and the DPP did not appear to be of concern to anybody in particular, at least not publicly. I even raised the point that when in government the Liberal Party followed the same process and they did not raise any concerns about the recent appointment process of the police commissioner and the DPP.

Some chose to interpret my comments as blindly supporting the government and ignored the fact that I previously proposed an amendment to the government's bill on this very issue. They also chose to interpret this as me ignoring all of the amendments that have been proposed to date. They wrongly assumed that I would support any nomination before the Statutory Officers Committee for a commissioner as proposed by the government, irrespective of merit. Since then, there have been several more inferences which I have understood as suggesting again that I would support any government proposal regarding the appointment process.

The mere fact that I proposed an alternative position to that of the government early on in the piece should have allayed such concerns. I am extremely disappointed that minor issues have been blown way out of proportion and into the public arena to the point where many members of the public have lost confidence in the concept of an ICAC due to scaremongering and misinformation. I maintain my position that the establishment of an ICAC is of such importance that a resolution of the bill needs to be reached.

With respect to the amendments proposed by other members, I have been willing to consider them in their various forms but, of course, like other members, I have not been willing to agree to all of the proposals. In recent days, Family First have suggested an amendment very similar to that initially proposed by me, and I understand that this is acceptable to the government.

I support the move to change the composition of the committee and provide for an additional Independent member in lieu of a government member, and I also support the move to appoint that Independent as the chair of the committee if that is what the committee decides and if it will resolve the matter. That being said, if this is not acceptable to other members, I remain willing to consider any other reasonable alternatives that will lead to a resolution on this issue.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It seems extraordinary to me, given that all honourable members in this chamber support an ICAC, that we have reached an impasse over this particular issue. If you do not trust the government of the day, this government or any government, to appoint the commissioner, I cannot see any parliamentary committee process that will satisfy you.

We have a system now where the Governor is appointed by Her Majesty on advice of the government of the day. The Chief Justice, the Chief Judge, the Chief Magistrate, all the judicial officers, a number of other commissioners, the police commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Auditor-General—all are appointed by the Governor on advice of Executive Council. All those officers are appointed by the government of the day, and there has been very little suggestion over many decades in South Australia that those appointments have been tainted or are in any way party political.

It seems extraordinary to me that for this one position, although it has been more of a fashion since the seventies with positions like ombudsman, and so on, for there to be a parliamentary role, it seems extraordinary with this one position that we cannot trust the government of the day to appoint someone. Even under the models that are being proposed, it will still be the government nominating the candidates or nominees to be commissioner. If you really do not trust this government or any government to appoint the commissioner, I am not sure how any of the models proposed will satisfy you.

In particular, once the commissioner is appointed the only way they can be removed will be by parliament, and that is extremely unlikely. As we know, it has happened in relation to other positions like judicial officers extremely rarely, only in the cases of very obvious corruption or misconduct. It puzzles me how this has become such an issue. I respect that the majority of honourable members believes that there needs to be some parliamentary oversight.

I would note that some of the other states have a parliamentary inspector and that the parliamentary committee has a particular role in overseeing the ICAC, which gives the parliament a greater role on an ongoing basis. Certainly, whatever committee has a role in appointing the commissioner, whether it be the Statutory Officers Committee or the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, there will be questions of the membership and representation between the houses. There are no real guarantees of that because, ultimately, it is up to the houses of parliament to appoint who they choose to the committees, and that will always depend on the numbers and various other things at the time.

I understand that the Hon. Ms Vincent has tried to address that with her amendment by being very prescriptive about the make-up of the committee, but I think it is probably too prescriptive because we do not know what will be the make-up of future parliaments and, while there is an allowance for that, I do not think it is a good idea to make a model based on what we think will happen in the relatively short term, given that we want this office to last for a long time.

Similarly, with the Hon. Mr Parnell supporting the Hon. Ms Bressington's amendment that a resolution of both houses simply be the method of appointment, I think that could get particularly messy in the absence of a mechanism to deal with the appointment process. If you want there to be some parliamentary oversight of appointment, it is better to go through a committee process rather than simply make it a resolution of both houses, because then you just do not know where it will go. If there is disagreement over the appointment, you may end up with quite a public spectacle, which I do not think would enhance people's confidence in the commissioner and his or her office and working.

Members have taken into account the notion that the parliamentary oversight should not be, as has sometimes been suggested, some sort of American-style inquisition, hauling in potential candidates and subjecting them to a grilling by all members of parliament (or large numbers of them) and a media spectacle about their past, any of their political affiliations, or what have you. Honourable members have recognised that, ultimately, that will not be in the interests of the efficient, effective working of the commissioner and indeed public confidence in it.

Clearly, a majority of honourable members believes there should be some parliamentary role, so I think it is appropriate that that be done in a way that will maximise the effectiveness of the process and also public confidence in the appointment, which is best achieved by a parliamentary committee. There are a number of other models. Obviously we have those proposed by honourable members here. New South Wales seems to be the main model that was used for previous private members' ICAC bills. There, there is a joint committee, but it is three members of the upper house and eight members of the lower house, but essentially it does have a veto right.

In Queensland, again, there is a parliamentary committee. Rather than simply having an up and down vote, a nominee must have bipartisan support from the parliamentary committee. I am not quite sure how that is defined. I think we know what that means, but I am not sure how that is set out. Obviously, the intent of that is to ensure that both the government and the opposition sign off on any appointment. Of course, Queensland does not have an upper house, and I do not think the honourable members here would like the idea that only the government and opposition be represented on any committee. In Western Australia, it appears to me that the government is obliged to consult with the parliamentary leader of each party, which would include—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: The Greens.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes, it will include the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr Hood, but not the other crossbenchers, which does not seem to be a very sensible proposition. No disrespect to any individuals, but I think it would be important if there is going to be parliamentary oversight—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: WA would include the WA Greens and the National Party there.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: They do.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Finnigan has the call.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. So, essentially it appears that this is going to a deadlock by a sort of tacit agreement of all sides. I would suggest that there is no reason in my mind why, with the abilities of the learned honourable members of this council, agreement cannot be reached and put through the parliament by Thursday. I think clearly there is some goodwill on both sides and a commitment on both sides to get this through and acceptance apparently by the government that there can be some parliamentary committee role that is not within the control of the government. I think that is a positive step forward in getting an agreement, and I hope that all parties can do that by Thursday and get this bill through this year.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire to move your amendment?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, I was going to speak to this bit here before speaking to my amendment. I just want to make a few brief comments generally regarding where we are up to now and then I will reserve my right to speak to my amendment in a moment, Mr Chair. It has already been said this afternoon in this house that there is now a shared objective, and that shared objective is that the parliament wants an ICAC and we are in a position where we can now have an ICAC. In fact, we have one clause only to finalise and the ICAC could be gazetted and on its way.

Having met with people again today who gave me information that desperately indicates to me the need for an ICAC, I think it is very, very important that we get on with this job right now. I do not see that we are going to succeed any better by going into deadlock conference. Having said that, I want to put a couple of other things on the public record. We had great deliberations in our little party room on the clauses around the issue of how the commissioner was to be chosen.

At the end of the day, we were at sixes and sevens on whether we supported the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment or not, but because there was nothing else forthcoming and the Hon. Ann Bressington had shown good intent to ensure that the parliament had some input into this, we actually decided initially that we would support that amendment.

I did say to my colleague at the time that I had some concerns about the broadness of that clause with respect to appointment and, having been involved in appointments of very, very senior positions in this state in the past, I understand and know the sensitivities if you get too many people involved in the process of appointment. The worst-case scenario could be that we end up with absolutely the wrong person for the appointment. Having deliberated all that in detailed discussion, at that point in time we did support the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment, one of the few amendments put up during the debate.

I then said to people in the major parties that the crossbenchers had played their part and that the parliament now had an opportunity for an ICAC and that it was up to the two major parties to thrash out the appointment process. From memory, that was six to eight weeks ago, so it was a very long period of time. Unfortunately and sadly, we just saw an impasse occur. I have therefore put up an amendment, which I will speak to in a while. However, I want to put that on the public record.

Just to confirm my concerns, I have talked and written to many colleagues—Liberal, Labor and crossbench colleagues. One Liberal member with whom I spoke in the last couple of days informed me that they were aware of two possible appointments—nothing at all to do with the government, but two people whose connections in this town indicated to them that people who may have been interested in this position would no longer be interested. That comes from a Liberal member, who said that people had been scared away. That was always my concern. That confirmed my concern about too many cooks spoiling the broth, if I can put it that way.

In fairness, there has been lobbying from both sides. The Hon. Stephen Wade has contacted me. He has been actively lobbying crossbenchers, the government, and so on, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate his input. Likewise, we have also had exactly the same lobbying and input from the Attorney-General, and I have actually appreciated that.

I have to say that when Rann and Atkinson were at the helm, there was clearly no ICAC forthcoming. However, to be fair, no former government, Liberal or Labor, has put an ICAC up to this parliament, and that is the truth. The fact of the matter is that when I was with the Liberal Party, it was never discussed. Let us just put a few of these facts on the table. It was never, ever discussed as far as I can remember, and for very good reasons.

The reality is that the government of the day does not want an ICAC. That is the reality: it does not want that. The crossbenchers and the dynamics of this place and the fact that five or six years ago the Liberal Party decided to push an ICAC for policy have now created a situation where we will have an ICAC for South Australia, and that is the reality.

The other reality is that, with the change of Premier—from the Hon. Mike Rann to the Hon. Jay Weatherill—to be fair, there is a huge change in the way this Attorney-General (the Hon. John Rau) goes about certain business compared to the former attorney-general. We need to be fair on these things. The former attorney-general may have actually had to dig right in because that was what he was told at the time, but the moment the Hon. John Rau became Attorney-General, he pushed for an ICAC. I know that for a fact. I want to be fair and reasonable about these things. The development of this has actually been going on for two years.

I understand that the budget is now there. It is fair to say that people look at my history and my record. I am not one who comes out and gives accolades very easily to this government. In fact, whenever I can, I am happy to belt it as hard as I possibly can. I enjoy doing it when it is wrong, but it is not wrong on this occasion as I see it, and I just want to put that on the public record.

Regarding amendments, crossbench members moved some amendments, as did the opposition. With respect to privacy, privacy and this model being a bit different was raised in the media. We understand why the media would like to have an open opportunity on all occasions with an ICAC, but we have had to balance out the fairness of all this. The point I am getting at here is that we know some people could be damaged for life if it was open slather for the media at all times. The reality also is, from the crossbenches' point of view, that only the Liberal Party and the Labor Party could actually support total openness and transparency.

They had to get together on this. The fact of the matter, as I understand it, is that neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party moved any amendments to open up transparency. In fact, what I understand the Liberals have said is that when they get into government then they will look at addressing the issues around public hearings. That could have actually been fixed now, not when they get into government.

I want to finish off with a couple of things generally. On these senior appointments, and I know that the opposition are really cross about appointments like Mr Kourakis and Ms Handshin and there are opportunities for them, I think, to make a lot of political mileage particularly over the appointment of Ms Handshin. If you actually have a look at these appointments, even if the parliament is not involved in the appointment process, these people when they get to these senior roles are above party politics. I will give you two examples of that to finish off on this particular aspect.

One is, have a look at the current situation in Queensland with a former Labor minister now incarcerated in the Queensland correctional system. That person was incarcerated and the appointment for the independent commissioner was a Labor appointment. At the moment, Premier Barry O'Farrell, I think, would be very happy with the appointment in New South Wales because the allegation is that the Labor-appointed independent commissioner for their ICAC is looking into allegations around a $60 million to $100 million insider trading funding arrangement—and I will leave it at that—with a former Labor minister. My experience is that when you get people into these positions they are above party politics.

I will leave it at that at the moment. I want to speak more about my amendment. There is an opportunity here. I think everybody has gone a fair way to try to get to a situation, but I know that, as long as there is scrutiny, fair, reasonable and democratic scrutiny of this appointment, the role the community wants to see is the role of an ICAC working. We have an opportunity here today to ensure that occurs.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade. I am mindful of the time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to continue my remarks after the dinner break. In terms of responding to the contribution of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, could I remind him of the assertion of the then attorney-general, Michael Atkinson, in August 2007, when he opposed an ICAC and in doing so asserted that a majority government could stack the composition of an ICAC. Likewise, in 2009, then premier Rann claimed that a national ICAC, like the National Crime Authority, would guarantee independence from any administration. I welcome the fact that the government is now moving towards a parliamentary confirmation process and look forward to the deadlock considerations on how best to achieve that.

The Hon. Bernard Finnigan's comments also reminded me of another aspect of the Brokenshire amendment that we do not support, that is, (3aa), which is that:

Before a person is appointed to be the Commissioner, the Attorney-General must ensure that the position is advertised in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in each State and Territory.

We, as an opposition, have a consistent position that we do not seek to be involved in the selection process for the ICAC commissioner. We are happy for the executive to make the nomination, but consistent with the checks and balances within the Westminster parliamentary system we believe it is appropriate that parliament confirm the appointment, much as we do with the Ombudsman and the Electoral Commissioner, but we are open in this context to a committee approach.

One of the recurring themes in this debate has been the government's pleas to 'trust us', and we heard the Hon. Bernard Finnigan giving us another version of that tune today. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place has highlighted why we as an opposition find that we cannot do that. The leader recounted the process of the appointment of the late Justice Mullighan, commissioner of the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry. The government did not need to consult the opposition in the context of that appointment, but it did. It did not need our endorsement but it said it would not make the appointment without it. We did not endorse the appointment but it appointed the commissioner anyway.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to read the following statement to clarify events at that time. The note is headed, 'Re appointment of E.P. Mullighan QC as commissioner to inquire into the abuse of children in state care' and states:

In Debate on ICAC Bill on [18] October 2012 (at Hansard p.3344) the Hon. MJ Atkinson claimed that at a meeting between representatives of the Government and the Opposition regarding the proposal to appoint Ted Mullighan as Commissioner to Inquire into Abuse of Children in State Care the then Shadow Attorney-General Hon. RD Lawson had said:

...we've had a discussion about this in the Liberal Party Room and some members, not named, have made the point...that Ted Mullighan once shared chambers with Roma Mitchell...


[Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:48]


The Hon. S.G. WADE: To continue my remarks that I started before dinner, the statement continues:

The Hon. MJ Atkinson then claimed:

...it all became clear: you could not have someone who had shared chambers with Roma Mitchell be a commissioner for an inquiry into the sexual abuse of wards of the state because someone in the Liberal Party room had raised questions about Roma Mitchell's sexuality.

Atkinson went on to claim:

That was the principal reason that the Liberal Party would not accept Ted Mullighan as the commissioner of that inquiry.

These claims by the Hon. MJ Atkinson are false. These claims have now been interpreted by Matt Abraham on ABC 891 (on 24 October 2012) to mean that the Liberal Party did not initially support Mr Mullighan's appointment because [to use Mr Abraham's words]:

...the Liberal Party had a problem with somebody sharing chambers with a lesbian investigating child sex abuse...

That rather far-fetched interpretation is also misconceived. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the sole reason the Liberal Party did not initially support Mullighan's appointment was the belief that the inquiry should be conducted by someone from outside of the State. The Liberal Party wanted a commissioner who would be seen, especially by the victims, as a person who was completely independent of South Australia. That was our only reason. Our objection was not to Mullighan the man.

The fact that Mr Mullighan had shared chambers with Roma Mitchell was never raised in the Liberal Party room. Nor, contrary to Atkinson's claim, did Lawson ever say that someone in the party room referred to that fact. The claim by Mr Atkinson that the sharing of legal chambers was the 'principal' ground of the party's objection is an invention on his part.

The fact that Mullighan and Mitchell had once shared chambers arose in the meeting attended by Liberal Leader Rob Kerin, myself, Robert Lawson, Minister Jay Weatherill and Attorney-General Atkinson. During the course of the discussion, the Attorney-General said words to the effect that: 'What if someone claims that they were abused by Roma Mitchell'. Lawson responded by saying words to the effect that 'This is why we need an outside commissioner. Mullighan would have a conflict of interest if such an allegation were made because he has had a long-standing professional and personal relationship with her. They once shared chambers. He was her counsel—assisting in the Salisbury Royal Commission.'

On 18 October (Hansard, p.3345) I said: 'I agree it was said, but it wasn't the principal reason.' I was agreeing that it had been said at that meeting that Mullighan and Mitchell had shared chambers. I was not agreeing to the proposition that it was said by Lawson or anyone else that you 'couldn't have someone who shared chambers with Roma Mitchell [as] a commissioner...because someone in the Liberal Party room had raised questions about Roma Mitchell's sexuality'.

I reject the Hon. M. Atkinson's attempt to verbal me by suggesting that my statement 'I agree it was said...' extended beyond my simple agreement that it had been said that the two people under discussion had shared chambers.

I have had a recent discussion with Robert Lawson about this matter. What I have just said accords with his recollection. He says that he had the highest personal regard for Ted Mullighan and they shared legal chambers before Mullighan was appointed to the Supreme Court. Likewise he enjoyed a good professional relationship with Roma Mitchell. He strongly rejects Hon. Atkinson's allegation that he ever made any insinuation about her personal life or about Mullighan's capacity to undertake the inquiry.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I want to respond to some of the comments made by the Hon. Stephen Wade. The assertions that the government has been avoiding the referral of the bill to a deadlock conference is absolutely correct. The government much prefers that the negotiations about the appointment method of the commissioner occur with all interested parties rather than the privileged few who are appointed to the conference. The government also prefers that negotiations occur in the public arena rather than behind closed doors in a deadlock conference.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade was heard in silence. Let's get on with this.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Well, he had something sensible to say, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: And you haven't got anything sensible to say, so your contribution is negated.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am advised that the government has placed on file a further motion in relation to the Legislative Council's amendment No. 6. This motion remedies the one remaining concern of the opposition, namely, that the government would be so stupid as to publicly commit to appoint an Independent to the Statutory Officers Committee and then forcibly remove the Independent from the committee to appoint a government member just in time for the consideration of the proposed commissioner. This is obviously complete nonsense.

The government has once again moved to comply with the opposition's demands in relation to the committee. The motion guarantees two Independent members on the Statutory Officers Committee so long as an Independent member in both places agrees to be appointed to the committee. There is no more hiding for the opposition. The government has addressed every concern thrown at it by the Hon. Stephen Wade, no matter how spurious it was. We are proposing to put forward an amendment that ensures the longevity of the committee members, so we have addressed that matter.

I now challenge the opposition, in terms of what they intend to do, to vote the bill into a deadlock or agree to the amendments that will result in the appointment of an independent commissioner against corruption being scrutinised by an independent parliamentary committee, which is just what the opposition wanted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Before I respond to the minister's comments, could I seek clarification as to what the government's intention is on amendments Nos 24, 39, 40, 42 and 43? It is basically the remaining amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Are you asking what we are doing on all of the amendments?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What is your position on the future amendments?

The CHAIR: Amendments Nos. 24, 39, 40, 42 and 43 standing in the name of the honourable minister, given that we have not even dealt with amendment No. 6—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Our position is that the Legislative Council do not insist.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Hang on, the honourable minister has the call.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will correct that: it is that we do insist.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The only motion that I have that has been moved by the minister is that the council do not insist on its amendment No. 6, and we have been debating that since before the dinner break.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In response to the minister's comments, I would make the point that before dinner I indicated that the opposition welcomed the fact that the opposition and the government are now on the same page, that is, that a non-government controlled committee should confirm the appointment of the ICAC commissioner nominated by the government.

It is incorrect for the minister to say that all of the issues I raised before dinner are addressed in these amendments. If nothing else, it continues to talk about a national advertisement. We as an opposition seek no role in the selection process, and I am surprised the government is wanting the parliament to direct how the Attorney-General would conduct the selection process. There are other aspects of the comments I made before dinner that are not—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: They were actually trying to cover some concerns.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me, Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Well, they were trying to cover some concerns.

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thanks, Mr Chair.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade, I am still listening.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thanks, Mr Chair. What I was going to say—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade, you are going to have to shout louder than I am.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, Chair, I would like to be able to think as well as speak. As I reiterate, I believe we have made significant progress today. We had the opposition and the government seeking the same objective, which is a parliamentary committee to provide confirmation of the appointment of an ICAC commissioner. I certainly will be interested to look at the government's amendments. I note that, according to the filing statement these were filed at 7.22, which was about 25 minutes before the house convened. I certainly was not made aware of them by the government until I came into the chamber, and, let's put it this way, I had my phone with me at all times.

The point is that I want time to look at these amendments. I certainly would want to consider other alternatives. The Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire all have amendments on the table. I have withdrawn mine, but the point is that there is a range of options on the table. The government seems to think that I believe that negotiations can only happen at deadlock conferences, and that is clearly not the fact. Last week, I spent a significant amount of time, as did most crossbench MPs, in informal negotiations, and I am happy to have more. What I seek is an outcome, but the outcome cannot be rushed. To make sure we get it right I would suggest to the government and to other members of the council that we should report progress at an appropriate time.

The CHAIR: Are you moving that now?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I am not moving that now. I am just foreshadowing that it is not unreasonable that the 25 minute filing date was too short—and I certainly did not have 25 minutes. To be honest with you, I have not even had a chance to read them. So the government wants us, with 25 minutes before the house convenes, to vote on amendments. I am giving a solemn undertaking that I will positively look at all the amendments before the committee, including the government's. Now, nobody else is insisting that with 25 minutes notice we have got to sign off on their amendments. Everybody else has tabled them with due respect.

The CHAIR: Well, we haven't heard from other honourable members.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would suggest to the committee that we should have further clarification. It would be an opportunity for the government to explain their amendments and, at an appropriate time, for us to continue these discussions later.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: If I may, I would just like to give feedback on some comments that were made by the Hon. Mr Finnigan before the dinner break while they are still fresh in my mind, because unfortunately I did not get the call before the dinner break. To my recollection, the Hon. Mr Finnigan said something to the effect of—and I am paraphrasing here so he is welcome to correct me if he feels I have done him wrong—implying that my amendment was based on short-term gain.

With all due respect, I have put this amendment forward in the spirit of compromise, working towards an outcome that achieves an ICAC that is, first and foremost, independent and accountable. There are aspects of my amendment, I will admit, I find to be a great compromise, but I do not think they offer short-term gain. With all due respect, I would suggest that having a first appointment process in the first place is for short-term gain. I would suggest that referring the ICAC to a pre-established committee in order to expedite the process is for short-term gain; and I would especially suggest that attempting to push the legislation through by the end of this week is most certainly for short-term gain.

I wanted to have the chance to make that rebuttal, particularly when the very aim of my amendment, as I hope members can see, was to establish a separate committee under the legislation that had greater representation of members in the numeric sense and also greater representation of Independents and minor parties, which I think is vital for the independence of an independent commission. I would suggest that it is much more evident that it will be for the long-term gain to have a committee. If we have to have a committee, have one that is separate, independent and protected by legislation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

That the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment but makes the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Clause 7, page 13, after line 15—After subclause (3) insert:

(3aa) Before a person is appointed to be the Commissioner, the Attorney-General must ensure that the position is advertised in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in each State and Territory.

(3aab) A person may only be appointed to be the Commissioner if, following referral by the Attorney-General of the proposed appointment to the Statutory Officers Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991—

(a) the appointment has been approved by the Committee; or

(b) the Committee has not, within 7 days of the referral, or such longer period as is allowed by the Attorney-General, notified the Attorney-General in writing that it does not approve the appointment.

(3aac) Despite the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Officers Committee must not report on, or publish material in relation to, matters referred to the Committee under subsection (3aab) except to the extent allowed by the Attorney-General (but this subsection does not derogate from section 15I(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991).

I follow on from the Hon. Kelly Vincent, who I acknowledge has actually contributed proactively to try and get an outcome; so have we. It is an unfortunate situation at the moment where there is quite a lot of tension in the chamber. Notwithstanding that, this is a very important piece of legislation. What this actually allows us to do democratically is debate amendments before us now.

This is not the first time in the years I have been here that I have seen situations where amendments are put in to address concerns raised by members of the Legislative Council or, indeed, in my former time in the House of Assembly, members of the House of Assembly during the debate, particularly when they are actually fine tuning at the pointy end. I again remind colleagues that apart from this one—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I hear some interesting interjection there, but the fact of the matter is that, eight weeks on, we now need to complete the pointy end—and we are at the pointy end. We have every amendment passed other than this particular process. The reason I have moved two amendments (and the first one I withdrew and replaced with an additional amendment) was that members like the Hon. Kelly Vincent made some sense in some of the amendments (in my opinion, and that of Family First) that she put forward.

What I am trying to do now in speaking in favour of this amendment is to encapsulate those—the amendments that we put up in the first instance as Family First, bearing in mind that we waited for eight weeks to see the two major parties come up with a compromise position; and then, finally, to capitalise on the issues that were raised by the shadow attorney-general, that is, that there has to be some independence. I appeal to and plead with the committee. No matter what happens, we can go to a deadlock conference on this, but I am not sure who is going to win from a deadlock conference.

I know for one thing that the South Australian community will not win if we go into a procrastinated deadlock conference. Earlier this evening, we saw a situation where the reality was that it took over three months (I stand to be corrected but I think I am actually conservative in saying three months) to get a basic deadlock conference through on a situation regarding who is entitled to power rebates when farmers (107 of them, from memory) actually connected off a shed roof into the grid rather than off a house roof. That took three months.

We have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition has said on numerous occasions that this government is corrupt. If this government is corrupt, let's nail them, and let's nail them before the next election. Let's not play political games. Nail them before the next election. There is only one way to do that, and that is to have an ICAC up and running. For two months we have lost that opportunity.

If we go to a deadlock conference, who is going to be on the deadlock conference? All of us would like to be on the deadlock conference but the reality is that we cannot all be on the deadlock conference. The reality is that right now, at five past eight in this chamber, we have some serious amendments that address all the concerns, I believe, that have been raised by all members of parliament in this chamber.

So, if we have to sit here for 24 hours, that is better than a deadlock conference, because we can all participate in the future wellbeing of the security and protection of this state. I am not going to apologise for saying that I believe that if we cannot thrash this out in this chamber now we are being caught up in political games rather than what we are put here to do on behalf of the South Australian community.

I want to speak specifically to my amendment. It is fair to say that some people spend more time with some colleagues in this house than others. I found that in the lower house as well, and that is the reality of life. But I try, wherever possible, to negotiate with all of my colleagues, and I know that generally colleagues try to do that as well with the rest of us, and that is what is healthy about democratic debate. But, in listening to that democratic debate and in trying to talk to colleagues about this issue, when the Hon. Kelly Vincent, for one, was considering my amendment, she raised a relevant issue which rang in my mind for four or five days. It was a very good point. My first amendment was, well, you know, the government did not want any scrutiny. The opposition said there had to be scrutiny but the opposition offered nothing. The reality and the truth is that the opposition offered nothing, so for up to eight weeks we sat here. Then, when I went to the Hon. Kelly Vincent and other colleagues, the Hon. Kelly Vincent said to me, 'Well, your amendment says this.' What the former amendment said—and I put it on Hansard now—was that if it is a former judge or an existing judge, then the Executive Council appoints, but if it is anyone else, like a magistrate, a former police commissioner or all those other people who could qualify for this, it had to go before the committee.'

The Hon. Kelly Vincent very intelligently said, 'But what's the difference between the group that you are prepared in this amendment to put before the committee and the judge or the former judge?' I thought about that and I listened to the debate, and the fact of the matter is that technically there is a difference, but for all intents and purposes there is not. Therefore my amendment now says that whoever Executive Council appoints—whoever that may be—has to go before the Statutory Officers Committee for scrutiny, and it can veto it and it can veto it in 14 days initially—I have even tightened up on that—and, after seven days of intense assessment it can go to the Attorney-General and say, 'Sorry, don't like your person, bang, you're gone, you're out!'

But on top of that we now see a situation, and I quote first the shadow attorney-general on behalf of the opposition on FIVEaa this morning:

The opposition is more than happy to take what time is needed to get it right.

Byner says:

Alright, let me get this clear. What you're saying of John Rau, 'Give us a committee, a separate committee, not controlled by the government to look at this with all sides on board and you've got us.' Is that what you're saying?

And the answer fairly from the shadow attorney-general is, 'Indeed.' Now, sir, we see a situation where we have come so far from a government that was intransient initially on having any scrutiny to one that has actually agreed—agreed—to have a minority input into a committee, and not only a minority input into a committee but not having a chairing role. Now, I do not see how you can have anything any more independent than that unless you accept the Greens' amendment, which is that we do not—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The honourable member Mark Parnell says, 'Hear, hear!' But if you accept that amendment, then that amendment says, 'No committee of the parliament at all—69 members.' Well, as someone who is serving his 18th year in this house and who appreciates the privilege—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: This house?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —sorry, in parliament—I do not think that it is ever going to be workable to have 69 members of parliament having a say. It will be unworkable.

The Hon. A. Bressington: It worked for the Ombudsman and the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No; a different process, because—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, noting. The Statutory Officers Committee looks at the assessment of either the Ombudsman or the Electoral Commissioner and it makes a decision on behalf of the parliament on whether or not that person is fit and proper for the position and then it goes between both houses for noting—a very big difference. I am appealing to colleagues to thrash this out tonight.

The shadow attorney-general says that we need more time. Well, do we actually close the parliament for an hour or two now to give more time or do we go to a deadlock conference? I ask the shadow minister: how can you achieve more than this by going to a deadlock conference; and what guarantee can the shadow minister give this house and, indeed, more importantly give the South Australian people that going to a deadlock conference is going to be about a better outcome? I ask those two questions and I look forward to the answer.

I want to say in conclusion that we have a democratic process here tonight. We have pushed and kicked to get the government to come this far. It has now come this far. It does not have control. We want, surely, the best person up for ICAC. I do not understand the politics where the party that I was a former member of is coming from, and I would love members opposite to actually expose that tonight. I must have been asleep in the party room and in the cabinet—I must have been asleep. Tell me why the proposal you have now is going to be better than what we have before the house.

We have more amendments; we have the amendment I am speaking to and a further amendment, which the government has now tabled and which actually takes on the Hon. Kelly Vincent model, which we are prepared to support because we actually want to see an ICAC, as indeed I believe do the crossbenchers and now the government. I cannot understand what the opposition is stonewalling about now, so I ask for some answers.

I support an outcome tonight, and I think the community of South Australia wants that outcome. Let's stay here for as long as is needed and let's thrash it out, and if we have to report progress come back at 10, two, three, four, six, seven or whatever. We did it when I was in government with the Liberals when it came to issues around WorkCover and/or industrial relations. In fact, we sat until the Sunday, but we got an outcome. We did not go to a deadlock and not come up with an outcome. We are here, let's thrash it out now, let's have some honest debate, but we need an outcome now.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to support this amendment. There has been considerable debate previously and the government has outlined its reasons quite clearly and in considerable detail as to why we are supporting this amendment, so I will not repeat that. I am very willing to take whatever time we need this evening to conclude this important legislation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will speak briefly because I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell wants to make his first more substantive contribution. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire seems to have misunderstood my earlier comments: I am not insisting we go to a deadlock—I thought I had made that clear earlier. All I was indicating was that the opposition has only just been provided with these amendments. Repeatedly in the couple of years the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has been in the parliament he has sought to adjourn matters so that he can prepare and present amendments. He has sought that the consideration of matters be adjourned so that late-tabled amendments can be considered. That is all the opposition is asking for tonight.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am grappling, as are we all, with the way this will proceed, and no doubt you will control us in a way that makes sure that everyone gets a chance to put their positions. It seems to me that we have four amendments, all filed today, all of them to clause 7, page 13, after line 15. They all slot into exactly the same spot. My understanding was that they would normally, in that circumstance, be dealt with in the order in which they are filed. On my calculation, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who has moved his amendment, is first cab off the rank. I note that his amendment No.6 is identical to the government's—

The CHAIR: It's not like that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It's not right?

The CHAIR: No. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment will not be put first. We will keep control; you make your contribution.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am more than happy for the pilot to keep his hands on the wheel.

The CHAIR: And, as a safeguard, perhaps you should move your amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As a safeguard I will move my amendment now and will not speak to it at any great length. Therefore, I move:

Clause 7, page 13, after line 15—After subclause (3) insert:

(3aa) Despite the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Officers Committee established under that Act is not to inquire into, consider or report on the suitability of a person for appointment to the office of Commissioner (or on any other matters relating to the performance of the functions of that office).

I think the Hon. Rob Brokenshire summed it up. We do not think that a committee of any sort adds any value to the process, so we think it can go straight to parliament. However, I do need to correct the record in relation to the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's analysis of how these things work. The volume of legislation that relates to the Ombudsman is missing from out the back—no doubt people are studying that—but the Electoral Act is out the back. When it comes to the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner, it says:

(1) The Governor may—

(a) on a recommendation made by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, appoint a person to be the Electoral Commissioner;

We then go to the Parliamentary Committees Act, and the function of that act is:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report—

(i) on a suitable person for appointment to an office under an Act vacancies in which are to be filled by appointment on the recommendation of both Houses.

Now, in lay language, that means the parliament—either house—has a veto. That is how it works for the Ombudsman, that is how it works for the Electoral Commissioner, that is how it works under the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment and that is how it would work under the amendment that I have just moved, with the exception that we do not bother with the committee. We go straight from the Attorney-General to both houses of parliament and there is a veto.

The Hon. Rob Brokenshire talked about how unwieldy it would be for 69 members to have an effective right of veto. You have to remember that it is a majority. It is not a unilateral thing. It is not as if one of the 69 can say, 'We don't like this appointment, you're not in.' If it goes to a vote, it goes to a vote and the majority will prevail as it does in either of the chambers, but I think we do need to have our basic understanding right when we are talking about the potential role of committees and the potential role of parliament. We are talking about a parliamentary veto in the Hon. Ann Bressington's model, as we are in mine.

The CHAIR: To assist the committee, the Hon. Ms Vincent, are you prepared to move your amendment as well?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

That the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment but makes the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Clause 7, page 13, after line 15—After subclause (3) insert:

(3aa) A person may only be appointed to be the Commissioner if, following referral by the Attorney-General of the proposed appointment to the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991—

(a) the appointment has been approved by the Committee; or

(b) the Committee has not, within 14 days of the referral, or such longer period as is allowed by the Attorney-General, notified the Attorney-General in writing that it does not approve the appointment.

(3aab) Matters disclosed to or considered by the Committee in relation to a referral under subsection (3aa) must not be made the subject of public disclosure or comment and, despite the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Committee must not report on, or publish material in relation to, such matters except to the extent allowed by the Attorney-General.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There seems to be furious and tense agreement about having now, at last, arrived at a position of independent oversight. I am not sure why there is such furious tenseness in the air in relation to that. There are a hundred different ways of achieving it and we have seen four or five different versions being flagged by way of amendments. I am still not entirely clear even on the government's position. The leader said she was supporting the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment, whereas I thought the government had its own amendment.

The Hon. M. Parnell: They're the same.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's actually seems to be a page and a half and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's seems to be half a page, so there is some difference between the two. Anyway, all I am saying is, there seems to be furious agreement about where we have almost arrived at. I could understand having this sort of exchange six weeks ago, eight weeks ago or 10 weeks ago when we were not on the same page but I think, as the Hon. Mr Wade has indicated, the government has come, perhaps reluctantly, to a position where it is accepting some version of independence in relation to all of this.

The only point I want to make to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and to others is that the Liberal Party in relation to this and the shadow attorney, who has done a sterling job together with the Leader of the Opposition in representing our interests, are in a position where he represents the party. Those of you who are Independents and in minor parties have a slightly greater flexibility. The Hon. Mr Darley can look in the mirror and consult his party room and make a decision in relation to various amendments. The Hon. Ms Vincent and the Hon. Ms Bressington can do the same thing. The Hon. Mr Parnell has to consult one colleague and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has to consult one colleague and they can make a party room decision.

Let me assure you that the Hon. Mr Wade has to go through a much more rigorous process in relation to something which is a controversial and difficult issue and which has been the subject of much debate. In relation to all these amendments that have just been flopped on the table, I have only just seen the government's amendment which was tabled at 7.22pm.

I would have thought that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would have been the most likely person amongst the minor parties and Independents to understand that, whilst he used to be a member of a much larger party, he would want and wish on an issue like this to be able to express a point of view. Certainly from our viewpoint, let me assure you, as I said to the Hon. Mr Wade, 'Well, hold on. How are we going to make a decision on this?' We have not had a chance to speak to the Hon. Isobel Redmond.

I have not had a chance to listen to the arguments for and against and to have a position where, even if we do not have an emergency joint party room meeting in relation to this, at the very least, we have a chance to sit down with the leadership group of the party which involves the Hon. Isobel Redmond, Steven Marshall and the Leader of the Opposition here, together with the shadow attorney and one or two others in terms of coming to a quick decision in relation to the amendments that are before us at the moment.

I think, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire conceded—and he gave his own example—we the Liberal Party are of the same view, having listened to the various arguments, we have refined our amendments and our views. He was willing enough to concede his original position. He listened to the views of the Hon. Kelly Vincent and has adapted his position. We, too, have been in that position. Whilst our principle remains the same, we have been in a position where we have been prepared to listen to the various versions of the amendments in relation to some degree of independence regarding the appointment of the commissioner.

The position we are adopting is that it is not, as the Hon. Stephen Wade has just indicated, a deadlock conference or nothing position. We are actually sitting this week and we have an optional week next week. Putting aside the fact that the government does not want to sit next week, the optional week, we actually do have two more sitting days.

The WorkCover debate was referred to, in which I was a participant at the time. It was at the end of a session, and we sat on the Thursday through to the Friday and then on the Saturday to get a conclusion. It was the last sitting day in terms of trying to come to a conclusion. We have not arrived at that position. We have commenced this particular debate on a Tuesday afternoon, early evening. New amendments have just been tabled. I would like the opportunity to listen to the debate, put a point of view to the shadow attorney and to the Leader of the Opposition in another place and then come to a position which I can bring back to the Legislative Council tomorrow.

So, all I am urging is that we just take a bit of the heat out of the equation. We are almost there. It is not unreasonable for members of the opposition to be given the opportunity to consult their own leader and, for those who can, attend a small meeting of the joint party room or a committee, or something, to come to a position on the latest amendment before us and then to come back tomorrow and, if need be, on Thursday to resolve our position.

It is easy to say that this has got to be resolved tonight and that the Liberal Party is stalling for time, or whatever else it happens to be. That does not happen to be the case in relation to these amendments that have just arrived. I think it is an eminently reasonable proposition. I am sure that if the honourable member was in his former position as a member of a joint party room, he would like the opportunity for at least some people—in addition to the shadow attorney—to make an instant decision about the matter.

I accept what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire says: there are occasions where we work on the fly in relation to bills in this place, but this is a critical bill and a critical amendment. With the greatest respect, this does not concern regulations in relation to the oversight of dentists, lawyers or real estate agents in South Australia, or whatever it might happen to be. This is a critical issue. It is an issue which has divided the government and the opposition, and we are eventually getting much closer. It is not a miniscule point: it is a significant issue. Yes, it is at the pointy end, but it is a significant issue.

All the shadow attorney is arguing for—and I certainly strongly support it—is the opportunity, having heard the arguments tonight, to report progress and for us to meet with our leader and one or two other key people so that we can arrive at a decision on the amendments and we can be clear as to where everyone is. In terms of being involved in my own party debates, it would be useful for me to know whether the government is just supporting the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment or whether it is supporting its version of the amendments.

The Hon. Mr Parnell has had a greater chance to look at the differences. I have not been able to compare them word for word. I am not sure where the other Independents are in relation to both the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment and the government's amendment, for example. I do not think it is unreasonable for some of us in the big party, in the alternative government in South Australia, having heard the debate tonight, to at least give a commitment that we are prepared to come back tomorrow with our position.

Ultimately, we cannot determine what that is. We will come back tomorrow with a position on whether we support this or whether we want to move a further amendment or whether you had thought about the fact that you have actually still got a problem with the drafting of your particular amendment. I do not know what happens in relation to the government's amendment if, for example, there are no Independents in the House of Assembly. There are Independents at the moment but, if there are no Independents in the House of Assembly, what does the amendment do? I do not know the answer to that. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the government may well know what the position is in relation to that.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever have no Independents in the upper house. Since 1979 we have always had at least one and sometimes up to seven or eight or whatever the number happens to be. As the Hon. Mr Brokenshire knows, at times in the House of Assembly, there are no Independent members. What does that mean to the amendment? It may well be that there is nothing that can be done about that. I do not know, but that is just immediately a quick issue after being told at 7.22pm, 'Here is the amendment, you have to make up your mind now,' when some of us would like to reflect on it overnight, discuss it with our colleagues and come back with a considered position tomorrow and maybe say, 'This is almost a solution, but have you thought what would happen if,' and we might need to move a further amendment to it so that we can do it tomorrow and if need be on Thursday of this week.

My view is that we are getting much closer. It seems that everyone is getting much closer. As I said at the outset, there seems to be furious agreement almost in relation to the general principle. Let's at least listen to the debate tonight without necessarily turning the wick up too much, listen to the debate and the argument, and then I would hope we could report progress to allow us to consult with our leader and others and then come back with a view on behalf of our party tomorrow.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is obvious that the opposition are going to stall yet again in relation to this bill and that they are not going to allow us to progress this bill this evening. I will move to report progress in a while and then move later on to come back and sit tomorrow morning to progress this thing as the opposition has indicated they would be willing to do.

In relation to the question the Hon. Robert Lucas asked about the government's position, so that he is clear so that he can sleep on it tonight, the government supports the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment with the addition of the government consequential amendments which the Hon. Mark Parnell was bright enough to work out. It is not rocket science but nevertheless the Hon. Mark Parnell was bright enough, unlike the Hon. Robert Lucas, to see that we support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment with the government's consequential amendments which make it identical to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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