Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 November 2014.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:42): I intend to make very brief comments today, particularly in the context of how I would suggest to the council that parliamentary consideration of ICAC legislation might proceed. When the serious and organised crime legislation was before the parliament, the opposition suggested, at the suggestion of a stakeholder, that there be a crime and public integrity policy committee. It did not have those words, but those words came later.

There were two distinct themes. One was to look at serious and organised crime and the other was to look at corruption, and it was considered important by the parliament that, in both spheres, we made sure that our legislative framework remained up to date. In that regard, I understand that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan did some of the early work on the legislative framework, and I acknowledge that.

As a member of the newly-formed Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, one thing that surprised me was that the process that is in train at the moment is that the potential changes to the legislation are put by the commissioner to the Attorney. I would be suggesting to the parliament, and I certainly will raise it in the committee, that at the very least it might be appropriate that any suggested legislative reforms are put to both the Attorney and the committee at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that the legislation is committed to the Attorney-General: it is not owned by the Attorney-General, and the whole parliament has an interest in making sure that our governance framework, our public integrity framework, is at the best level possible. It would be fair to say that my conviction in that belief has been strengthened by the slowness of the progress of the reforms that are before us in this bill today.

We have had public reports from the first half of the year that these issues were being suggested for reform, and at its most recent meeting the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee did have the legislation available to it, but I think it would be good process for that committee to be part of the conversation from the earliest moment, and also it would be an element of accountability on the government. If the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee receives requests for legislative change from the commissioner, or for that matter from any other stakeholder, then they can hold the government accountable for progressing those changes.

I, for one, am very keen to make sure we keep our framework fresh, and I am very concerned that it has taken so long for this matter to come before the house. Having said that, forgive me if my memory fails me, but my recollection from the questions I asked Commissioner Lander at the recent committee hearing related to whether he was fully involved in the development of this bill, whether there is anything in the bill that he did not suggest, and whether he supports the bill. I hope that I have not misconveyed his view. In any event the opposition supports the passage of this legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:46): I will just make a brief contribution, because this is a challenging issue for us, not in relation to the content of the bill, which I think has been borne out of the experience of the last year or so of the ICAC legislation. The commissioner has recommended some changes, and those changes are now being implemented. But, of course, the challenge is, especially for those of us who are not government, that we hold very dear the procedures of this place, which are borne out of common sense principles, I think, that all legislation should go through proper scrutiny. That principle manifests itself in the unwritten but nearly always adopted principle that we do not vote on a bill in the same parliamentary sitting week in which it has been introduced.

We have only had this bill for a couple of days, but like all rules we have to judge whether or not there are exceptions and whether the exceptions justify our giving ground. The nervousness is always that, if we give an inch, they will take a mile, and before you know it every week bills will be so terribly urgent that they have to be voted on straightaway. All of us would resist that most strongly.

What we are missing out on, I guess, if we proceed with this bill today, is the ability to consult stakeholders and the ability to get any independent advice on the meanings of the various clauses in the bill, but on the other hand we have had a briefing from the commissioner today, and there are reasons why it would be not just convenient but potentially money saving (and perhaps other reasons as well that I will not go into) if this bill were to pass today (before the end of November), and that will assist the commissioner greatly in his work. So, that is the trade off.

The commissioner wants the bill to go through and has provided some pressing reasons why that is a good outcome. We are naturally reluctant to let it go through because we have not had time to consider it properly, so that is the dilemma we face. When we get into committee I will ask some questions of the government. We are happy to proceed with it today—I will put people out of their misery—but what I would like to know (and it follows from the Hon. Stephen Wade's contribution), is whether our preparedness to breach with protocol is in some measure dependent on the government not having just been slack. One of my questions, and I will foreshadow it now, is—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: 'Are you slack?'

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: My question is not, 'Are you slack?', as the Hon. Rob Lucas rudely interjects. My question will be: how long as the government known, and could they have got it out of the House of Assembly faster and got it to us faster so we could have had two sitting weeks to deal with it? Regardless of the answer, even if the answer is, 'Yes, we were slack; it sat on someone's desk and they went on holidays,' or whatever, that does not mean we cannot still proceed with it, but I would be interested to know for future reference how long these things take and how long they should take.

Even if the government has been slack and have taken longer than it should have getting this bill to us, it is not my intention today to punish it for that. It is also not my intention to allow this to become a precedent, and I certainly do not want to see the situation where we basically forgo our ability to properly scrutinise legislation, that we do it on faith. So, this is a, 'Don't do it again, please,' but for now we are happy to see the bill proceeded with today.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:50): I do not believe there are any other second reading contributions in relation to this bill, and I thank members for their contributions and support for it. As a result of some confidential briefings, we obviously consider this matter to be urgent. I certainly agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell: convention in this place is there for a reason, and it is to ensure that there is adequate time for all members in this place to familiarise themselves with the legislation and to consult broadly.

The government would only ever ask that convention be overlooked if there were urgent and pressing reasons, and we believe in this case there are, and those reasons have been explained to honourable members. I can assure honourable members that this is not the beginning of a slippery slope. As I said, as leader of this house I defend not necessarily all of the conventions, but most of them. Most of them are there for good reason, and I certainly defend the convention of matters being on the Notice Paper for a suitable period of time.

This bill makes important changes to facilitate operations of the ICAC and to clarify the protections and obligations of public officers and public authorities under the ICAC Act. The operation of the act for some 12 months has provided sufficient opportunity for the commissioner to detect those areas where improvement and refinement is required.

The Attorney-General in the other place foreshadowed an amendment to section 46 of the ICAC Act; however, given the urgency of this bill, the government will not be proceeding with that amendment at this time, but it intends to return in the new year with a further bill to amend the act in terms of that foreshadowed amendment. Again, the government wants to put on the record that it very much appreciates the cooperation of members in providing speedy passage of this bill through the parliament.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the context of the Hon. Mark Parnell's questions about how long the government has had, could the government advise the dates of the letters that it received from the ICAC commissioner with the suggested amendments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there are a number of pieces of correspondence but, basically, they were all amalgamated or covered in one main piece of correspondence that is dated 8 May.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for that, because my recollection was that InDaily might well have covered the May correspondence. I just make the point to the Hon. Mark Parnell that, it now being the 11^th month and May being the fifth month, I think there is a case for the government to answer that they may well have been tardy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we have been negotiating with the commissioner throughout all of that period and redrafting at the request of the commissioner, so the government takes offence at those comments. We believe we have been—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am still on my feet.

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the floor.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I said, I am advised that we have been in negotiations with the commissioner throughout that period, and redrafting has been occurring throughout that period.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would ask the minister to reflect as a member of this Legislative Council whether she might take offence that this council has been given such a short amount of time to consider legislation—is it one day or two days?—when the government has had six months. I would ask her to perhaps take less offence as a government minister and perhaps more offence as a legislative councillor.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I would just like to place a few thoughts on the record, if I may. This is my ninth year in this place and, as members would know, during that time, I do not think I have ever voted against a single law and order measure that has been presented to this chamber. I have no intention of that changing in the future, but I am very nervous that we are passing what is very significant legislation—we are talking about ICAC legislation—and the fact is I have not even read this legislation. I have not had time to read it.

Quite simply, it was received by the chamber on the Tuesday afternoon of this week. The normal course of events is we deal with the matters before the chamber this week, and then I would read and prepare myself next week for the debate in the following week. I am sure I am not the only member in this place who has not even had the chance to read this legislation.

We are talking about a body which has very substantial powers. I wish to make it very clear that I cast no aspersions on the commissioner himself or the ICAC body itself, but I am sure members would agree that this is very substantial legislation and the process is a long way from perfect. That being said, it seems that this bill will pass today, and I have a couple of questions of the minister, if that turns out to be the case.

The first question results from a conversation with the commissioner himself this morning about the likelihood of an amendment to provide a check, if you like—again, casting no aspersions on the current commissioner—on potential future commissioners who may overstep the mark. What is the government's attitude towards an amendment which would provide a complaint mechanism or an appeal body or something of that nature, as they have in every other state, as I understand it, other than South Australia? That is my first question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is something that the Attorney has not looked upon in a particularly enthusiastic way to date. However, obviously these matters have not yet been finalised, and we have indicated that amendments will be committed early in the new year. There is opportunity, but I am clearly not trying to raise your expectations.

The CHAIR: Do you want to ask your questions, Mr Hood?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will ask them a little later on, sir.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I, too, share the concerns expressed by the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Dennis Hood. However, I do believe it is a matter of importance, and that is the reason I am prepared to proceed with it today.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 28), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.