HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-06-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Investigation

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer, representing the Attorney-General and the Premier, about the failed investigation and prosecution of two senior public servants.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yesterday, I asked questions about the ICAC probe into Renewal SA's former chief executive, John Hanlon, and another executive, Georgina Vasilevski. On Thursday 29 August 2019 at approximately 21:50, a former staff member of Renewal SA and her partner attended Ms Vasilevski's son's restaurant with the intention of causing harm and distress to her, her son and ancillary staff.

At the time of this incident, Ms Vasilevski had been forced to stand down as General Manager People and Place Management at Renewal SA as a result of a vexatious allegation against her instigated by this and other Renewal SA staff who had approached ICAC in 2018. This person had previously been involved in unsatisfactory behaviour at work, which included bullying a 22-year-old woman in the workplace. She was investigated about her conduct and disciplined for misconduct. Others who approached ICAC had also been involved in shameful behaviour towards the young staff member.

Whilst in the restaurant, the person's male partner allegedly told Ms Vasilevski's son that ICAC was going to rape her and that when that was completed he would 'finish her off'. The matter was all the more upsetting because at the time, despite the provisions of the ICAC Act, a blunder made by the former minister informing the press in late 2018 that two senior executives from Renewal SA had taken extended leave resulted in Ms Vasilevski's name being broadcast as a person under investigation by ICAC. At that stage, she had not been charged.

The behaviour by the former staff member and her partner at Ms Vasilevski's son's restaurant caused her to fear for her safety and the safety of her family. Although statements were provided by Ms Vasilevski's son and by Ms Vasilevski, nothing was done to protect or assist her in dealing with these issues.

The PRESIDENT: I hope the questions are coming soon.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: They are coming. No branch of the public sector made any effort to check on her wellbeing or showed any concern for her safety. After reporting the incident to a former acting chief executive, she was offered the option of EAP services. As I said, she was not charged at the time. My questions to the Attorney-General and the Premier are:

1. When they became aware of Ms Vasilevski's allegations, what did they do about it, and did they ever follow up the matter with Ms Vasilevski and all the relevant agencies?

2. Should it be acceptable practice that any individual who has been threatened with serious criminal assault should have their complaints ignored just because they are subject to an ICAC investigation?

3. Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions future or prospective actions the DPP may be considering?

4. Why would the Attorney-General publicly raise the prospect of an ex officio information action before the DPP has even considered the matter?

5. Can this be perceived as a breach of the separation of powers between her office and the DPP?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:00): I will refer the honourable member's questions, but I repeat the cautionary note that I gave yesterday in response to the honourable member's questions. I think the honourable member is treading on very dangerous ground in the nature and the way he is using extended explanations to questions to, by direct suggestion yesterday, make an accusation against a minister in another place, and today make accusations in relation to the alleged knowledge by both the Premier and the Attorney-General of certain events and circumstances.

They are allegations or claims made by the honourable member under parliamentary privilege. Those ministers and members are not in a position to be able to directly respond to those claims that he is making under parliamentary privilege in this particular chamber by way of an explanation to a question.

With that note and concern that I express on behalf of my colleagues in another place, I will say that I have absolute confidence in the integrity of the Premier and the Deputy Premier and my colleagues in another place. If by inference or smear or innuendo the Hon. Mr Pangallo is seeking to cast doubt upon the integrity of my colleagues, I take offence at that, particularly, as I said, as they are not in a position to be able to respond to the honourable member's questions. If he wants to raise these questions, perhaps he might like to ask them in the public forum and see what response he gets.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Point of order, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I take umbrage at the Treasurer's comments in relation to my supposed inferences.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: What is the point of order?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Just let the Hon. Mr Pangallo finish, and be brief.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I take umbrage at the Treasurer's—that I am inferring conduct about the Premier and the Attorney-General. I have not done that. I have just simply asked questions. I have simply asked questions.

The PRESIDENT: Resume your seat. The Treasurer on a point of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, I ask under what standing order he is taking a point of order? The mere response to a statement that I made in my view is not a point of order. A point of order is that, under a standing order, he is seeking clarification from you or a ruling from you. If he wants to claim at a later stage that he has been misrepresented, he can do so at a later stage or some appropriate occasion, but in my view, my humble submission to you, it is not a point of order.

The PRESIDENT: In ruling, I would say that the Treasurer was completely within his realm as the representative of both the Premier and the Attorney in the response that he gave. The Treasurer is accurate in saying that if the Hon. Mr Pangallo wants to seek a personal explanation at the conclusion of this question time he can do that.

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