The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I have long held a belief that it is
inappropriate for police to investigate police. When it comes to allegations
of police corruption, or any complaints of public corruptionóand I must
emphasise thatóinvestigations must not only be scrupulously fair they must
also be seen to be independent. That is not the case now in South Australia.
In the past 10 years, three Australian States have had royal commissions
into corruption. In each of those States not only has corruption been uncovered
but the respective State Parliaments have found it necessary to subsequently
establish new and more accountable measures to fight corruption. For instance,
in New South Wales the pre-existing Independent Commission Against Corruption
proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful in exposing the police corruption
that was found by the Wood Royal Commission. So now that power has been
taken from ICAC and given to a newer, separate Police Integrity Commission
(PIC).
In Queensland, after the Fitzgerald royal commission, they had
their Criminal Justice Commission and, more recently, the Crime Commission
has been added to it. In Western Australia, after the WA Inc Royal Commission,
the pre-existing Official Corruption Commission (a mere token two person
office) was upgraded and strengthened to become what is now the WA Anti-Corruption
Commission. But along with these independent `watches' there are also parliamentary
committees in each of the three States, in effect, `watching the watchers'.
Earlier this month I travelled to Perth where on 5 and 6 November
I was the sole South Australian MP at the meeting of the working group
of parliamentary committees oversighting anti-corruption and law enforcement
bodies. Each of the committees is engaged in a constant struggle to be
an effective monitor over the likes of ICAC, CJC and so on. During the
two day meeting I heard my fellow parliamen-tarians complain about the
frustration of getting detailed information from these anti-corruption
and law enforcement bodies. They expressed difficulties with their de facto
role of handling specific complaints against these bodies, complaints with
which they were ill-equipped to deal. I heard them bemoan the enabling
legislation under which these bodies were set up and which allowed them
to keep too much of their operation secret.
Confidentiality in these matters is very important and anti-corruption
bodies need sufficient independence to investigate politicians as well.
Neither politicians nor anti-corruption investigators can be above the
law. Both must be subject to the law; both must be accountable for their
actions. The difficulty is to devise a system whereby anti-corruption investigators
are ultimately answerable to the Parliament, and can be supervised by someone
independent without politi-cians having direct access to specific confidential
inquiries.
Queensland and New South Wales have addressed this issue by setting
up an independent third party to oversee specific investigations on behalf
of their respective parlia-mentary committees. In Queensland this person
is called the parliamentary commissioner. In New South Wales he or she
is the inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. In both cases, the
person has wide powers to oversee every aspect of an anti-corruption investigation,
but must not divulge such confidential information, not even to the parliamentary
committee overseeing the anti-corruption body.
Despite all these difficulties, there was universal agree-ment
at the Perth conference that in each State an independent anti-corruption
agency was vital to the interests of justice. All the delegates, even the
most vociferous complainants, believed that their State was better off
with an independent anti-corruption body than without one. I mention these
developments because I believe in South Australia we must reform our processes
quite substantially. The Government in this State still does not accept
that there is any problem with police investigating police. The Government
here does not feel a need to establish an independent anti-corruption body
of any description at this stage.
One of the most important functions of the New South Wales Independent
Commission Against Corruption is not necessarily its arrest rate or rate
of convictions. That body sees one of its most important functions as being
its prevent-ive role and educative role, its program of raising awareness
about a corruption, of ensuring that each Government department and agency
has in place a specific anti-corruption prevention program. There is no-one
in South Australia performing this task. The lack of any apparent corruption
prevention program is to the detriment of South Australia.
In 1992, I introduced a Bill to set up a version of ICAC in South
Australia, but it lapsed through lack of support. The time is right, I
believe, and having observed the other States for several years we are
now in a position to learn from their mistakes and improve upon their accountability
mechanisms. In Perth it was resolved that there would be a meeting of the
national working group in Adelaide in April next year. It will be the working
party to plan for their next annual national conference. It will be a significant
meeting, and I hope to host it in Parliament House. It will be a focus
for all those who are concerned about combating corruption in this State
and I look forward to support from colleagues in this place and publicity
about the need for us to have amendments introduced in South Australia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable
member's time has expired.
See also Ian Gilfillan's article in INSIDE
STORY
Read the Government's response: 24 November
1998
|
|