The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about corruption.
 Leave granted.
 The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I am aware of an article by Terry Plane in today's City Messenger which leads him to a conclusion that there is plenty of work in South Australia for an independent commission against corruption, with the emphasis on `independent'. I understand that a few days ago the Hon. Ian Gilfillan indicated that he would be supporting the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. Will the Government support any moves for the establishment of an independent commission against corruption in South Australia?
  The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am tempted to answer it quite simply and say `No,' and that is, of course, the answer. However, it is important to develop the reasons for that. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised to see the article in the City Messenger which sought to build up a scenario which would enable Mr Plane to conclude that there is plenty of work in South Australia for an independent commission against corruption.
 One of the surprising issues to which he refers and which seems to form part of the basis for his arguing for the establishment of an independent commission against corruption is the fact that the DPP actually provided me with a minute in relation to the issue that was raised in the Parliament last week.
 If one looks at that article, all I can suggest is that maybe the DPP might consider taking some legal advice to determine whether or not the article is defamatory of the DPP, because Mr Plane concludes in respect of that particular matter that it is all too cosy. That suggests impropriety, and quite obviously that is defamatory, particularly whenó
 The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Not the way the article is written. The way it is written, it is clearly directed towards building up a case which includes the way in which the DPP responded last weekó
 Members interjecting:
 The PRESIDENT: Order!
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: óand an issue upon which I did make some response in answer to a question by the Hon. Mr Holloway, as I recollect. There is in fact nothing in the article to which Mr Plane refers that would suggest that we need an independent commission against corruption. He is trying to allude to a possible misleading of Parliament being a basis for an independent commission because he refers to the Ingerson matter. He refers also to the Anderson report. He also talks about the water and sewerage systems and a story about the privatised management being the subject of improper tampering with the tender process. He seeks to draw all those sorts of innuendos from a number of factual situations, ultimately issues which are matters for the Parliament and not issues which raise the question of corruption.
 If one thinks about it and looks at what has happened in other jurisdictions in relation to bodies like independent commissions against corruption, criminal justice commissions or whatever, one would have to recognise that they have very wide powers. They have wide powers to obtain information; they remove the protection against self-incrimination; they have wide search and entry powers; and, all in all, they have much broader powers than our police have. Yet, when one hears periodically about attempts to widen police powers, there is always, quite rightly, a genuine concern about broadening those powers.
 If one looks at the police powers to deal with issues of corruption which might be alleged, one sees that they are already very wide. They have power to engage in telephone interception under the Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act. They have power to install listening devices under the Listening Devices Act. They have power to search and they have power to question. All those powers in the past have been regarded as adequate to deal with allegations of corruption, whether they are at the public or the private level, and sufficient to get to the facts.
 If members on the cross benches or opposite want to go down the path of an independent commission against corruption, they have to do so in the full knowledge that there will be very wide ranging powers. In effect, there will be no accountability, and there will be no sense in which there will be protection against abuses of individual rights when they go about their work.
 I have said, from Opposition, when this was an issue prior to the 1993 election and when the Hon. Mr Sumner opposed the establishment of an independent commission against corruption, that the Liberal Opposition at that stage also opposed its establishment.
 In government, we have not given any consideration to it. I have seen a couple of newspaper reports, but I can feel fairly confident that the Government would not wish to support the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. I must confess that I cannot believe that members opposite would want to support the establishment of such a commission if they look at the wide ranging powers which would have to be given to such a commission, and when they objectively consider the role of the Anti-Corruption Branch at the moment and our South Australia Police and their powers in getting to the truth.
 In summary, I am concerned about the article written by Mr Plane. He is at liberty to write it, of course, but he also has to withstand any particular challenges which anyone may make to the innuendo which is implicit in it, if not a direct conclusion which can be drawn about impropriety.
 I am also concerned about the proposition made by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan and indicate that certainly I do not support it and I do not believe the Government would ever want to support the establishment of such a commission in South Australia.
  The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: As a supplementary question, is the Attorney-General aware of the fact that the former Royal Commissioner, Mr Fitzgerald, now regrets recommending the establishment of a criminal justice commission in Queensland and believes that the establishment of an Upper House in Queensland would have been better?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am certainly aware of that view. I do not think anybody has any doubt that an Upper House in Queensland would certainly help to improve government in that State. Those who advocate the abolition of the Legislative Council in this State need look only at the experience in Queensland. I think any fair-minded and sensible person would see that, notwithstanding the difficulties which we are currently having and which previous Governments have had with the Legislative Council and its approach to legislation, there is no rational basis upon which to argue for its abolition in this State.
 Sometimes I rather wish that, in dealing with legislation, the Council might deal with it in the same manner in which we used to deal with it. I do not want to go back to the past, but on the basis that Governments, of whatever political persuasion, always got their budget and budget legislation through, without the sorts of games that are being played, particularly in the Senate, one would hope that views might mature about that, rather than continue to be particularly obstructive on a number of issues in respect of budget and election policy.
 So far as Queensland is concerned, I am certainly aware of what the former Royal Commissioner is now concerned to express publicly, and I agree with that view. The fact is that there is no need for an independent commission against corruption in this State and, even if there were, one would have to think very seriously about the powers that might be given to such a commission, considering also that the National Crime Authority has very wide powers and can work in conjunction with State law enforcement agencies if a reference is ultimately given to it to assist in getting to the bottom of anything which might have the connotation of corruption about it.
 

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design