Your right to know: Both major SA parties open to end ICAC gag order

A BLANKET secrecy order that bans discussion of even the possibility that something is being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption could be reformed, as both sides of politics open the door to overhauling “deficiencies” in the law.

• Government reviewing sex offender secrecy laws
• Premier Steven Marshall to bring open ICAC hearings legislation
• Labor turns up ICAC heat on Attorney-General Vickie Chapman

• READ BELOW

• Analysis: Marshall yet to face test of openness

A BLANKET secrecy order that bans discussion of even the possibility that something is being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption could be reformed, as both sides of politics open the door to overhauling “deficiencies” in the law.

The full impact of the secrecy clause was thrust into the spotlight last month during a fiery showdown in State Parliament, where Transport Minister Stephan Knoll was unable to fully explain why two senior public servants at Renewal SA had gone on sudden leave.

It precipitated a series of bizarre events, including claims Attorney-General Vickie Chapman had herself run foul of the law by issuing a public statement that mentioned the ICAC.

Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said that transparency reform would remain her first ICAC priority

SA Best MP Frank Pangallo has also told The Advertiser the absurd law left him unable to properly help constituents who raised issues about public integrity and the ICAC. Mr Pangallo said he’d been forced to turn people away, telling them: “I can’t talk about it”.

The broadly drawn section 56 of the ICAC Act states a person must not publish any information “tending to suggest that a particular person is, has been, may be, or may have been, the subject of a complaint, report, assessment, investigation or referral”.

It also means that even explaining why certain information cannot be published becomes impossible, as to do so requires reference to the laws surrounding ICAC investigations. The laws were intended to protect the identity and reputation of innocent people facing investigation.

SA Best MP Frank Pangallo

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Kyam Maher

However, there are concerns it has had serious, unintended consequences and ICAC Commissioner Bruce Lander’s office has said he believes reform should be considered.

Ms Chapman and Opposition legal affairs spokesman Kyam Maher have now both opened the door to further change as Parliament prepares to sanction public maladministration hearings.

Mr Chapman said that transparency reform would remain her first ICAC priority.

“We promised public hearings and that’s been a priority for the Marshall Government. We hope to pass this legislation before the end of this year,” she said.

“The Government is not opposed to additional amendments if they are required. “What is clear is that there are a number of deficiencies with the legislation and I will continue to work with the Commissioner to ascertain what needs changing and how we go about it.”

Mr Maher said: “The Labor Party is open to reforms of the ICAC legislation that gets the balance right between the interests of natural justice and the public’s right to know.” Greens’ MP Mark Parnell said reform would be a difficult balancing act.

“I’m open to reviewing the clause, however I would want to ensure that adequate protections are in place to prevent mis-use or abuse,” Mr Parnell said.

“I don’t think completely deleting the clause is the answer, but would certainly support having another look at it.”

Analysis

Marshall yet to face test of openness

By Daniel Wills

OPPOSITIONS always love transparency, while governments typically hate it. Which team is in what role seldom seems to matter, only who has the secrets and who wants to know them.

Premier Steven Marshall came to office promising to lead an open and transparent government. He’s also been desperate to be seen as a leader who keeps his promises.

To date, in the seven short months since being given the key to the castle and combination code to the box of state secrets, he’s mostly been true to his word.

The new State Government has moved relatively quickly to allow open maladministration hearings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, release a report in the contract surrounding the emergency diesel generators and some taxpayer-funded business deals.

Premier Steven Marshall came to office promising to lead an open and transparent government.

When caught out, like Deputy Premier Vickie Chapman’s $19.95 spend on a forgettable in-hotel movie, ministers have quickly sought to make amends and take their fair cop.

And, really, who hasn’t found themselves in a situation like Tourism Minister David Ridgway where they forget to declare a $1.1 million home and how to spell their own middle name? Obviously, the answer to that rhetorical question is everyone except David Ridgway.

The Advertiser’s Your Right to Know campaign of this week has the good and bad of transparency systems.

Former premier Jay Weatherill committed to publishing ministerial credit cards for the first time. Without that move, it would be close to impossible to get information such as Ms Chapman’s movie spend. But, more than that, ministers of both colours report that the sheer fact someone can look at what they spend makes it less likely they will.

The system works.

Pointing out the absurd and laborious processes that have to be gone through to get basic information in the public interest has also led to commitments to take a new look at longstanding deficiencies in laws, such as Freedom of Information and suppression laws.

Today, both major parties and the Upper House crossbench are responding to absurd scenes in the Parliament and press last month over the whereabouts of two Renewal SA executives and say they are willing to consider changing the Kafkaesque secrecy superclause in ICAC law.

Tomorrow, the Sunday Mail will reveal another significant win that will make it easier to understand how much of your money top public servants are pocketing every year.

But the real test for Mr Marshall’s commitment to the principle of open government will come over the coming years, once he’s amassed a series of hard decisions.

Already there has been some hints of a new circumstantial fondness for cover, with ministers demanding Freedom of Information applications being submitted for details they could easily release or suggesting certain deals for major events will stay secret. The only way to avoid that slide is to keep politicians to account, and hit them where it hurts. It is our job to ensure this does not become a slippery slope.