ICAC commissioner Ann Vanstone delivers astonishing smackdown of proposed reforms

Ann Vanstone has lambasted proposed laws to overhaul SA’s ICAC, saying they will allow corruption to go undetected – and that some Liberals MPs have a conflict of interest.

South Australian MPs don’t want an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption if they pass legislation that aims to reform the agency, ICAC Ann Vanstone says.

In an astonishing 40-minute smackdown of the Bill, Ms Vanstone told a parliamentary hearing the Bill sought to shield politicians from scrutiny and accused a number of Liberal MPs of having a direct conflict of interest in the Bill, given they had been charged with offences as a result of an ICAC investigation or they were the subject of an ongoing probe.

She further warned that corruption would go undetected if the legislation was passed and the proposed changes would cost a significant amount of money because of a duplication in services.

The Bill, introduced by SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo, seeks to establish an Office of the Inspector, to replace the current ICAC Reviewer, with enhanced powers of review and oversight of ICAC.

ICAC’s powers would also be streamlined to deal only with matters of serious and systemic corruption while the responsibility for misconduct and maladministration would be investigated by the State Ombudsman, and a separate Office of Public Integrity would also be created.

The legislation also seeks to better manage public statements and reporting to protect people from reputational damage and introduces remedies that can apply when a person has suffered such damage.

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Hon. Ann Vanstone QC. Picture: Tony Lewis Photography

It was passed by the Upper House after receiving the support of all parties on Wednesday night, and will now need to be approved by the Lower House before it can be enacted.

However, Ms Vanstone’s evidence to the parliamentary hearing has given MPs much to think about as they consider their positions on the Bill.

“If this or a similar Bill is passed by the parliament, then it will be plain that politicians do not want an ICAC in South Australia – it’s as simple as that,” Ms Vanstone said.

She said it was "astonishing” that the state government was reportedly likely to support the Bill.

“The first thing that hits one in the eye is that the shelter for politicians, that is parliamentary privilege, is to be built into a 20-foot wall,” she said.

“An immediate aim seems to be to protect themselves from scrutiny.”

Ms Vanstone said the Bill would extend parliamentary privilege to all statements made and documents or materials tabled or received in the course of proceedings of the parliament or a committee of parliament.

“These are all to be put out the reach of ICAC – this, at a time when two members of the parliament are charged with offences after investigation by ICAC, and other investigations are on foot,” she said.

“Indeed it’s extraordinary that those very members are now able to vote on this bill designed to restrict ICAC’s jurisdiction and powers. Where else in this state could such a conflict of interest be tolerated?”

Ms Vanstone told the hearing she believed the reforms were “based on misinformation about past events, a misunderstanding of the criminal justice system and that it entirely ignores the exemplary way in which ICAC has been operating for at least the last year, when I’ve had the opportunity to see how it operates”.

Premier Steven Marshall on Wednesday morning said the state government “wouldn’t support the Bill in its original form”.

“I think most members of parliament think that it is time for review of the ICAC Act that was put in place some years ago,” he said.

“It’s an opportunity for us to review that Act.”

Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas said Labor believed there was a need to overhaul the ICAC.

“There are a lot of amendments being discussed within the Upper House and we will form a final judgment on that,” he said.

Originally published as ICAC commissioner Ann Vanstone delivers astonishing smackdown of proposed reforms