The passage of a bill through South Australian Parliament can often be slow.
Parliament only sits about 17 weeks a year for a start, and then when a bill comes before the house there are often lengthy debates and amendments to be voted on.
It has to make its way through both the Lower and Upper House until finally some version of the bill is either passed or not.
A bill from the crossbench can face an even more difficult passage, only allocated a small amount of time amid government business and other responsibilities of the house.
That makes the passage of SA Best Frank Pangallo’s bill to rewrite the laws that govern the state’s anti-corruption watchdog “extraordinary” — the word used by Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) Ann Vanstone herself.
The Upper House MP introduced the bill in late August, it came to a vote in the Legislative Council on Wednesday, and by Thursday evening it had passed Parliament altogether.
There were some amendments made, but not a single MP voted against it.
Concerns about current situation and changes
The bill is the result of a parliamentary inquiry into the ICAC that heard testimony from people who said their lives were ruined by investigations that ultimately resulted in acquittals or charges dropped.
In response to that, the commissioner said it was no different to police investigations and court hearings — an unfortunate but necessary cost of an open justice system.
ABC News: Michael Clements
)She pointed out the changes in the bill went beyond the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, and she raised red flags about provisions that seemed designed to protect politicians.
The bill takes away Ms Vanstone’s ability to investigate maladministration and misconduct, passing those responsibilities to the state ombudsman.
But even Ombudsman Wayne Lines, while happy to take on those roles, has flagged concerns with the bill.
Earlier this week, he told a parliamentary committee the definition of misconduct had been narrowed too far, meaning he would no longer be able to investigate the same kinds of cases he did now.
Like the commissioner, he expressed concerns parliamentary privilege had been overly strengthened to allow it to be used as a shield to hide things from his office.
Both the commissioner and ombudsman gave their evidence to Parliament on Monday, giving politicians less than three days to consider it before voting on the bill.
Silent Liberals had pushed for ICAC
The events of this week are a long way from the arguments of a decade ago, when the Liberal Party, then in opposition, was lobbying hard for an Independent Commission Against Corruption in South Australia.
Labor pushed against it, describing other state’s watchdogs as ‘festivals of lawyers’, suggesting South Australia did not have endemic corruption and saying what did exist could be dealt with by existing bodies.
Supplied: Facebook
)During one attempt to establish an ICAC in Mike Rann’s time as Premier, now-Attorney-General Vickie Chapman told Parliament: “Anyone who purports to suggest that we do not need an ICAC in this state is … crazy.”
Eventually, under pressure from the opposition, and with most other states establishing their own anti-corruption bodies, Labor relented, and in 2013 Bruce Lander became SA’s first Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.
The Liberal Party pushed for it, Labor established it, and now MPs from both sides have voted on laws the commissioner says will cripple it.
In response, MPs will argue the ICAC still does exist, its functions will now be narrowed to focus on the worst forms of corruption in the state rather than wasting time on more trifling matters of misconduct.
But whether it will exist under the auspices of Ann Vanstone is in doubt after she questioned, with such a narrow scope, whether there would be a point to having the agency at all.
