Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I might say at the beginning that my contribution will not reflect the size of this bill. It is not likely to do that, but there are some issues that I want to comment on.

Mr Parkinson - That should be a general standard in this place - the larger the bill the smaller the contributions.

Mr DEAN - Is that what you reckon it should be? You set the example with 12 pages of introduction but I will not go down that line.

At times, it is a reasonably nasty sort of game that we are involved in, in Parliament and issues arise from time to time which are very concerning and upsetting and I think have caused a lot of us concern over time. There has to be a brake put on what is seen by some as an open book to do whatever they want to, without repercussions, and this is probably the starting point of that and this bill will get the message across very strongly that we all need to work properly, effectively, honestly, openly and do all of those other things that are necessary of a person in the offices that we hold, and that is good.

One way to put a stop to this is to have a robust system that will provide for a proper and thorough investigation of the circumstances by an independent body not capable of influence or interference or intimidation at government level or by any other department or any other body and that is very important. It will need to be a body, in my opinion, similar to the Queensland model and we are told it is not an ICAC model and I appreciate that, but we do need a body that has the ability to investigate and to do their job without impediment and that is very important.

Wholesale changes were made in Queensland and we are all aware of that when a number of years ago corruption went right through virtually to the top of the Government and went through to the very top of the police service in particular, and there were other people involved, and as a result of that, the country saw significant changes to the way that governments and inquiries would run with the development of the ICAC model in Queensland which, as I understand it, has worked very well, but it is an extremely expensive model from the information I have. They were serious in wanting to get on top of their issues. However, they may still have problems in that State. Thankfully, that same sort of difficulty and problems are not in this State to that level. I would hope not, albeit there have been some ordinary situations arising from time to time.

The position has been exacerbated by the fact that there has not been in place an oversighting structure to investigate complaints of impropriety, misconduct, corruption, call it whatever you like, to take control of issues that are arising within the Government and within the departments at very senior levels and that is the one area in which we have let ourselves down.

When I was in the police service, I continually made comment on the fact that there seemed to be nothing in place at the very top of an organisation to consider issues that were arising from time to time and that did cause me concern. This bill is a start to try to clean up current practices.

The other comment I wanted to make is in regard to the avalanche of material that is currently coming through to us. This is a large bill and I, like many others, would have liked more time to scrutinise this bill and it was not until lunchtime today - I have been through it once already - that I picked up what I think is another fault with the legislation and I have spoken to the government personnel involved in this and, hopefully -

Ms Thorp - Is this the issue about being in writing?

Mr DEAN - Absolutely.

Ms Forrest - Did you pick it up, too?

Ms Thorp - I'm telepathic.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. Hopefully an amendment has been done in relation to that because I have some concerns about it. The point I am making is that I am still picking up issues that I believe should be addressed now. I should imagine there would not be a person in this Chamber who could not read through this bill again and identify parts of it that are difficult and that probably would need some change.

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - honourable member, with your issue about complaints being in writing, you have to be careful that it doesn't disadvantage people with literacy or language issues.

Mr DEAN - I addressed it and there is another way around it which I will refer to in the Committee stage. I think that if it is made verbally it has to be in writing as soon as is practicable thereafter, with assistance.

Ms Thorp - But there are some people intimidated by that.

Mr DEAN - Sure, I accept that, and that is the reason I said 'as soon as is practicable thereafter'. Anyway, we will see just how that amendment comes back if it has been done.

This legislation is not in place forever and a day. It is the start, and I will be surprised if there are not a number of amendments made by members today - and it will get into Committee today. We have a number coming in from the Government as well for this legislation and I am confident that over the next 12 months to two years we will see other changes coming forward in relation to this bill. We need to understand that it is not the case that this bill that we have now will be in place for the next 20 years or 30 years without change or amendment.

Ms Thorp - How often - through you, Madam President - in this place are we dealing with amendment bills?

Mr DEAN - Quite frequently. We just need to be perfectly clear in relation to that.

Since being in this House I have struggled with and been concerned about the allegations, the complaints and the issues that have arisen in relation to misconduct within the Parliament and the Government and within heads of department.

The other thing that causes me some concern and disappointment is the fact that we are not only on the bottom rung of the status ladder, we are about three or four rungs underneath the bottom rung. I would hope that this sort of legislation can improve that position and at least get us back up onto the bottom rung.

Mr Parkinson - Somewhere above used car salesmen and lawyers.

Mr DEAN - Maybe, at least up there.

Ms Forrest - We know where the nurses are though, don't we?

Ms Thorp - And teachers.

Ms Forrest - Yes, right up the top.

Mr DEAN - It is an area of some concern.

Mr Parkinson - Yes, but that is self-interest.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I was challenged to give a quote by the member for Western Tiers and I wonder whose it was, but I guess everybody would have read it. Not everybody agrees with this bill, not everybody agrees with the setting up of a commission. Of course, Greg Barns is one of those and there is another person who was a member of parliament and had a ministerial position who does not agree with it either, and I will make some little comment on that as well.

Mr Parkinson - A very colourful fellow, our Greg, but he has some good ideas from time to time.

Mr DEAN - He does, doesn't he, but he certainly paid out on the commission on the ninth of this month in the Mercury. Some of you might have missed it.

Mr Parkinson - No, I read it.

Mr DEAN - It was covered up under the heading 'Terminal Case of Political Weakness', and he wrote:

'Despite the fact that, except in the heads of a few Legislative Councillors, not one shred of evidence has been produced and forensically tested that shows any systemic corruption in the public sector in Tasmania, as opposed to a few storm-in-a-teacup incidents,' -

'Storm-in-a-teacup incidents'! Whew, he has certainly been -

Ms Forrest - I don't think the public of Tasmania feels that way about those particular incidents.

Mr DEAN - I do not think so. I think that they would see it as a huge storm in a teacup - a huge storm in more than a teacup. I continue to quote:

'the Bartlett Government panicked and has created a monster. Yes, a monster, one where you can be ordered in for questioning about a matter and have no right against self-incrimination; a body that allows its investigators to rifle through your computer, desk and office at any time without getting warrant; a body that can turn your life upside down and cost you a bomb in lawyers, simply because someone for whatever motive says you misused documents or public resources.

And what does misuse mean? Well, just about anything, it seems. The media ought to be a little scared because it seems that one of their favourite sources of government documents, such as Cabinet papers and the like, might dry up. It would surely be a misuse of that document for a senior public servant to give it to a journalist.

And the Integrity Commission, despite the fact that it can ruin your career, recommend criminal charges and generally destroy your reputation, does not have to abide by the rules of evidence. So gossip and hearsay is in, it seems.

This commission will turn itself, like all the others around Australia and overseas, into an overly self-important, leaking, zealous, egomaniacal McCarthyist shop.

The result will be unfairness, destruction of individuals and even suicides.'

So it is a fairly strong comment that Greg Barns has made in relation to the setting up of this commission. I take it from this that he does not like it.

Ms Thorp - I hope that he is not right about the potential consequences.

Mr DEAN - I do not think that he will be right somehow.

He is not the only one, as I said. I did speak to a previous minister in the Government, a longstanding member of the Parliament and a very credible person in the Parliament at the time who is still held in high esteem in this State and throughout the country. He did not see a need for a separate body to be set up at all. He believes that the Legislative Council is the strongest upper House in the land today, and probably in the world and that they have the ability to set up a committee at any time they want to look at any issue that might arise. He believes that is the way to go, that there would be a great deal of credibility in that proposition moving forward.

He said that he had looked at this very closely, he had followed it very closely and he was strongly of the view that that is what should be considered at the end. His view has merit, but as I said to him at the time, the way things were escalating, if that happened the Legislative Council would have no time for anything else because they would be employed full-time on these investigations and nothing else would be done. It has slowed down a little bit now. Anyway, he asked that I mention that and I have done so.

I was also going to refer to the issues concerning the Police Association, which have already been covered by the members for Nelson and Pembroke, and they related to equity in relation to police officers. I am of the view that everybody should be treated fairly and equally, irrespective of where they sit in any organisation. I find it difficult to accept that some have the opportunity to use privilege and to go to the Supreme Court in certain circumstances to have that position supported, whereas others do not. I will be watching that issue and following it fairly closely.

An area that I do not think was touched on by other members was resourcing. When I spoke with the President of the Police Association, Mr Wieringa, some issues arose regarding the resourcing of the police service. There is absolutely no doubt that the police service will be called on in many instances, and more so than others, in relation to investigation and inquiries by the Integrity Commission.

I do not know whether members are aware of it, but where the police take on a role to, say, put in surveillance devices, such as cameras or hearing devices, it normally occupies a team of police. It is not done by one police officer who is able to move in and do it overnight or during the day. It can take weeks and weeks to set up a hearing device and monitor it.

Ms Thorp - It would be fair to say, though, wouldn't it, that it is not going to happen very often?

Mr DEAN - I do not know, and that is why we have to wait and see. That is why I want it on the record and why I am making these comments right at this moment, because it is not covered anywhere. On occasions it will take up to 20-odd police to set up a hearing device, the cameras and all the other things that need to be done. If you take 20 police off the road and out of the service, say for three weeks or four weeks, even three months, that is a huge drain on the police service. It will take vehicles off the roads - and we know that recently, and this year so far, that police have lost a number of vehicles through the need of this Government to ensure that there are budget cuts across all organisations. When the police are required to set up surveillance they do not have huge numbers of these listening devices, cameras and all the other things that are necessary. That means that some of their other functions will be impacted on. Perhaps the Leader may be able to address this in his reply to the debate: will any organisation that is involved - and the Police Service is the best example I can give - be reimbursed for the time, resources, damage to any resources or loss of any equipment, that occurs as a result of an inquiry or investigation set up by the Integrity Commission?

Mr Wing - There doesn't seem to be any provision in the bill for reimbursement if they are called on, under clause 47.

Mr DEAN - I could not find it anywhere. I looked at the section on witnesses and you can see that there is reimbursement there and the covering of expenses for witnesses including, as I understand it, an alleged offender can be covered in certain circumstances - that is in about 98 or thereabouts in the bill. Those sorts of expenses can be recovered and paid, but I do not see anywhere in the bill where it provides for reimbursement of or the covering of expenses or any other organisations that are involved in and brought in to complete investigations for and with the integrity commission. I think that is a matter that needs addressing and I would ask the Leader to address that in a moment, if he would.

The other issue that I have already raised and want to refer to again is an amendment that I will be proposing in relation to how complaints should be made and how a complaint should be taken, and I will talk more about that in the Committee stage. I will also refer to claims of privilege in the Committee stage. They are really the only matters that I want to refer to at this time. I would ask that the Leader, if he could, provide some information relative to any reimbursements that could occur to organisations and departments because it will be a huge strain on the Police Service. The Minister for Human Services, by way of interjection, said it will not happen much, but I am confident it will. Unfortunately it would need only to happen once or twice in a year for it to have a huge impact on police services in some situations. I emphasised it because it is an important issue.

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - In considering this issue, I wanted to be clear on the third reading. I am told that we will be in no position to put forward any amendments during the third reading unless it is new information or evidence that has come to us. I would suspect that it is not new evidence if the amendments we want to make are currently included in the bill as it is presented to us here today. We can hardly go through that over the weekend and say that we have new information now unless we are able to get that.

The way I would read that is that we would be precluded from making any amendments during the third reading. I am not sure if I am right or not and I am seeking advice in relation to that.

Mr Parkinson - Normally, with the third reading you do not make amendments anyway. But matters can be recommitted if necessary. But the plan would be in this case not to do the third reading until next week so that the clerks can consolidate everything, check all the amendments, make sure that it is all correct. Then we come back once everything is in order and checked and so on and Parliamentary Counsel are happy with it et cetera and do the third reading then so that we do not mix up giving the number of amendments. That is the planned process there.

Mr DEAN - Thank you for that information. We need to get it right. I am not so sure that I can support the deferment at this stage and I think that perhaps the position put forward by the member for Nelson is probably the better way to go. I am also aware of what happens when we do rush through things. I think that all members in this Chamber with the exception of the member for Mersey would recall about two, three years ago where the wrong bill was put through.

Mr Parkinson - It was only a short one too.

Mr DEAN - It was introduced through the Assembly and it went right through the system, the wrong bill, a taxation bill as I remember it. That was through pressure of work, being rushed through and the need to fix it very quickly.

That is the sort of thing that can happen. You can overlook issues and very important issues when the pressure is on you to act in such a way. But having said that, I think the member for Nelson put forward a position that satisfies me. We have the committee stage and at the end of that as said we can report progress. So there is an opportunity there as well.

So at this stage I cannot support the deferment.