“We are proceeding on of course, we’re still getting on with the job but I think down the track there are time bombs awaiting us,” she told ABC Radio Adelaide.
“First, there’s a loss of anyone having an overview of the whole integrity landscape in South Australia.
“Before, all the complaints came to the Office for Public Integrity and then they would be farmed out by that office or by me and I had supervision of that office.
“Now complaints and reports are going to the Office for Public Integrity, or the Ombudsman. I see some of them but no-one has that overview. And that’s a danger for public administration in South Australia.”
The controversial legislation slashed the investigative scope of ICAC, with the office only given jurisdiction to investigate matters of serious and systemic corruption.
Misconduct and maladministration are now restricted to the State Ombudsman, with the Office for Public Integrity moved out of the ICAC’s jurisdiction.
Vanstone last year declared the new laws would “severely narrow ICAC’s powers [placing] politicians out of reach” – and accused some MPs of having a “classic conflict of interest” in voting for the Bill, because they were or had been under investigation by ICAC.
Today, she reiterated her concerns, lamenting a lack of “overview” and “strategic intelligence”.
“No one can see where the trouble is,” she said.
“For instance, if we go back a few years, it was Bruce Lander, my predecessor’s insight into a number of complaints about Oakden that led him to realise that something major had to happen there. That was the springboard for that.
“That overview is missing.”
Asked whether, after just a few months into the new laws, there was a reaxjmtzywl risk of corruption in SA going undetected, Vanstone said: “Yes, but also maladministration and misconduct.”
She said while public officers were still required to report suspected potential corruption, they were “no longer obliged to report potential maladministration or misconduct”.
“They were obliged to – if it was serious and systemic – previously, now they can just turn their face,” she said.
Pangallo hit back at Vanstone’s comments, accusing her of “trying to politicise the issue during an election campaign”.
“I just find the timing of her statements a bit odd during an election campaign,” he told .
“If there is serious systemic corruption out there as she seems to think there is, it’s her job, it’s ICAC’s job, to investigate it.”
Pangallo said ICAC still had “very strong coercive powers to investigate serious systemic corruption, nothing’s changed there”.
“The Ombudsman also can investigate complaints of maladministration and misconduct,” he said.
“ICAC needs to concentrate on the serious corruption – that’s the brief.
“Is the Commissioner frustrated there isn’t enough work for her $20 million department?”
Pangallo insisted Vanstone “still has strong powers to investigate corruption if it’s reported to her”.
“Nothing’s changed except misconduct and maladministration goes to the Ombudsman.”
He said “the entire Parliament believes reform was necessary for our integrity agencies because of its performance up until Ms Vanstone’s appointment”.
“There had been miscarriages of justice and questions raised about their investigative and prosecutorial processes,” he said.
“These were highlighted quite dramatically at the select committee into reputational harm and damage by ICAC investigations.
“There are now serious questions being asked in other states about the performance of their respective integrity agencies.”
Pangallo said “nobody seems to want to talk about ICAC’s failed investigations that have cost lives, livelihoods and reputations”.
Asked if her criticisms were no surprise given her powers had been reduced, Vanstone said: “I feel obliged to call it as I see it. I’m not there to defend any particular position.”
“I came in 18 months ago to date and I found a fully functioning terrific organisation doing great work and yes I would defend that,” she said.
“But I have made some changes and I hope they’ve been beneficial. I think they have. I’m not here with a particular axe to grind except that I recognise the value of the work we do.”
Vanstone was also critical of changes made under the legislation allowing offenders to be receive “compensation”.
“Under the old regime, if a public officer was charged with an offence arising out of their work, and no adverse outcome was made against them then they could recover their costs from the government,” she said.
“No adverse outcome meant nothing, no misconduct, no adverse outcome at all.
“Now, if we investigate someone in the public service and they’re charged with an offence which is not a corruption offence… if the DPP decides to charge them with some other offence which better fits the conduct, even if they’re convicted of that offence or offences, even if they go to jail, they can still get their costs back, all their costs, providing the Crown Solicitor says they’re reasonable costs.
