After weeks of speculation, South Australia's Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) has confirmed he did not give permission for Attorney-General Vickie Chapman to issue a public statement on one of his investigations.

Key points: Bruce Lander says he has not been contacted by police about a potential investigation into the Attorney-General

Bruce Lander says he has not been contacted by police about a potential investigation into the Attorney-General Vickie Chapman made a statement about an ICAC investigation in September

Vickie Chapman made a statement about an ICAC investigation in September He does not believe his investigation has been compromised

In September, Labor repeatedly questioned Infrastructure Minister Stephan Knoll in a parliamentary estimates hearing — under parliamentary privilege — why two senior executives from land development agency Renewal SA had taken paid leave.

Ms Chapman later issued a public statement indicating that she had approached the ICAC to see if there was more that could be said.

During a committee hearing under questioning from Labor MP Tom Koutsantonis today, Commissioner Bruce Lander revealed he had spoken to Ms Chapman about the issue but was unaware a media statement was going to be issued.

The ICAC usually works under the cloak of secrecy but the issue snowballed into controversy for Ms Chapman, after Mr Lander only retrospectively authorised the statement following her office's pleas with media not to publish it.

"I didn't know she was going to make it," Mr Lander told today's hearing.

During questioning Mr Lander said he would be unable to investigate Ms Chapman's statement because he would be a witness.

"I would have thought that was obvious," he said.

"I had the conversation with her… investigating what I said, that wouldn't be appropriate."

He said it had been "publicly asserted" Ms Chapman's statement was being investigated by police, although he had not been contacted over it.

Mr Lander also confirmed he had not sought access to the Crown Solicitor's legal advice, which Ms Chapman believed put her in the clear.

He said "recent events" had not compromised the investigation, although he warned that public disclosure could damage a corruption inquiry.

Mr Lander told the hearing the matters required a sensible discussion.

"I would like to think that any debate around secrecy and my office ought not be influenced by political opportunism or commercial media pressures, but a genuine desire to establish principles that will best serve the public interest," he said.

Questions raised on the Parliament's right to know

Mr Koutsantonis questioned whether it was the Parliament's right to know if an ICAC investigation had led to officers raiding a public building.

"It could have a significant impact on the working of my office," Mr Lander told the committee.

"Does it depend upon whether the disclosure might compromise the investigation? Does it depend on the nature of the allegations or the persons involved?

"Should I inform Parliament of the name of every person who is subject of an investigation — at what stage of an investigation should I inform Parliament?

"What if a person is investigated but it is found there is no corruption? The questions go on and on."

However, Mr Koutsantonis defended his approach to the Renewal SA questions.

"From my perspective, Renewal SA is probably the second-largest government business in South Australia," Mr Koutsantonis said.

"I couldn't even inquire then into the whereabouts of the chief executive, who has a statutory obligation to present himself to Parliament once a year.

"The Opposition did not ask any questions until the Government made public that these people were on leave."

Lander urges ICAC law change

Mr Lander said MPs should consider amending the ICAC Act if Mr Koutsantonis wished to continue raising matters under parliamentary privilege.

"If Parliament is not intending to address the privileges and the right of members to expose corruption investigations, then the Parliament should amend the ICAC Act and do away with the protection against reputational harm," he said.

Mr Koutsantonis said he didn't think it had to "go that far".

"Well, we have to do something, we can't continue as we are," Mr Lander said.

"It's not fair to the general public, it's not fair to the public interest, and it's frustrating the media, who have an obligation to bring this to the attention of the public.