Grievance Debate

RANN GOVERNMENT

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): I rise today to grieve about a government that is mired in self-indulgence at the expense of the taxpayers of this state. They either do not see or do not care that the people of this state—the hardworking taxpayers whose dollars go into the budget here—are not prepared to see their hard earned dollars wasted on jobs for the boys or girls, the mates of the Labor Party.

Let's look at the two issues we exposed today in question time. First of all, John McTernan, who came out here from the UK to help the government with their Labor campaign. He helped the government in the 2010 election campaign, then what do you know? A few months later he came back suddenly appointed to the wonderful Thinkers in Residence program. What will he do? He will conduct a review into the Public Service.

The Premier in his answer today tried to paint it as 'improving service delivery' but it is just another name for yet another review of the Public Service. They have already had six of them in the nine years that they have been in office. I have not seen any vast improvement yet. Not only is this just another name for another review, but I do not think there is any doubt that this government has managed to have the worst relationship in history with its public sector. Well do I remember the likes of Jan McMahon and Janet Giles standing on the steps of this parliament not too long ago saying, 'You can't trust this government.' What is more, some of the faithful but timid on the other side went out and mingled amongst them to pretend that they were with them in spirit. But did they vote down what their government was doing? No. They just kept on the same way.

We have to remember that this government promised before the last election no forced redundancies, and they brought down a budget that said, 'We might have to reconsider that,' but remember we were then dealing with a treasurer who said on the record, 'Your problem is you do not have the moral fibre to break your promise.' That is what he said, but I digress.

Really, the point is that this government does not recognise—and either chooses not to recognise or simply is too stupid to recognise—a conflict of interest when it hits them in the face and the fact that the public are not prepared to tolerate behaviour of this kind. It is not sufficient to simply say, 'Well, he did come out here to do this job for the Labor Party during the government's election campaign'—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Well, the Premier certainly did not deny it. Isn't that the 'I don't remember' defence? I have heard of the 'I don't remember' defence.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: I have heard of the 'I don't remember' defence on a number of occasions before.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: The point is that it is all just a bit too cosy that someone who comes out to help the election campaign suddenly gets the payoff a few months later of a nice little jaunt to Australia which we, the taxpayers of this state, have to pay an inordinate amount for as if there are not people in this state more than willing and more than competent to help with sorting this out. I seem to remember when this government first came in that they set up an economic advisory board to help them do just that, and one of the very first things that that advisory board said to them was, 'We need to sort out the Public Service.' All these years later—nine years today you have been in government—are you celebrating how well you have done? We have got enormous debt, we have got all sorts of problems; but, again, I digress, Madam Speaker.

Again, with Rowan Roberts' appointment, the problem is not the original payout. If Rowan Roberts was genuinely taking a payout at the conclusion of her service with this government and going to live overseas, no problem—perfectly within the rules and the rules are as the Premier said in answer to the question—but, the point is he was dodging the import of the question. We asked about it last September.

Can I remind him what we specifically asked, because we knew back then that there were question marks over this arrangement. On 30 September last year I asked the Premier whether his economics adviser had received a 16-week payout, which, as I said, was about $37,000, following her resignation. Her position was subsequently advertised, but then not filled—not filled. Now, what does that tell you? Presumably, it means that, first of all, they could not find anyone suitable to fill the position and, secondly, it did not need to be filled because there was no-one needed.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

Mrs REDMOND: It was always known that she was not needed.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Defence Industries.