House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Metropolitan Fire Service Travel Allowance Metropolitan Fire Service Travel Allowance Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Deputy Leader of the Opposition Metropolitan Fire Service Travel Allowance Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is to the Premier. Is the government in breach of its legal obligations? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Minister for Energy and Mining The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: the member is seeking a legal opinion, which is out of order. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Deputy leader, did you want to rephrase the question, perhaps? Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr TEAGUE: I will. A question to the Premier: what does the Premier have to say to the house about remarks by the United Firefighters Union recently? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr TEAGUE: On FIVEaa radio yesterday, the United Firefighters Union Secretary, Max Adlam, revealed that some 800-odd claims have not yet been processed after the South Australian Employment Tribunal ordered the state government to pay unpaid travel allowances within 28 days with interest. She said: First of all the Government as employer broke the law, now they've breached the orders that the court gave us. The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:04): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. We have made it very clear at the executive level of the government, within cabinet, what our expectations are of the public sector in terms of the payment of wages and what is owed to all of our public servants. That is a pretty clear principle for a Labor government, I think it's fair to say. There are a number of us who are rather alarmed at the underpayment that was allowed to manifest within the MFS. Obviously, that wasn't a function of any decision that was made around the cabinet table, nor was it a deliberate decision of any senior officer in the MFS. Nonetheless, it represents an act of neglect, which is not satisfactory—and we have made that very clear to all concerned regarding this situation. Of course, the government is committed to make sure that all people within the MFS who missed out on the travel allowance, who should have received it, get that money. It's their money, plain and simple. When a worker earns an entitlement, whether it be wages or an allowance or a penalty, that is their money and they should be paid it. They should be paid it quickly. That is the clear instruction coming from us around the cabinet table. I have been advised by the Treasurer who, I understand, met with the UFU secretary Max Adlam. I think there may have been a discussion with Emily Bourke as well, but I have certainly spoken to the Treasurer about this matter, as the minister responsible for Shared Services, and made it clear that there needs to be a redoubling of efforts within Shared Services and the MFS to make sure that any legal obligation they have is complied with forthwith. On behalf of the government, I am more than happy to apologise to our fireys who have missed out on this allowance; that shouldn't happen, and we have made that clear. With respect to the MFS executive, I will say this—and this is in no way to diminish the shortcomings of this process—I don't think there is any suggestion that there is any sort of deliberate act on behalf of anyone within the MFS executive here. I think this is just a case of poor process, which should not happen, plain and simple, but these things regrettably do happen from time to time, particularly when you employ over 100,000 people. It doesn't make it okay. I am in no way defending it, just simply acknowledging the fact that this is an incident that has occurred due to process rather than any sort of deliberate conscious decision-making with nefarious intent on behalf of anyone within the government. But it does need to be sorted out; it needs to be sorted out quickly in accordance with the order that has been handed down by SAET.