MEMBER'S REMARKS

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (15:30): A few weeks ago we were treated to the marshmallow fist in the velvet glove of the Hon. Robert Lucas in one of his regular pummellings of members of the government, this time concerning the by-election successes of Labor candidates Zoe Bettison and Susan Close. No doubt, his remarks have been read by millions.

According to him, the non-disclosure by Susan Close of her two-year stint as ministerial adviser to the Hon. Gail Gago in a varied working career is a deliberate ploy designed by her to deceive her electorate. The sins of Ms Bettison, according to the confected indignation of the honourable member, are even greater. Heaven forbid that in a lengthy period of employment she has spent this in a variety of union or Labor Party union-related areas.

Evidently, having a degree from a university and an MBA (let alone her background) have no part to play in a rounded view of a person. If you are a member of the opposition, having an MBA would be de rigueur for admission to higher office. Likewise, for the new member for Port Adelaide, it appears that having a PhD, where I believe she places Labor politics under academic scrutiny, let alone her personal history and expertise in environmental issues and policy, are irrelevant to her value and what she brings to politics and governance. We are asked to accept his straw characterisations. What we are witnessing here is petty and ad hominem.

Are we to assume then, according to the honourable member, that the Liberal Party in the interests of a broader recruiting strategy requires their candidates to demonstrate solid union experience to round out their CVs and world view. It would certainly be consistent with the views expounded in the Liberal Way, the philosophical bedrock of the Liberal Party, a platform which is at odds with the prevailing attitude of the honourable member.

What further prompted me to reply to these mutterings of illiberal irrelevance is the CVs of many members of the opposition, but none more so than the honourable member himself. According to his website, the Hon. Robert Lucas is a fully owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party, a Liberal hack (using his preferred terminology). After university and his stint as assistant state director of the Liberal Party, he has been in this council for almost 30 years—beating the runner up, according to my records, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, by about nine years—and he is still going. No wonder the public are not listening. The salient point here is that the Hon. Robert Lucas has never had another occupation, but worse still, he is prepared to bag others for their supposedly narrow CVs as precursor for public office.

However, credit where credit is due. There is little doubt that the Hon. Mr Lucas is their most talented member, so little wonder that it is driving the honourable member to distraction to be spending so much time warming the backbench. Worse still, he does not have the Hon. Leigh Davis to bounce invective and insinuation around as some cynical palliative. Continuing this theme, Liberal members of the opposition past and present in the years from 2002 to 2006 have sat for an impressive total of 147 years, a record that could topple under the singular onslaught of the Hon. Robert Lucas. His performances, nevertheless, interest me—an equal balance of derision and analysis where, at times, the intended purpose of the vehicle is the former not the latter.

On reading his Address in Reply, I assume that the honourable member sees himself as, or implies that he is, some sort of reformer, though the honourable member never precisely argues for or differentiates between what is 'reform' let alone 'radical reform' or 'change'. If he is implying that he is a reformer, then he certainly missed his chance over reforms to the Legislative Council. My understanding of his reformist streak over the last 10 years is that it is marked by its absence. Obviously, any threat to his mountain of superannuation is to be sternly resisted.

In finishing, is all of this grandstanding by the opposition backbencher important? It is only important if you want to further negation and personal denigration as policy, something of a Liberal policy trait these days.