BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:59): I move:

That the report be noted.

In speaking to this motion, I want to thank the members of the committee for the hard work they have engaged in over the past 12 months or so. I thank the hardworking and overworked staff member, Guy Dickson, for all the work that he has done. As I have noted previously in welcoming you to the chair, Mr President, I hope that you will show greater respect and regard for the views and decisions of this chamber that you are pledged to represent than your predecessor has done.

As you would be well aware, this chamber has passed a motion calling for the work of the Budget and Finance Committee to be assisted by a full time research officer. Mr President, I hope that you will place greater credence on the views expressed by this chamber in motions that have been passed indicating its desire for greater resourcing for the Budget and Finance Committee. I have put my views on that on the record previously and I will not repeat them again.

I think the work of the committee, as occurs in many other jurisdictions around the world with similar committees, can only be assisted by staff with expertise developing greater knowledge of the subject matter at hand in terms of departmental finances, public sector budgeting principles and policies, so that as new members come before the committee, perhaps not with the background in financial management that some other members might have had, the ongoing wisdom and expertise of the staff can assist those members of the committee in undertaking the role that this chamber has given that particular committee.

The only aspect I would say is disappointing is that there are still some members in this chamber who take the view that this is a bad committee in some way, because it actually works hard at getting to the bottom of financial management practices within government. Virtually every other jurisdiction in Australia has an equivalent body, or bodies, undertaking the same work and Labor and Liberal parties in most of those jurisdictions respect the work of those equivalent bodies, but for some reason the Labor Party in this state seems to have its head well and truly in the sand as it continues to take the view that there is something wrong with having a Budget and Finance Committee in the Legislative Council.

I think the Budget and Finance Committee, through its work, has demonstrated its importance and the need for it to continue, and whether it be under a Labor government or a Liberal government post the 2014 election I am on the record as supporting an ongoing role for the committee. I suspect that should the Labor Party be in opposition after the next election the hypocrisy of its current position in relation to the Budget and Finance Committee will be front and centre, they will become passionate advocates for the importance of a Budget and Finance Committee.

I think it is sad that members of parliament, political parties, only see (sometimes) in the important work of committees a partisan advantage for themselves; that is, when it suits them they think it is a good idea and when it might raise embarrassing and difficult questions for them it is a bad idea, it is not a good committee and not one that should be continued. As I said, time will tell, in relation to the Labor Party, should they find themselves in opposition post the 2014 election.

There are only two issues I want to raise from the work of the committee in particular. One is the issue of cartridgegate, first raised by the committee in September of last year and, of course, it has continued to be an important issue in terms of demonstration of poor financial management practices by the Labor government, its ministers and officers working for them.

I will not go through all the detail of it, other than to say that we are still in the position where the current minister cannot tell media interviewers the total number of public servants being investigated, and certainly the Budget and Finance Committee has still not received details from virtually any CEO (I think there might be one exception) in relation to a resolution of either disciplinary action or police action in terms of the poor management practices—or corruption in some cases—demonstrated by some public servants.

It is now more than 12 months since the Budget and Finance Committee first blew the whistle on this particular issue in terms of the public sector. If it had been left to this Labor government it probably would never have seen the light of day; it had kept it quiet for at least a couple of years. We know that Treasury was aware of it two years prior to the Budget and Finance Committee raising the issue, and there had been no reference.

I repeat also the concerns I put previously: again, in this year's Auditor-General's Report there is no reference to the issue of 'cartridgegate'. It was one of the more significant public sector financial management/corruption issues in the public sector but there is no reference to it in the financial watchdog's annual report to parliament. I have written to the Auditor-General in relation to the need for an independent inquiry and I have called on the government to establish an independent inquiry but that has been studiously ignored by both the government and, it would appear, the Auditor-General.

When we asked chief executive officers—and we had PIRSA there only 10 days ago—they had no recollection of any detailed investigations by the Auditor-General's staff. One officer said that they had been asked for copies of all documentation towards the end of the recent financial year but there was no primary intelligence or research-gathering by the Auditor-General in terms of going in and asking questions, using the powers of a royal commissioner that he has to demand answers, but basically doing a desk audit, collecting copies of documents that had already been collected by some departments.

We know that some departments have not pursued officers who no longer work in that particular department; they have either left the Public Service or they have moved to another government department. We know that some officers who were getting materials and benefits at home have not been queried in relation to those particular practices. The current process of inquiry and management, now under the management of minister O'Brien, has been entirely unsatisfactory, and that is why it is unsatisfactory: the Auditor-General has not adopted a more prominent role.

The second and final issue I want to raise relates to the issue of Public Service cutbacks because that has been an issue of some controversy in recent weeks. Yesterday I highlighted some of the work of the Budget and Finance Committee in relation to minister Gago's own department, PIRSA. Mr President, you will recall that the minister, again leading with her chin, sought to attack the Liberal Party and, in doing so, made the following statement to parliament:

I reiterate that the cuts this government has made and has planned to make are nowhere near the one in four that this Liberal opposition intends to make if it gets into government.

Embarrassingly for the minister, her own chief executive officer, in giving evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, indicated that over the last two years 158 full-time equivalents or 13.5 per cent of PIRSA's workforce had already been cut. Even more embarrassingly for the minister, Mr Nightingale indicated that over the forward estimates this Labor government and this minister were going to take out another 133 full-time equivalents, or another 12.9 per cent of PIRSA's workforce. When you look at how many this minister has actually cut, or intends to cut, it is approximately 25 per cent, or one in four, of PIRSA's workforce, contrary to the statement she gave the parliament.

She was given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the council, to acknowledge she was wrong and to indicate to members in this chamber that she had misled the council but now wanted to clarify the record; it is to her shame that she did not take up that opportunity. In the typical fashion of the front bench in this chamber, all she sought to do was smear and attack the opposition, without looking at her own performance and the statements she had made and whether or not she had misled this Legislative Council on that particular occasion and that particular issue.

Given that our friends in the Labor Party—and I must use the word advisedly—believe that any reduction in the public sector means that that particular party is committed to sacking, we can now say that minister Gago is sacking 25 per cent of PIRSA's workforce. Let us be clear on that: if we follow the language of the Labor Party, minister Gago is committed to sacking 25 per cent, or one in four, of her workforce.

We also know, from yesterday, that the Minister for Health, now using the language of the Labor Party, is committed to sacking 349 health workers from the health portfolio. It would appear from some debate today that it may well be (and we will be able to establish this through the Budget and Finance Committee) that minister Hill is actually committed to sacking up to 1,200 workers in the health portfolio over the last year or so and the next four years.

If that is the language for cuts in the public sector—that is, that a party is committed to sacking, a leader is committed to sacking—then Jay Weatherill is sacking one in four PIRSA workers—fact. And where do we get that from? We get that from the chief executive of minister Gago's own department. Jay Weatherill is sacking somewhere between 349 and 1,200—

The PRESIDENT: Premier Jay Weatherill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Premier Jay Weatherill, the member for Cheltenham, is committed to sacking between 350 and 1,200 health workers. In relation to these things, I have always been in the business of responding in kind when you need to and, if that is to be the language of the debate on public sector reductions, that any reduction is a sacking, with the leader of that party committed to sacking public servants, then let the games begin.

Of course, more sensible members of parliament and observers will know that reductions in the public sector can be achieved through a number of mechanisms: through attrition, through non-renewal of contracts, through targeted voluntary separation packages and, ultimately, through forced redundancies or sackings.

However, if all those are to be collapsed into one, then Premier Weatherill (although I am sure the leaflets will not be saying 'Premier', they will be saying 'Jay Weatherill', Mr President) wants to sack between 350 and 1,200 health workers and 25 per cent, or one in four, PIRSA workers. Let me assure you that every other department that has been through the Budget and Finance Committee has delivered equivalent numbers, and they can be put on the public record as well. The total number is about 4,500 I think, that evidently Premier Weatherill is sacking in the public sector as we speak.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.