Bills

Police (Return to Work) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I want to speak to clause 1 to give an overview to the bill, and I will speak specifically to the two amendments that I have put up when you call us on those, sir. First and foremost I want to thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate during the second reading. To me, this is a very important debate because it comes down to the fact as to whether or not a government and a parliament are prepared to support police officers in the line of duty. Like the defence forces, police officers, once sworn under oath and given their badge and number—as I have said and other colleagues have supported—have to put their lives on the line 24/7 to look after the South Australian community.

I, therefore, thank all honourable members for their contributions and I thank honourable members for their support. I also want to put a few other points on the record in clause 1, relevant to the overall thrust of the bill. As we know, today there was a significant rally of police officers, their families, friends and the broader South Australian community that sent a message to both the Parliament of South Australia and particularly to the government, that what the government put up is wrong.

What the government put up was legislation that works against the interests of workers simply because, sadly but truthfully, this government has failed to manage WorkCover with the executive of WorkCover over a period of time and now, in order to try to get a reduction in premiums (which we all know had to occur) we have a situation where police officers in this instance—and others, but I am focused on the police—are subjected to totally unacceptable conditions.

I need to correct some of the things that the Attorney-General has said today. Up until this point in time, I have worked probably more closely with the Attorney-General, and so has Family First, than I probably have with any other minister. The least I can say right now is that after what the Attorney-General said today, I am extremely disappointed in the Attorney-General.

I would welcome having a public debate with the Attorney-General on this issue, with members like myself and other parties and the opposition, to actually thrash out once and for all what the government has done in draconian legislation that has now brought us to a point where I am moving amendments to the Police Act.

Let me just put this on the record, because I listened to the transcript, the very long, the very deliberately boring transcript, called at 1.30 by the Attorney-General because he wanted to shut down one of the most important debates that we could have in the parliament right now, and that is about the protection of frontline police officers.

What he actually said, first and foremost, was: 'The Brokenshire bill provides benefits way beyond the old scheme and the new scheme.' I put on the public record that that is incorrect. That is absolutely incorrect, and if the Police Association were to offer their premises, I invite the Attorney-General to come there with me in front of police officers and debate that point.

What this bill actually does is restore the benefits under the old scheme, and those benefits are offset against any new scheme extra entitlements. In other words, all this does is restore to our South Australian police men and women what they had until 30 June this year, that they lost on 1 July. That is all it does.

I expect this stuff from the Premier and I expect this stuff from some of the other ministers, but I have never seen spin like this before from the Attorney-General, to the point where I would actually say that at best the Attorney-General has misled deliberately the media to try to get his angle on something that the government has messed up.

The second point is that the Attorney-General said, 'All future surgeries are covered after giving notice to employer.' Well, Mr Attorney-General—number one legal officer in this state—you are wrong. I have had lots of legal advice on this. You may be the number one law officer in this state, but it does not necessarily mean that you are perfect when it comes to your interpretation of the law, nor indeed are those people advising you. I put on the public record, I have to say that some of those whom I have sat with when I have been trying to get some common sense into the Attorney-General I would say were appalling—absolutely appalling.

'Surgeries must be approved by employer to be paid for into the future, and the application must be made by 1 July 2016.' How is someone supposed to have a crystal ball to know what surgery they will need in five years, 10 years or 20 years' time? And this involves not just surgery but mental health issues as well in the case of police officers. Advances in medical technology may bring about new surgeries which will not be covered. So I ask the Attorney-General when this is debated in the lower house to explain why he said that.

Then it goes on to say in the interview: 'It is an outrageously double dipping solution.' That is again an untruth—an absolute untruth. There is no double dipping. There are offsets with ongoing payments against new economic loss payments which only apply to new claims, importantly post 1 July 2015 in any event. I just want to repeat that: there is no double dipping in this bill; there are offsets with ongoing payments against new economic loss payments which only apply to the new claims post 1 July 2015. I have had significant legal advice on this as well, not just within our own office but from outside within the law fraternity.

Then it goes on to say, 'Police officers are asked to attend a siege.' This is what the Attorney-General said. They are 'asked to attend a siege'. There is a radio call through the government radio network that says, 'Car 54, are you happy to go to that siege?' No, that is not how it works! It actually says, 'Life is at risk and this is a priority one and you go for it.' That is what it says, Attorney-General. Maybe you had better go out on a few police patrols and see what happens in the real world.

The fact of the matter is that they are not asked to attend a siege: they are instructed to attend. SAPOL officers are directed to attend. I have the legislation here about how they go about their oath or affirmation when they are sworn in. I have been to plenty of graduations, as I am sure many other MPs have. SAPOL officers are actually directed to attend, and take on oath that they will serve and protect. They are the only occupation in this state (because I am not talking about Army and Navy here, which are parallel to police on this issue) that have that obligation. They have no choice about putting themselves in harm's way. So, how dare the Attorney-General say that they are asked to attend. What a joke!

I want to finish with the case of Brett Gibbons, a senior constable, according to the Attorney-General (and therefore I can only say on behalf of the government), who has apparently been treated poorly by the Police Association of South Australia. Would you believe that? That is a public comment by the Attorney-General in the media today: that Brett Gibbons has been treated poorly by the Police Association. If it was not for the Police Association representing Brett Gibbons, I do not know where Brett would be.

I have had the privilege of meeting with Brett Gibbons several times, and after the Attorney-General's comments today in the media I spoke to Brett Gibbons. I can tell you : whilst Brett Gibbons is a champion, he is a man of incredible fortitude and someone I admire, he is not there for Brett Gibbons. He is there because he has learnt that this legislation is wrong, and he is working with the Police Association, of which he is proud, to correct a wrong. Brett Gibbons has told me that he is getting full support from the Police Association, and that what he is worried about is his colleagues, current and future, who may have to go on a triple murder (like Brett did) and confront that firearm in their face, having it activated and not having the protection that they deserve. Brett Gibbons is a man of integrity.

Publicly and on the record I say: Mr Attorney-General, you are very wrong. You are incredibly wrong in saying that the Police Association treated Brett Gibbons poorly. In fact, I will say this publicly and challenge the Attorney-General further. Why has the Attorney-General focused only on Brett Gibbons? Why has the Attorney-General deliberately not spoken about Senior Constable Alison Coad? Also, why has the Attorney-General not spoken about the other one in the Police Journal, namely, Senior Constable Brian Edwards? Why has he only focused on Brett Gibbons? I advise the parliament (I do not have the names, nor should I) that those three officers are three of 46 who I have on a list who are subject to being cast on a scrapheap unless the Attorney-General shows some fortitude, supports the Legislative Council and fixes this mess.

The Police Association and Brett are working together to highlight the worst aspects of the return-to-work legislation and, whilst the interim decision issued by SAPOL has potentially delayed cut-offs for Brett, the fact is that his clock is still ticking and he may not reach 30 per cent WPI—and we heard from the Hon. Tammy Franks, as one colleague, that it is a very high bar. In fact, an Olympic triathlete would struggle to jump that high to grab the bar, that is how high it is. I cannot understand how caucus allowed this to happen.

SAPOL have verbally told him that they do not believe he will, once the assessment is made, reach the bar and that he will then be cut off immediately. It really is just delaying the inevitable for him. I talked to Brett out here tonight. I had a good chat to him, and he said to me, 'Robert, it's not even a compromise situation for me.' He knows from the advice he has had that his chances of reaching that bar are nearly impossible. So, I ask the Attorney-General to actually put the facts and the real truth on the line.

I also want to raise one other issue. With your indulgence, Mr President, I will just hold up the 'Police injured and abandoned' article in the Police Journal. The important part about that is it is August 2015. If you listen to the transcript of the Attorney-General today, he says that Brett Gibbons was advised of the so-called stay of execution in August.

Do you know why it was August? What the Attorney-General forgot to tell the public of South Australia was that this journal had come out. This truthful journal with factual stories had embarrassed some people, so there was a bit of movement in the camp—that is what it was about. No coincidence; they knew this was happening before they went in there to give the stay of execution to Brett Gibbons, and Brett Gibbons is still at major risk of never getting the 30 per cent impairment.

I want to just finish on a couple of other points in summing up and thanking colleagues. Apparently, the Police Association had little in the way of discussions with the government, according to the transcript that I listened to from the Attorney-General. Again, untrue—totally untrue. In fact, I put on the public record so that the history is true and correct that the Police Association were out there before the rest of the horses had even gone into the starting barriers to tell the Premier they were not going to accept what was being put up for police.

They did it at their conference. The president, Mr Mark Carroll, made it very clear, so for the Premier to turn around and say that they had not been advocating or fighting for police is again wrong. It has been ratified by executive of the government, and it is absolutely wrong. If you read the second reading of the Return to Work Bill, you will see where I actually put that on the public record back then.

I know that the Hon. Tammy Franks did some good work with at least one union and, at some point in the future, I am sure she will talk about that. From my personal point of view, I had one union—one—that made representation to me about how bad, how draconian, how unfair and how unjust the Return to Work Bill was going to be, and that was the Police Association, and that must be put on the public record.

I want to finish with these couple of points that are probably really questions. Apparently now, the government is saying that the United Firefighters Union for one and the South Australian Ambulance Employees Association were apparently lobbying very hard and protesting against the draconian Return to Work Bill. I ask the government to show me the evidence of that, because I do not know if any of my other colleagues received anything from them, but I received nothing from them. I heard nothing on the radio and watched nothing on the television, and I wonder what really happened.

Interestingly enough, at the time, when you just look at the UFU, there was movement at the station on what was called a single fire service. There were also allegations around that perhaps some people were interested in political positions down the track, so maybe that is why it was all quiet.

It was actually then interesting, because the MFS got a situation from the government where, out of the blue, after all this draconian legislation, they brought in a bill or said they were going to bring in a bill to address a situation that had been missed, and that was carcinogenic, smoke inhalation, cancer-causing issues when it came to MFS firefighters. Leading the charge to then ensure that it was at least equal was the Hon. Tammy Franks—I give her credit for that; it is on the public record; everyone knows it—who said, if it is good enough for the MFS, it is good enough for the CFS.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let's not have the debate. Let's just—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: So there was a bill put up. The point is it was recognised. But my point is a simple straightforward point. There was an anomaly that had to be fixed. The government accepted that anomaly. The full parliament accepted that anomaly and it was fixed. I suggest to the government this is the second anomaly that we are dealing with right now, that is, the injustice to our police, and it can be fixed. It can be fixed between the houses right now.

I say to the Hon. John Rau, and I have said publicly and I say it again, that both the Premier and John Rau, at one point in their working life before they got into parliament, represented police. They obviously got paid for that, which is fair enough, but they represented police, in two things—first, in industrial relations and, secondly, in WorkCover and occupational health and safety issues. They knew very well the risks police run. Suddenly, after years of mismanagement of the WorkCover system, and administration and all the rest of it, they have got to make some draconian decisions so they walk away from the very people they used to represent when they were lawyers and barristers, that is, police officers.

I finish with this on clause 1. Technology can improve certain things, and I see a situation with fire services, I see a situation with medical services, and I am not saying they are not at risk—obviously, I have been out many times on police patrols but I have also been out with ambulances and I have been into the emergency department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital watching what the doctors have to do with ODs and the whole lot—but technology is helping to reduce risk in a certain number of employment situations, careers, but the reverse is happening when it comes to police. We are living in a more complex society. We are living in a society where terrorism is now a real threat. We are living in a society where the unknown is more the norm than it ever used to be.

What I say in summary to that is that things are not going to get easier for police in the future. Things are only going to get tougher. I beg of this government—not the rank and file. If you ask me whether I am disappointed with the rank and file of the Labor government right now, I would have to say: yes, I am. Why? Because many of them come from a union background, and one thing I learnt as a very young child is never forget where you came from. Never, ever forget where you came from.

Unfortunately, I see some—not all—members of the caucus now who have forgotten where they came from, and I see a cabinet who clearly do not actually get involved in the deliberations of this to the depth that we are right now, because some of the ministers—I won't name them: they are doing their bit—are not on top of this and, therefore, I do not think that the Premier (Hon. Jay Weatherill) and the Deputy Premier (Hon. John Rau) were challenged enough by the cabinet.

This wrong could be righted right now. There is an opportunity to fix this. They have made it pretty messy but it still can be fixed between houses. I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for his contributions as well as the Hons Tammy Franks, John Darley, Kelly Vincent and Tung Ngo and my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood for their contributions and support in this chamber but, when it comes to a few of the technicalities, of course, as the democratic process of the Westminster system allows, we can tweak and fine-tune. Rob Lucas has points that I am happy to look at when it comes back from the other house. I am not being presumptuous but, from what I have heard, it is going to go through.

I say to the government: open your eyes, restore your heart, forget about the power and glory on this occasion, admit that you have made a wrong and right it, because the Legislative Council will work with you to right something that the police deserve.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:11): Mr President, I just want to express some concern, I guess. There is no criticism of you or the table staff but there has clearly been a breakdown in terms of the process and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will need to accept responsibility for that. I have been aware of the amendments that have been circulated but clearly a number of other members have not been made aware of them, so there has been a breakdown in the process. I guess that happens on occasion but it leaves us with a bit of a dilemma.

The Liberal Party's position is that we will support the third reading, but we were supporting the amendments that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire had indicated. The amendments were his best endeavours to seek to restrict the scope of the application of the legislation. As I indicated at the second reading stage, my understanding, from discussions with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, was that he agreed with the Attorney-General and the government that there were some unintended consequences of his original drafting; that is, it would apply to a wider range of officers than he originally intended, and he was therefore seeking to move an amendment to reduce the scope. I indicated at the second reading stage that our legal advice was that, in practicality, if it was to become law it would probably be able to be manoeuvred by lawyers not to reduce the scope to the extent that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was talking about, and certainly a number of us would be comfortable with that as well.

Where we are at the moment is, for reasons that are now apparent, that the bill has passed without the amendments even being moved, debated or discussed. I think it would be useful, not during this debate because it is not possible, for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire (perhaps by way of a motion in private members or something next Wednesday) to at least table and explain the detail of the amendments that he was intending to move so that there is, somewhere on the public record, an indication of the precise nature of the amendments that he was moving. That is a completely separate process to this; it cannot impact on the third reading of this particular bill.

It is my expectation, I do not know about the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, but the government may not proceed with the bill in the House of Assembly and therefore the honourable member's amendments may well never see the light of day. At some stage it is for him to get on the public record using some device what it was that he intended in terms of the particular amendments.

In speaking to the third reading, I indicate that the Liberal Party's position is to support the third reading, but our intention was to support the third reading having supported the two amendments that the honourable member was going to move. We did have some questions which I will need to pursue with him privately in relation to work capacity reviews and the impact on both the loss of use payments (lump sum) and the economic loss payments and how that would actually work, which was in part impacted by one of the amendments that the honourable member has got, but we will need to pursue those issues outside this particular parliamentary debate in the chamber.

As the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has indicated anyway, if this is to progress anywhere, the government is going to have to be prepared to enter into further discussions about the issue. If we get to that situation, some of these issues can be further prosecuted. I repeat: the Liberal Party is supporting the third reading but, as I said, we had intended to support the third reading with the two amendments that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire had indicated to us that he was going to move.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:16): Just on a point to put on the public record, I am not into the blame game at all and, if I have to take the blame, I will take the blame. I just advise the house that I will take up what the Hon. Rob Lucas said next Wednesday because these are two important amendments because the government indicated to me that, if I could address or attempt to address them and they could look at them, then there may be an opportunity for them to support the bill.

My instructions—and I made sure that every member of parliament, not only in this Legislative Council but also in the House of Assembly, received a copy of these—were filed on 9 November 2015 and, according to the preparation of parliamentary counsel they were filed at 4.06pm. Notwithstanding that, I am happy next Wednesday to bring them in again to make it clear.

There were two amendments. One was to address a concern that had been raised under the bill that someone might have ongoing entitlements through their injury. An example was used by some people of a toaster falling on them in the kitchen at work or their chair breaking. The concern was that these entitlements should relate to injuries that were caused within the police officer's duty in the protection of the community and, therefore, amendment No. 1 standing in my name was clearly then put in to address that concern.

The second amendment that the government raised concern with, which was filed also on 9 November 2015, was under section 56 of the Return to Work Act where a lump sum can be paid to an injured (but not a seriously injured) worker essentially to compensate them to a small extent for not having ongoing payments and medical expenses. There have been concerns raised if the Police Act amendments go through that the officers will essentially double dip and get the section 56 lump sum as well as the ongoing entitlements, so this amendment clarified that the entitlements must be offset against any section 56 lump sum that is paid.

The PRESIDENT: Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I might just intervene. We are just talking to parliamentary counsel here. If we put this bill on hold for a while, we might be able to sort this out.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sure. Well, I am happy to cooperate with that because my clear instructions to my staff are to check three times, I believe, and evidence here said it was filed on 9 November. I have explained the amendments and, on that basis, I am happy to take it through to the third reading vote and then we can sort it out between the houses. I am happy to do any work needed here on the next Wednesday of sitting.

The PRESIDENT: Parliamentary counsel is going to see if it is on hard copy. My advice from the Clerk is that if you seek to conclude your remarks and then defer on motion that is okay. Then we will recommit it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:20): Thank you for that advice, Mr President. I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.