Legislative Council President

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): On 30 November 2011 I tabled two statutory declarations, one signed by Mr Allan Cotton, declaring that Mr Russell Wortley, having involvement in the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union, directly advised him that if he paid a sum of money to the union he would organise a substantial redundancy payment in support of his leaving Sagasco.

He declared that Russell Wortley advised him to make the payment to Danny Moriarty, who in 1995 was the subject of a motion in this very place, which urged the responsible Labor minister to inquire into substantive allegations of conflict of interest in his postings within Sagasco and the union. He declared he paid that money to Danny Moriarty and resigned as intended.

I also tabled a statutory declaration made by Mr David Butler—he was an employee of Sagasco around the same time as Mr Allan Cotton. He declared the union had advised him that he could, after paying a substantial amount to the union, get a better redundancy payment than he had been offered by Sagasco. He declared that his ensuing conversations with the union took place, at least in part, in the presence of Mr Russell Wortley. He then declared that he paid $5,000 to the union. This was placed on a table in front of Danny Moriarty, who threatened him not to open his mouth, and he then received his non-standard redundancy pay.

Later that year he attests that he saw Mr Wortley at a gas company barbeque. Perhaps you may recall the conversation, Mr Wortley, where I quote he said that 'you were a crook and he never wanted to speak to you again'. Some 19 years ago in this very place it was said about Mr Wortley, and his roles in Sagasco and the union:

On every occasion that your duty to your own self-interest and your duty to anybody else for whom you are expected and trusted to act conflicted, you erred on the side of self-interest.

This case was built upon by me, with some very specific examples in November 2011. Until now we have waited patiently for Mr Russell Wortley's response to those salacious but nonetheless well-evidenced allegations.

Last night our former president acted in a way that I believe corroborated the evidence put forth by Mr Redford and me. Some may call it a bizarre or scathing attack, but in any case it was a condemnation of his character and his integrity, which only thickens the cloud which now hangs over his head. Mr Wortley, your own Labor colleague last night implored you to respond to these allegations of 1995 and 2011. The opposition now joins your own Labor side in saying that you can no longer reasonably preclude a response. Even today in question time I asked you and gave you an opportunity to respond to those allegations.

This morning the Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, indicated that the opposition will consider looking to pursue the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in investigating those allegations. I note in particular the royal commission's terms of reference regarding bribes, secret commissions or unlawful payments arising from arrangements between employee associations and any other party. I believe the silence has spoken volumes. He has given us no option than to pursue avenues outside this parliament.

At the time of this alleged activity Mr Wortley had a very healthy salary, a union-paid super, a gratuity of an undisclosed nature, nine weeks per year of service to be paid out when you left (regardless of the reason), private health cover, a clothing allowance, a fully-funded car (renewed every two years), a telephone with full rental and calls, five weeks' annual leave (plus 20 per cent leave loading), rostered days off, a 38-hour week, a 19-day month (and all rostered days off could be accumulated and taken at Christmas time), and sick leave of 15 days per year (which could be taken without a medical certificate). All unused sick leave could be accumulated and paid out each year or all sick leave could be paid out upon the termination of employment.

One of the men you allegedly facilitated payment from was in his mid-30s, married with three children at school and paying off a house. Before he knew it would cost him $5,000, he recalled being delighted by the information that the union could get him 4½ weeks of redundancy pay for each year of service. It was probably more than he and his family had ever seen. The other man who you facilitated taking payment from had to pay the union something in the order of $900. The best he could do was about $700, so he scratched together some 1980 collectible gold coins.

My office visited their homes. They were the homes of hardworking, honest, South Australian families. How the President can sleep with his $260,000 a year salary whilst knowing the situation he put those men and their families in is beyond me. It is now time for the President to come clean and address the allegations that have been made in this parliament.