"Bressington Defends Frequent Absences" -  (Advertiser 12/09/09)

A more appropriate title for this article would have been "Allegations Of Absences Unsubstantiated". 

It was a busy week with the media - unusual for me - when on three occasions I was approached by reporters stating they had received "anonymous letters" alleging that I:

     ·         neglected my duties due to extended holidays.

       ·         only work 2 days a week and leave parliament early. 

       ·         loved the fact that taxpayers paid for my car, petrol and travel. 

       ·         and that the President of the House had received complaints about me locking staff out of their office, lack of respect for the office of President and poor attendance again.

The Whip and another member of the Labor party were also contacted about my attendances in the House and on committees.  I thank the Labor MP's who did not use this as a political opportunity to make things worse, but who, refuted these claims to the media and  informed me that this "investigation" was underway.  This gave me time to gather the documentation needed to show that all of the above was without foundation. So with an industrial dispute occurring the focus of the story was exactly that rather than disclosing to the public what is an exemplary attendance record since coming into Parliament in 2006. 

Since being elected I have established and sat on a number of inquiries:

     ·         Families SA

        ·         WorkCover

        ·         Office of the Public Trustee

        ·         Primary Industries and Resources of SA

I also elected to sit on other inquiries such as :

     ·         SAPOL

       ·         SA Water

All of this to ensure that I am a well informed representative of the people of this state.  I will not be a "one issue politician" and have taken steps to prevent that from occurring.  These committees all convene during weeks in which Parliament is not sitting, yet it was alleged that during those non-sitting weeks that I only work 2 days. It is necessary to attend briefings, write speeches, prepare and review legislation and of course most importantly meet with constituents and my staff and I work hard dealing with government departments that are causing grief to so many. Working from my home office was a viable option when attendance in Parliament is not necessary, given that all of the equipment to operate a home office was in place before I was elected.  Contrary to the belief that I was a "non entity" before 2006 I was the founder and CEO of a successful drug rehabilitation centre and had a public profile for 12 years prior to my election. This fact is acknowledged in Handsard as the reason Mr. X approached me to go on his ticket. I stress "he approached me".

I pay for the car I drive from my wages, and yes, I am provided with petrol for that car, as well as periodical services, and I pay fringe benefits tax of over $13,000 for that "perk". I take steps to ensure that I pay for any petrol used for non-work related purposes. 

Not so long ago I provided financial details to a reporter from the Sunday Mail's which also showed clearly that I was not rorting taxpayer's money, but again not a mention in that paper about how my funds (thousands of dollars) had been expended on constituent advocacy.

Of course once these "reporters" found that there was no dirt to be uncovered they moved onto a matter that was "strictly confidential" under Industrial and Department of Treasury and Finance rules when disputes are being mediated and hence "all the facts" could not be disclosed. Again the allegations made came from an unnamed "parliamentary source" (although I have a reasonable idea of who that source may be). Industrial disputes are common and it is my understanding that even my former colleague Mr. X had more than one of these disputes in his parliamentary office, I am not sure whether that was reported on or not.

To further add insult to injury this paper then saw fit to place a photo of "my home" in the newspaper, careful of course not to give the address. I informed the journalist that I would have been more than happy to allow him into my home to take a photo of the "home office" (if he had of requested it) just to show that it does exist.  I do not know of one workplace that has not and/or is not having an "industrial dispute" and I could have also provided contact details for other staff members who have left for various reasons who would have vouched for the fact that I am a reasonable and available person to work with, but of course, again, they did not ask.

I appreciate the media have a job to do and it seems keeping politicians accountable is a priority, as it should be.  My problem is that when they uncover good performance and a real effort to do the job that this also should be reported - should it not?  Pollie bashing seems to be the favourite past time of many and I can understand why considering so many people are disadvantaged by the decisions made in our Parliament. Of course the solution to those decisions being made is the people keep us accountable by your involvement in politics. I cannot tell you how many people say to me "I know nothing about politics and when I vote I have no idea who I am voting for, I just tick the box" and therein lies part of the problem.  Democracy only works well when all "stakeholders" play their part and that means voting below the line at every election and knowing who you are voting for.  The major parties rely on the lack of interest and in some cases laziness of people to "just tick a box".

My hope is that the print media in this state take their responsibility seriously and inform the people in SA of the "state of affairs" and injustices that are occurring in areas such as child protection, WorkCover, Police conduct, water, professional conduct of government department employees, protection for whistleblowers and many other issues that cause me concern.