House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Employee Ombudsman Employee Ombudsman Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley Employee Ombudsman Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:53): Is he still on the government payroll? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Housing and Urban Development Minister for Industrial Relations Employee Ombudsman The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:53): I am happy to answer that question. The answer to that question is absolutely yes. Just so people understand the situation in relation to this matter, the situation is this: the individual concerned holds an office pursuant to statute. That office is an appointed office. It is not in the nature of a contracted position in the normal way that one might have an employee in the private sector. There are no private sector rules; it is a term appointment pursuant to statute. My recollection of the exact mechanism by which an appointment can be brought to an end— Ms Chapman interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I thank the honourable member for Bragg. She confirms my suspicion; she must have had a look at it. My recollection of the matter is, as is the member for Bragg's, that it requires a resolution of both houses of parliament to bring an end to that statutory office. So, there being presently no matter before either house of parliament in relation to that office, nor, might I say, presently would there appear to be what on the face of it would be reasonable grounds for such a thing to be done, we are in a situation where the person concerned continues to hold office and, by reason of continuing to hold office, continues to be paid. I can, by way of information, advise the member for Unley—and other members, if they are interested in the matter—that, as I understand it, there has been some agreement between the individual and the Attorney-General's Department that, having regard to other matters that are going on around the place, it would not be appropriate for that person to attend work or exercise the functions of their job. The fact is, again, given the nature of the job, an option that might perhaps exist in the private sector for a person to be stood down without pay does not exist so, in terms of the ongoing payment to the individual, there is either an awaiting of a resolution of other matters, over which I and the parliament have no control, or one of the fairly dramatic steps that the member for Bragg referred to. Presently, I do not believe there is any known ground for taking such a step.