House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Child Protection Department Child Protection Department Ms SANDERSON House of Assembly Adelaide Child Protection Department Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (14:19): Supplementary: how much did Families SA spend on salaries and wages for staff who were on suspension in the 2015-16 and current financial years? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Child Protection Reform Minister for the Public Sector Minister for Consumer and Business Services Minister for the City of Adelaide Child Protection Department The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:19): Obviously I would need to seek some advice about that because I am not presently in a position to say exactly how many people and at what rates of pay those people were operating. What I can say to members is this, and this is a matter which I think might be helpful in understanding the situation in which we all find ourselves: as a matter of appropriate management of staff, it is neither appropriate nor lawful to dismiss people on suspicion without due process. Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The leader is on two warnings. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: If there is a serious allegation made against a staff member, it is entirely appropriate that, depending on the nature of the allegation, perhaps that staff member be moved by the chief executive from a place in which they are perceived potentially to be problematic to another place where they are not going to be problematic, or in other circumstances it may be entirely appropriate that that individual be suspended from service altogether. But there is a significant difference between suspending a person pending the completion of an investigation of allegations against that individual and terminating that person on the basis of an allegation. If a person who is the subject of an allegation, whether it be in the public sector or private sector, is terminated from their employment without due process and without that person being given the opportunity to hear the allegations made against them, to respond to those allegations as they may see appropriate and for their responses to be properly considered and weighed in the balance, that person has the opportunity to seek a remedy against whoever their employer might be, whether that be the state or somebody else. The state, as an employer, is obliged to observe these rules, and the state is an employer that should aspire to be a model employer in particular. I just make the point. I will try to find out the answer to the question in terms of the dollars and the number of people concerned, but let's all be very clear about this: just because an allegation is made against an individual, that allegation may not be substantiated. That allegation may be untrue, it may be malicious, or it may be completely accurate, and appropriate disciplinary action, which might include being shifted about or termination, should occur, but only after due process.