<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2021-09-22" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="7264" />
  <endPage num="7674" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Data Harvesting</name>
      <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000741">
        <heading>Data Harvesting</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MALINAUSKAS</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Croydon</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-09-22">
            <name>Data Harvesting</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2021-09-22T14:50:35" />
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000742">
          <timeStamp time="2021-09-22T14:50:35" />
          <by role="member" id="5084">Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:50):</by>  My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier had any conversations with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet regarding the Ombudsman's inquiries into the misuse of data?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-09-22">
            <name>Data Harvesting</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2021-09-22T14:50:52" />
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000743">
          <timeStamp time="2021-09-22T14:50:52" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:50):</by>  I am just trying to determine when this issue was raised first which chief executive it was. Obviously, this was a matter of much interest in the public domain and so there quite possibly were conversations. The reality is that we have now had a report by the Privacy Committee into the matters raised—</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000744">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000745">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000746">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  —of the allegations made by those opposite and, I must say, also people within the media. So we now have a Privacy Committee report with findings. We know that that was going to the Ombudsman, because guess what? That was actually included in the report which was tabled. So I am not quite sure why this was such an incredible revelation. The revelation—</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000747">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000748">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Kaurna will cease interjecting.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000749">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  The fantasy world going on opposite is quite extraordinary, and I am quite sure the media won't fall for it.</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000750">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000751">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000752">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  We have had lots of cry wolf type allegations from those opposite before. Let's not forget the allegations—</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000753">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="7588" />
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000754">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Order! The Premier will resume his seat just for one moment. I have indicated now a number of times to the house that the minister, in answering the question, is entitled to be heard in silence. If a member considers that the minister is not answering the question, or is not otherwise complying with standing orders, a member is entitled to raise a point of order in the usual way. There is no occasion for sustained interjection by way of commentary or otherwise. That conduct is disorderly, on my right or my left, and it will cease. The Premier has the call.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000755">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  So the question, just for everybody's refresher, was really about whether or not I had had any discussions with the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet with regard to any Ombudsman's inquiry into this matter. The answer to that is no.</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000756">I did inform the house that there were probably conversations, and I am not sure whether it was with this chief executive or the previous chief executive because it was a matter of great public interest, because there were some very serious allegations raised by those opposite and others. They were investigated. There was a report which was published. It did mention that it would be going to the Ombudsman, so it's no great revelation that of course the Ombudsman has had a look at it. What is of great interest quite frankly today is that the Ombudsman says 'no findings'. In fact, he has been very clear about this matter.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Malinauskas</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000757">
          <by role="member" id="5084">Mr Malinauskas:</by>  He's referred it to the OPI.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000758">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Order, the leader!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000759">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  As to why the Ombudsman referred it to the OPI is a matter for the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, as most members of this parliament would know, has very limited jurisdiction. So there may be issues raised within the Privacy Committee's report that was made available that are well beyond his scope. That would be something for the Ombudsman to make comment on, not me. He appeared before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee.</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000760">Those opposite are asserting there is some inquiry underway. Well, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. The Ombudsman has clarified this, probably in response to some of the inane claims made by those opposite. So he has actually put out a clarifying statement which makes it very clear it is being sent there for assessment—no inquiry—by the OPI. But he also goes further because—</text>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000761">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000762">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER</by>:  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2021092221c1d1e0cf13417c90000763">
          <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL:</by>  —he did make a comment this morning that there had been findings and he made, I think, a very quick response to that being reported but, no, in fact there were no findings whatsoever by the Ombudsman.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>