<!--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>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2009-10-28" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3689" />
  <endPage num="3818" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Mccann, Mr W.</name>
      <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000303">
        <heading>McCANN, MR W.</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-10-28">
            <name>McCANN, MR W.</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-10-28T14:49:00" />
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000304">
          <timeStamp time="2009-10-28T14:49:00" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:49): </by> By way of supplementary question, arising out of the answer—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000305">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  I remind members that we have had only three questions in nearly 30 minutes.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000306">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: </by> If the minister is indicating that the government believes Mr McCann was doing such an admirable job as chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, why did the Rann government move him to a position where initially he was managing two people at a salary of well over $300,000 a year?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business</electorate>
        <startTime time="2009-10-28T14:49:00" />
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000307">
          <timeStamp time="2009-10-28T14:49:00" />
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:49): </by> Mr McCann not only served the previous but also the current government for at least five or six years, as is common in these sorts of jobs. There is a time to move on. It is certainly time for the Hon. Mr Lucas to move on. If someone should ever move on, he should, because we know how members opposite regarded his performance as leader. They realised how divisive he is and how damaging he is out in the electorate, so they moved him on. I think that Mr McCann has made his position clear. He has done a very good job for this state, and, clearly—</text>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000308">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000309">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: </by> Because Mr McCann himself may have had some wish in that regard—</text>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000310">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000311">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:  </by>Order! There are too many interjections.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <page num="3710" />
        <text id="200910282e813dfb74094b4480000312">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: </by> —but it is not up to me to comment on that. What I can say is that he has done a very good job. I will certainly acknowledge it and I am sure that the Premier would also be only too happy to acknowledge the significant contribution Mr McCann made. He would not have been kept on, otherwise, as the chief executive following the change of government, nor would he have been kept on for such a significant period, which must have been at least five or six years, maybe longer.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>