RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation prior to directing a question to the Acting Leader of the Government for an interim period on the subject of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On 7 October last year in the GovernmentGazette, the Rann Labor government announced the appointment of one Karen Marie Hannon as a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for a three-year period commencing on 6 October 2010. In the same gazette the government announced the appointment of Karen Hannon to the position of the Presiding Member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for a term of three years commencing on 6 November 2010, which was one month later.

I understand the position of the presiding member is paid at approximately the equivalent rate to a stipendiary magistrate, which the current GovernmentGazette indicates is $257,000 a year, plus a car. On the same date, the now Acting Leader of the Government on an interim basis but then just an ordinary minister, the Hon. Gail Gago, issued a press statement dated 7 October where she announced the appointment of Karen Hannon. She said she was a former managing partner of law firm Duncan Basheer Hannon. I quote:

Ms Hannon has previously held roles as lawyer and Inaugural Manager of the SA Unions' Workers Compensation Legal Service and Inaugural Director of the Members' Rights Centre for the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union (SA Branch). She is also currently Director of the South Australian Council of Social Services Board.

What the press release does not mention is that Karen Hannon is a Labor mate—amongst other things, was the Labor candidate in 1998 for the federal seat of Adelaide, and is also a personal friend of the minister. I am advised that approximately two to three years ago, in response to an expression of interest advertisement, Ms Hannon applied to be a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. As part of that particular process, all applicants had to be interviewed by a properly constituted panel to judge whether or not they were suitable to be a member of the tribunal.

I understand the particular panel that interviewed Ms Hannon included a representative of the former attorney-general's office. I am informed that Ms Hannon's application to be just a member of the tribunal was rejected by that properly constituted panel. I am further advised that late last year the minister intervened personally and directed that Karen Hannon not only be made a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal but also be given the plum job of Presiding Member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

The Residential Tenancies Tribunal, as anyone who knows, is a very busy jurisdiction. Each member is required to handle or conduct hundreds of hearings a year. This includes the presiding member. I am advised that the former presiding member, Pat Patrick, had handled hundreds of cases on average per year. Generally the presiding member handles the most complex cases for the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

I am also advised that the new presiding member initially advised all and sundry that she would not been participating in or handling any hearings at all. After some pressure, I am advised in the last couple of months she commenced participating in a limited number of hearings. My questions to the minister are:

1. Is it correct that approximately two to three years ago Ms Hannon applied to be a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, was interviewed by a properly constituted panel, and was not successful in her application to be a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal?

2. Did the minister personally intervene and direct that Ms Hannon not only be appointed as a member of the tribunal but also be given the plum job of presiding member? If so, how does she justify to the taxpayers of South Australia the appointment of Ms Hannon to this position?

3. Will the minister take advice on the number of hearings the last presiding member, Pat Patrick, participated in in each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, and how many hearings has the new presiding member, Karen Hannon, participated in for each month since October last year, since her appointment to the tribunal?

The PRESIDENT: Disregard the opinion in the question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:01): This is just a typical example of the Hon. Rob Lucas. It is just so typical of his bitter and twisted outlook on life. Really, he clearly has nothing better to do than to stoop down in the gutter and try to besmirch the good names and reputations of good people.

We see him come into this place time and time again, cowering under the privilege of this place, and in his bitter, twisted and warped way he seeks to besmirch and undermine. It is just disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. It is sort of sad in a way. It is sad, because he is a former, albeit failed, treasurer, but to think that he has come from a position like that to this today is sad, really. I feel a bit sad for him that his career has ended in this gutter-sniping, degrading, low-life position. Nevertheless, we have come to expect nothing less.

As members may be aware, the former Residential Tenancies Tribunal president, Mrs Pat Patrick, resigned in November last year. Pat was appointed as the presiding member in 2000. I take this opportunity to put on the record my appreciation of the tremendous and valuable work she did: she was just marvellous to work with. I really enjoyed the time we had together, and I certainly wish her all the best for the future.

The presiding member must be a lawyer, a resident and also qualified to practise in Australia. The presiding member is also expected to ensure that the tribunal operates fairly and efficiently. The Governor appoints the presiding member, and the process for that is through a recommendation made by cabinet. This is a very typical way that these sorts of positions are appointed. The Liberal government did very similar things in making governors' appointments through recommendations through cabinet for many positions while it was in government. This is a very typical and usual way of proceeding. Cabinet went through that process. It made a recommendation to the Governor, and the Governor did indeed appoint her. I can quite categorically say that I made no direction on any person or persons.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That's untrue, and you know it.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No directions were made. You can't win in this place, Mr President. He comes into this place with lies and innuendo, and then when I seek to correct the record, he just simply refutes it. He has made himself look incredibly foolish yet again. As we know, he comes in here without facts and figures, shoots off his mouth, and he does not care whose name or reputation he ruins. He does not give a flying leap about these good people time and again—good public servants, good people who are committed and work hard for the government. He does not give a flying leap or have any care or concern about these people. It is a disgrace that he cowers under the protections and privileges of this place.

There were no directions made. The recommendations were made in the typical way that cabinet makes these decisions. As I said, cabinet considers applicants and then makes a recommendation to the Governor, and the Governor then appoints. It was made in a very typical way.

Ms Karen Hannon is an eminently suitable person for this role. She has extensive experience in decision-making, legal advocacy and staff supervision. She has been a partner in a firm where she has not only had a legal case load but she also had to manage organisational matters. She has both legal expertise and skill and expertise in managing an organisation's staff and administrative operations. Those attributes were valued highly when cabinet considered these matters.

She also demonstrates a strong commitment to social justice issues, which is again a very important element. I understand that she has a great knowledge of issues related to community housing and also disputes resolution. I was absolutely delighted that she agreed to take up this appointment. She commenced the role on 8 November 2010. I have to say that she has done an extraordinarily good job since then, so I am very pleased to have her on board. As I said, she has done an extremely good job in that position.