TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:27): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the Leader of the Government on the subject of the Tourism Commission.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is on the public record now that the minister, together with her legal advisers, was discussing with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment as early as January of this year the issue of the possible termination of Mr Ian Darbyshire from his position and what the minister claims was the related issue of restructuring the full-time chief executive officer position to a part-time chief executive officer position.

My question to the minister is as follows: given the minister was discussing with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and her legal advisers the termination of Mr Darbyshire and the possible appointment of a part-time CEO instead of a full-time CEO in January of this year, did the minister ensure that Mr Darbyshire was advised of these discussions before her meeting with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment in January and, if not, why not?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I think it is just indicative of how incredibly lazy and indifferent the opposition are. The first two questions that we have had in this place are basically questions that have already been answered in this place—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —and rehashed. They are just old questions that are being rehashed. It's a lazy and indifferent opposition that we have in this place and they are a disgrace. They are just a poor excuse for an opposition. No, is the short answer to the question. The conversations I had were obviously of an extremely sensitive nature. I cannot believe that the Hon. Robert Lucas, who is almost the longest-serving member in this chamber—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: He is? I thought the Hon. Mr Dawkins might have been.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No? I beg your pardon. The Hon. John Dawkins just appears to be much wiser than the Hon. Robert Lucas at the moment.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas started when he was in nappies.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, all I can say is that it is a disgrace that he could bring a question of this nature to this place, when he knows only too well that these were matters of a highly sensitive nature. As I have said in this place before—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A very sensitive nature. I have indicated in this place before that we know that a number of agency savings had to be made right across the board, right across government, and that included the South Australian Tourism Commission. We then had the Mid-Year Budget Review where a further $1.2 million in savings was required of the tourism commission. As I have said in this place before, it was obvious to me that there were going to be considerable challenges to be met to be able to meet all those savings within the time required.

I have been quite open in this place about the fact that I have had a number of meetings, obviously confidential meetings of a sensitive nature. They were sensitive because we were looking at ways of making cost cuttings and savings to an agency. Of course the number of people included in these discussions were limited.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Did it include him?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have just said no; I have already answered the question, and I said no right at the beginning. It did not include him, and it did not include him in those early discussions because they were of a really sensitive nature. There were a number of options that I looked at, and I know that Jane Jeffreys was also involved in those discussions. A number of ways of trying to deliver these savings were discussed and considered and, as I have indicated in this place before, those options required other advice to test whether they were viable or doable.

That meant meeting with Mr Warren McCann. We also sought some legal advice, and not just on the position of Ian Darbyshire; as I said, there were a number of other matters that we considered as well as ways of delivering savings. I have been very open in relation to this. I have put all this information on the record in the past. I think it is a lazy and indifferent opposition, one that is just too lazy to come into question time with a new or novel question. They are a very poor excuse for an opposition.