<!--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="2012-03-29" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="785" />
  <endPage num="841" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Tourism Commission</name>
      <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000603">
        <heading>TOURISM COMMISSION</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-03-29">
            <name>TOURISM COMMISSION</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-03-29T14:27:00" />
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000604">
          <timeStamp time="2012-03-29T14:27:00" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:27):</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000605">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000606">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000607">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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women</electorate>
        <startTime time="2012-03-29T14:29:00" />
        <page num="826" />
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000608">
          <timeStamp time="2012-03-29T14:29:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1821">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):</by>  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—</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000609">
          <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="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000610">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:  </by>Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000611">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  —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—</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000612">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000613">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  He is? I thought the Hon. Mr Dawkins might have been.</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000614">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000615">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  No? I beg your pardon. The Hon. John Dawkins just appears to be much wiser than the Hon. Robert Lucas at the moment.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000616">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  The Hon. Mr Lucas started when he was in nappies.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000617">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  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—</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000618">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000619">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000620">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.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. Lucas</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000621">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. Lucas:</by>  Did it include him?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000622">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20120329a2a8bd103ef9472f80000623">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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>