<!--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="2012-04-03" />
  <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="841" />
  <endPage num="896" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Ministerial Staff</name>
      <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000393">
        <heading>MINISTERIAL STAFF</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-04-03">
            <name>MINISTERIAL STAFF</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-04-03T15:17:00" />
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000394">
          <timeStamp time="2012-04-03T15:17:00" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:17):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industrial Relations a question about the minister's office.</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000395">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="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000396">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Members would have been aware of a story in the weekend newspaper under the heading of 'Jokers in the Pack' and the subheading of 'Ministers with foot-in-mouth disease'. The journalist summarised the quality of the current cabinet in the following terms:</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000397">
          <inserted>However, Labor also has jokers in the pack, due to inexperience, lack of preparation or just plain poor choices.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000398">It went on to say:</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000399">
          <inserted>Mr Koutsantonis and Mr Snelling are not the worst offenders when it comes to 'foot-in-mouth' disease.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000400">
          <inserted>That honour belongs to five other ministers—Tom Kenyon, Russell Wortley, Grace Portolesi, Chloe Fox and [our very own] Gail Gago.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000401">Just on a month ago I asked the minister a relatively simple question about ministerial staff in his office. I pointed out that for a minister with relatively limited portfolio responsibilities he already had 14 full-time staff members, three part-time staff members and his ministerial chauffeur in his office and that he had just proceeded to appoint well-known unionist Mr Jimmy Watson to a position within his ministerial office.</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000402">In response to my questions the minister said a number of things: 'I must say, I don't know the actual title he has got.' That is about Mr Watson's position. Then he said, 'I am not quite sure of the salaries of these people.' That was in relation to how much they were being paid. Nevertheless, a month ago, he said he would take his questions on notice, together with another question about whether or not Mr Watson had resigned from the WorkCover board. He said he had resigned from the WorkCover board, but he was going to check that as well. My questions to the minister are:</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000403">1.&amp;#x9;Does the minister accept that it is a massive waste of taxpayers' money that, for a minister with such limited portfolio responsibilities and talent as himself, he would need 14 full-time staff members, three part-time staff members, a ministerial chauffeur and now Mr Jimmy Watson?</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000404">2.&amp;#x9;Has he now been able to find out the title of Mr Watson's position, and has he been able to find out how much taxpayers are going to pay in terms of total remuneration package to Mr Jimmy Watson?</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000405">3.&amp;#x9;On what date did Mr Watson resign from the WorkCover board? And, if he has resigned, as the minister has claimed, why is he still listed on the WorkCover website as a board member of WorkCover (as of today), and why hasn't there been a notice in the government <term>Gazette</term> confirming his resignation in the two months since the minister indicated he had resigned?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations</electorate>
        <startTime time="2012-04-03T15:20:00" />
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000406">
          <timeStamp time="2012-04-03T15:20:00" />
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:20):</by>  First of all, Jimmy Watson's title is available on the net. To waste the time of this council on a question that can be easily looked up on the internet does not deserve the attention of the minister.</text>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000407">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="36">The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000408">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000409">
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY:</by>  I did notice the article in the<term> Sunday Mail</term>. I must say that, after the first little giggle after reading through the article on the front page, I moved on. More importantly, what is even more relevant to today's political landscape is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has dropped down four points in regard to who would make a better premier. This is more important than the nonsense being asked by Mr Lucas.</text>
        <page num="863" />
        <text id="201204038ee04a13347647d2b0000410">I have spoken to a number of opposition people today, and they are totally perplexed about what to do with their leader. They want to get rid of her tomorrow, but they know darn well they would have to spill blood on the floor, because she has made it quite clear that she is going nowhere, so she would have to be blasted out of the position. Sit there and laugh all you want, but the laugh is on you, because you are the people who have the problem, not me.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>