Question Time

TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:23): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism a question about the position of General Manager within the Tourism Commission.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As members would recall, I have a keen interest in the position of general manager, in particular the appointment of one Mr Rik Morris to that position in mid January. Under freedom of information I have been able to obtain some information in relation to that particular position. There were some 20 applicants. I have a copy of the job advertisement, which spells out the job specifications or the job description. There were some 20 applicants, but clearly all names are blanked out other than Mr Morris's. I have a copy of his contract and also a copy of his remuneration package.

Of course, the details have been blanked out, but we are aware that the general manager position is a full-time position, and I think he is being paid somewhere around $150,000. I suspect this decision to advertise for and appoint a general manager was probably made by the former minister (the Hon. John Rau) or during the former minister's tenure. Given the circumstances of the government facing declining revenue and the Sustainable Budget Commission recommendations of a number of cost saving measures, on what basis was the decision made to appoint a general manager in a full-time position of $150,000 a year in the light of the significant financial pressures facing the government?

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) (15:25): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have said in this place before, I think it is disgraceful that the opposition continually comes after people. They name people in this place and—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is disgraceful.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, not everything is disgraceful but every time—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Not at all. What is disgraceful, as the Hon. Ann Bressington is suggesting—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: What is disgraceful is when the reputation of people is significantly impacted on by being named in this place time and time again, where there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in any way, shape or form to suggest anything about the appointment of Mr Rik Morris to the SATC as being untoward—even after the Hon. David Ridgway says he FOI'd the information.

There is nothing—no evidence has been brought here—absolutely nothing. He has gone fishing and he has asked a number of questions in this place before, which I have answered—every one of them. He has FOI'd and that is his right, if he wants to go and waste his money, and yet there is not one skerrick of evidence that has been put in this place by anybody to suggest that there was anything untoward in the appointment of this man—not anything.

That is what is a disgrace, because members come into this place and name people time and time again and there is an innuendo in the way that they are named, an underlying implication that something untoward occurred in his appointment. That is what is implied.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: And that is what I think is disgraceful. I have said in this place before that governments and members of parliament employ people all the time. We employ people from all different walks of life to do all different sorts of jobs. As I have said before, we have even employed journalists from The Advertiser before. People come and people go.

Mr Rik Morris worked for the Rann Labor government and he did an extremely good job, I must add. He did an extremely good job because he is a very bright and capable man. People come and go from these jobs. To suggest that somehow, once you have worked for the government or once you have worked in a parliamentary office, you have no right to win a job anywhere else in the world and, if you do win a good job somewhere else, that somehow something untoward has been done to influence that; that something untoward has happened to enable this man, who is capable and competent, to win—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —a position fair and square. The absolute proper process was done. The FOI material even shows that. All of the proper processes were done and it was absolutely all above board. There was proper and due process and he won the thing on merit—and I am not surprised. I had no idea that he had his hand up for the job; no idea whatsoever. I only found out after the announcement was made that he had been successful; that was when I became aware that he had applied for the position. However, I am not surprised at all that he won such a good job because, as I said, he is a very bright and incredibly capable person. Based on my knowledge from dealing with him he deserved to win such a job.

In terms of staffing matters, they are absolutely matters for the board. The board is independent of the government. They manage their own business through their board and their chief executive. Staffing matters are absolutely matters for the board. The board is independent of the government and manages its own business through the board and the chief executive. Staffing matters and appointment processes are absolutely matters for the board. The organisational structure is a matter for the board; the job descriptions and skill set requirements are all matters for the board. So if the honourable member wants to know on what basis the board made its decision, I suggest he write to the board and ask.