Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Minister's Performance MINISTER'S PERFORMANCE The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:40): Last month, members will recall a major feature in the Sunday Mail, headed 'Jokers in the Pack' with a subheading of 'Ministers with foot-in-mouth disease'. A significant number of this cabinet were listed, in particular, minister Gago from this house—or, as she is referred to by some in the Twittersphere, Lady Gaga. The minister yesterday was asked a question in relation to the appointment of ex thinker in residence Freddie Hansen to the CEO's position of the Urban Renewal Authority and whether it was correct that he had started work on Monday and did not actually have a contract of employment. In response, she launched into her usual childlike tirade, indicating that she did not believe anything that was being claimed in the story, that it was poorly researched, inaccurate and incorrect, and that the honourable member (namely, me, on this occasion) came into this place and just made up stories and 'filled the gap in with whatever he fancies' and 'just pulls it from the sky', etc. I am advised that late yesterday afternoon, after the questions were asked in parliament, an urgent meeting was held in response to the questions raised in parliament where recriminations flew around the room as to who was responsible for allowing Freddie Hansen to commence work without a contract of employment and that, ultimately, crown law was told to resolve the issues overnight, with the intention of trying to get signatures on the contract by as early as today. It is interesting that the minister, having made those childish responses yesterday, made no reference at all to the issue today, and I am sure that is on the basis of the advice that she has received, that the information provided to the house was accurate. Of course, the reason the journalists in South Australia list her as one of the ministers with foot-in-mouth disease is that this is not the first occasion. There are so many recent occasions when the minister has responded in a similar childlike fashion. One can remember the question late last year which asked the minister whether, in fact, she knew the number of staff she had in her own ministerial office. In fact, the question was simply: is it correct that she has added to her staff numbers by about five or six staff by getting the department to pay for them? She said that, again, the member does not know what he is talking about, that he comes into the place and just makes figures up, that he makes things up, that he does not research the information, etc. Again, embarrassingly for the minister, there was a confidential ministerial document that indicated that, in fact, the information provided on that occasion was correct and that, again, the minister was misleading in her response to this place by using that tired response of trying to attack the questioner and the accuracy of the information that was being provided. There have been so many examples of that in recent times. Another example was in March this year, when the question was put to the minister in relation to the discussions she was having with the Commissioner for Public Employment about the termination of Mr Ian Darbyshire from the Tourism Commission prior to the chairperson of the commission having any discussions with the commissioner as well. This was, of course, contrary to assurances the minister had been giving over a number of weeks in relation to this issue. Again, she attacked the questions and the questioner but, again, has not come back into the house and provided any factual information at all to challenge the facts that were put on the record. I go back again to May of last year, when a series of questions was put to the minister about the appointment of a Labor mate—one of her mates—Karen Hannon, to a position on the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. Questions were raised about the background to that appointment and, in particular, whether it was correct that she had applied for a position as a member of the tribunal, had been interviewed by a properly constituted panel and was rejected by that panel some two or three years prior to the question being asked. Again, the minister attacked the questioner but now, almost 12 months later, has still not come back into this chamber and provided any information which challenges the facts that have been placed on the record. Again, this minister stands condemned as a minister with foot-in-mouth disease.