Question Time

TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism questions about support for South Australian companies.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In February, the minister approved the sacking of the Tourism Commission's CEO, Mr Ian Darbyshire. Mr Darbyshire was summonsed to the office of Jim Hallion, the head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, on 2 March and told that his contract would be terminated. That same day, after weeks of duplicitously denying that Mr Darbyshire would be knifed, the tourism minister announced the new CEO, the commission's chair, Jane Jeffreys. Ms Jeffreys would be—and, in fact, remains—both chief executive and chair.

As boss of the board, Ms Jeffreys has overall responsibility for the commission's strategic directions, its goals, its operational performance, industry partnerships and corporate governance. In other words, as the South Australian Tourism Commission chair, Jane Jeffreys has to monitor and judge the performance of the chief executive, who is Jane Jeffreys. This intolerable situation has been tolerated for eight incredible months, which is not credible.

Now, finally, at last the minister is looking for a new Tourism Commission CEO. I have learnt that applications for the position will be advertised in The Advertiser and The Australian newspapers on Saturday. The pay is not bad: well over $300,000 per year, which is more than you get, Mr President, despite your extraordinary talents and capacity for hard work. It is more than the minister herself gets. It demands an understanding not just of the tourism industry but of South Australia's tourism industry. Just yesterday, the Tourism Commission launched the latest phase of its Best Backyard campaign to encourage South Australians to holiday in their home state, with a renewed focus on why locals should holiday at home.

So, what is the employment agency taking care of this recruitment process and the search for the right applicant? It is a Sydney firm called Watermark, a company with its offices in downtown George Street—closer to Circular Quay than to Glenelg, closer to Garden Island than to Kangaroo Island, closer to the Hunter Valley than to McLaren Vale, closer to the Blue Mountains than to the Flinders Ranges, closer to the Opera House than to the Festival Centre and, in fact, closer to Brisbane than to Adelaide—and it is going to take care of choosing our South Australian Tourism Commission chief executive. My questions are:

1. Why did the government not insist on the appointment of a South Australian recruitment firm?

2. Why is it good enough for South Australians to holiday in South Australia but it is not good enough for the commission to search for a new CEO in South Australia?

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) (14:28): Indeed, the honourable member knows that the day-to-day administration matters of the South Australian Tourism Commission are operational matters; it is an independent body. The commission makes the decisions on how it operates and administers in terms of employment and other such practices. They are operational matters.

However, I can shine some light on this matter. My understanding is that the chair, Ms Jane Jeffreys, and the board decided that they would put out an expression of interest for a recruitment firm, with the idea of trying to ensure that they get the best possible firm to assist them in the selection for this very important position. So, they ran an expression of interest, and they did indeed decide on a Sydney-based firm. I have been advised that they were, from that process, the best firm that put in an expression of interest.

There was, I understand, a South Australian firm that did also put in an expression of interest, but this Sydney-based firm competed more favourably. My understanding, in terms of the advice I have received, is that one of the particular advantages that this firm had was that it had some of the best national and international networks for selection. Obviously, what we are looking for is the best talent possible, and we obviously want to look as broadly as possible.

I think that if SATC had selected a South Australian company and selected a South Australian for the position, I could guarantee you that, in the next question time in this place, the Hon. David Ridgway would be jumping to his feet and demanding to know why we are so parochial and why we had not looked further abroad. He would be here in this place criticising us for being too parochial. I could guarantee you that, Mr President; I could absolutely guarantee you that that is what he would be doing.

As I said, these are decisions of the board; they are made independently of me. I don't have input into those decisions; they are operational decisions. As I said, they are an organisation that runs relatively independently of the government, and I don't interfere with those operational matters. The board makes those decisions. They did advise me of the outcome of that, so I am aware of that, and they did advise me of the reasons why that Sydney-based firm competed more favourably than any of the other applicants in relation to the consultancy firm.

I could guarantee you, Mr President, that it would not matter what process they used, what outcome they did or what due diligence was done, the Hon. David Ridgway would be jumping to his feet and whingeing and whining, complaining and criticising the South Australian Tourism Commission, as he always does, because that is his nature. He likes to knock and pull down and destroy and criticise. He does not like to talk up this state, and he does not like to talk up our organisations which are pivotal to the prosperity and long-term financial sustainability of this state.

The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question from the Hon. Mr Lucas.