<!--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="2013-07-23" />
  <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="4565" />
  <endPage num="4652" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Departmental Executives</name>
      <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000577">
        <heading>DEPARTMENTAL EXECUTIVES</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2013-07-23">
            <name>DEPARTMENTAL EXECUTIVES</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2013-07-23T14:56:00" />
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000578">
          <timeStamp time="2013-07-23T14:56:00" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:56):</by>  I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the minister representing the Premier in relation to chief executive contracts.</text>
        <page num="4601" />
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000579">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="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000580">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  The issue of the contract for the new chief executive for the Department for Education and Child Development has attracted some public attention in the last couple of weeks. An inspection of Mr Harrison's contract at the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment's office this morning and a comparison with the equivalent contract for Mr Keith Bartley, the previous chief executive officer, reveals a number of significant differences.</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000581">Mr Harrison's contract is for five years, while Mr Bartley's was for four; Mr Harrison must be given at least six months' notice about any intention by government to reappoint him, whereas Mr Bartley only had to be given five months' notice; and there is a significant difference in the termination provisions of Mr Harrison's contract. Mr Harrison's contract says:</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000582">
          <inserted>The Chief Executive shall not be entitled to any termination payment if he has a right to return to other employment in the South Australian public sector or if the appointment is terminated to enable him to be appointed to other duties in the South Australian public sector (whether under Section 36 of the Act or otherwise) or if his employment is terminated under Clause 10.1(a).</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000583">Clause 10.1(a) refers to termination where a chief executive becomes bankrupt or becomes an MP or does paid work without the consent of the minister, etc.</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000584">The contracts, however, are similar in terms of the total salary paid; that is, Mr Harrison is to receive a pay increase of just under $100,000 from his previous position (he is to be paid $387,722, to be precise), even though he has, as has been publicly acknowledged, no educational background compared to the comprehensive and significant educational background of Mr Bartley, who had been headhunted by Premier Jay Weatherill of the Jay Weatherill Labor government variety. My questions to the minister representing the Premier are:</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000585">1.&amp;#x9;Can the Premier indicate why Mr Harrison commenced work without an agreed and signed contract between himself and the Premier? The contract that was sighted this morning was only signed on Friday 19 July 2013.</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000586">2.&amp;#x9;Has Mr Harrison resigned from SAPOL and, in particular, does he have the right to return to SAPOL if his position as chief executive is terminated? In particular, I refer the Premier to the provision in his contract that says 'if he has a right to return to other employment in the South Australian public sector'. That particular provision was not in the contract of Mr Bartley and is a different provision to the standard provision.</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000587">3.&amp;#x9;Why does Mr Harrison's contract require him to be given at least six months' notice about any intention to reappoint him compared to Mr Bartley only having to be given five months?</text>
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000588">4.&amp;#x9;Given that Mr Harrison has acknowledged to have had no educational background at all, why is the Premier prepared to pay him $387,722, which is exactly the same remuneration that was paid to Mr Bartley, who had a very significant and comprehensive educational background, according to the Premier?</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 the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations</electorate>
        <startTime time="2013-07-23T15:00:00" />
        <text id="2013072305505c7923f24e79a0000589">
          <timeStamp time="2013-07-23T15:00:00" />
          <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 the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:00):</by>  I thank the honourable member for his questions and will refer them to the relevant minister in another place and bring back a response.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>