Worrall, Mr. L.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:44): Yesterday I asked some modest questions about the government's continued employment of Mr Lance Worrall. I pointed out that he had been appointed from his former staff position to a CEO position on more than $300,000. He was then demoted to the position of a deputy chief executive and kept his salary. He was then demoted further, from the deputy position to a project position at the University of Adelaide, and still kept his CEO salary.

It was at that stage that the three government ministers in this house started frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs. I was called a disgrace, a despicable man, a despicable low life, told that I should be ashamed of myself, and a variety of other unflattering descriptors, and also 'the usual gutless attack on individuals who are not here and cannot defend themselves' and 'a baseless gutless attack on an individual'.

The first point to make is that anything I said in this house I have said publicly and am happy to say again publicly. Certainly what is on the record there was reasonable and unexceptional and backed by fact. I point out also to members that Mr Worrall, of course, and anyone else, has the capacity for a right of reply if they feel they have been offended by any member. I also point out that Mr Worrall has appeared before the Budget and Finance Committee himself in the early stages of questioning with his first demotion to the position of deputy chief executive.

Whilst he was there in front of the Budget and Finance Committee I asked his then new chief executive officer, 'What about that huge amount of money we are paying Mr Worrall—has that been reduced?', to which Mr Worrall said, 'You've been so nice to me so far.' I then asked again the chief executive, 'Are you going to renegotiate the sum to reduce that extraordinary amount of money we are paying Mr Worrall?', again, whilst Mr Worrall was there and able to respond, should he have chosen.

In further evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee, I asked the then chief executive, 'What is the department's rationale in continuing to employ a deputy CEO that you no longer need?' Then Mr Knight said, 'That contract is not between myself and Mr Worrall; the contract has been between Mr Worrall and the Premier.' I asked him, 'So ultimately, the only person who can terminate his position, if he so chooses, is Mr Weatherill?', and Mr Knight said, 'Correct'. So, it is quite clear that Mr Knight, who was the then CEO and subsequently lost that position, made it quite clear that he did not have the power to terminate Mr Worrall, and that the only person who could was Premier Weatherill.

The questions I actually ended up putting to the minister yesterday related to what were the total costs to the taxpayer in the current arrangements. I will not go through the detail of those—they are on the public record. One of the reasons is that we do know that the remuneration for Mr Worrall is about $300,000, but from an FOI it would appear that there are some other costs, and the FOI was identifying costs to the department for the secondment of Mr Worrall to the University of Adelaide. In that document there are a range of costs that would appear to be paid by the department.

Taxis and vehicles hire is one example here (there are a number) where Mr Worrall claimed $306.60; accommodation and meals, domestic, one claim for $379.09; mobile phone expenses, $766.50; and publications, books and papers are being claimed, evidently, by Mr Worrall. There are further claims for meals, air fares, of course, domestic air fares and also something referred to as 'staff amenities'—I am not sure what they are—and an individual claim for $159.50, together with a range of other claims for staff amenities.

So the purpose is a genuine one to find out how much money taxpayers are actually paying for the secondment of Mr Worrall to the University of Adelaide in addition to his remuneration and salary package. These are genuine questions. Certainly we take a view that, in the circumstances that have been outlined, the capacity was there to terminate Mr Worrall's position. These are reasonable questions in the interest of taxpayers in trying to minimise the waste and financial mismanagement of the Weatherill Labor government.