HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:22): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to directing a question to the Leader of the Government on the subject of Tourism SA.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On 1 March and a number of other days, questions were directed to the minister in relation to the termination of the previous chief executive and the decision to restructure the position from a full-time CEO position to a part-time position. On 1 March, the minister said:

The decision to restructure was made by the board yesterday afternoon and I was informed of the recommendations that came from the board yesterday evening.

In evidence taken at the Budget and Finance Committee, the Commissioner for Public Employment gave evidence which was in stark contrast to public statements made by the minister on this particular issue. The Commissioner for Public Employment (Mr McCann) was asked a series of questions which related to the termination of the former chief executive and the decision to turn the full-time position into a part-time position.

Mr McCann indicated, when asked when he was first involved, that he had been first involved in January of this year. He had firstly had a meeting with the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Jim Hallion. He then met in January with minister Gago and her legal advisors, being crown law. He then further indicated there were two meetings with minister Gago, and he has gone back to his diary to advise the committee of the precise dates of those particular meetings.

In relation to what was discussed at those meetings with the minister in January of this year, well before the March decision to terminate and restructure, the commissioner was asked the following question, 'if someone was terminated, and what you would have to offer in terms of a contract for a part-time person. So, you provided that technical advice in relation to the contractual provisions.' Mr McCann said, 'Correct, Mr Chairman.' The chairperson said, 'The legal implications of terminating someone...were Crown Law's bailiwick, if we can put it in that particular way.' Mr McCann said, 'Exactly, yes.'

So, the commissioner made it clear in his evidence that there had been a discussion about the termination of the chief executive and the legal implications of that. Advice was provided by crown law, and he provided that advice to the minister, in relation to: if you terminate someone what are the contractual arrangements of such a termination? He was also asked when he first had a discussion with the chair of Tourism SA, Ms Jane Jeffreys. He indicated that was some time later, possibly February or even as late as March, but that he would check his records in relation to when he actually had a discussion with the chair of Tourism SA.

The commissioner has made it quite clear that the sequence was: a discussion with the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and then meeting with the minister and her legal advisers in January, at which time there were discussions about termination and restructuring of the position. My questions to the minister are:

1. Is the Commissioner for Public Employment correct in his evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee that in January of this year the minister was involved with him and legal advisers in relation to discussions on both the termination of the former chief executive and the restructuring of the position from a full-time to a part-time position?

2. Prior to that discussion in January with the commissioner, when did the minister meet or discuss the issue with Mr Jim Hallion, the chief executive officer of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister should ignore the questions to do with the Budget and Finance Committee. I understand that committee has not yet made a report to parliament. The Hon. Mr Lucas would well know that he should not be asking questions on evidence given to the committee when it has not been reported to parliament as yet.

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) (15:27): I thank the honourable member for his questions, although elements of them are obviously out of order. However, I will attempt to provide a response within the parameters that I am permitted. I have not heard anything that is inconsistent with the information I have already put on the public record and that I have already said in this place.

I have already said that the Mid-Year Budget Review resulted in a further $1.2 million saving required from the SATC. The SATC not only incurred a series of other budgetary savings, along with other agencies, but then the Mid-Year Budget Review resulted in a further impost of $1.2 million. I have already put on the record that pretty much from that day, or from that time when I became aware of that additional impost, I conducted a series of discussions and took advice in relation to how on earth we were going to achieve all of those savings, because it was clear to me that it was going to be a very challenging task.

On the afternoon of 29 February, I received a recommendation from the SATC board, which I considered and acted upon. On Thursday 1 March, a joint recommendation from the board and myself was then considered at a special cabinet meeting before being referred to and endorsed by executive council. All of that information is on the record.

I had discussions with a range of people, and I have already put on the record that I had a number of meetings with Ms Jane Jeffreys. I also had discussions with Mr Warren McCann and also Jim Hallion. There possibly were others. As I said, I certainly put my mind very seriously to the issue of how we were going to meet those savings and what strategies and alternatives we might put in place to achieve those.

I looked at a number of different options, or considered a number of different options, and sought advice in relation to the viability of those options, which is, I would have thought, an incredibly responsible and very practical and sensible thing to do. I have been very open and clear in this place: that I had put my mind to that issue for a number of months and that I held a series of discussions with a number of different people to look at ideas and explore the viability of potential options.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT