House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Cooper Discoverer Cruises COOPER DISCOVERER CRUISES The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly Stuart The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:41): I move: That this house notes that the proprietor of Cooper Discovery Cruises, Mr Peter Ware, is being unfairly treated and calls on the Minister for Environment and Conservation, and the department, to immediately withdraw the 10 per cent charge on business turnover and allow this important tourist venture to continue. The role of government is not to persecute, penalise or make life as difficult as it possibly can, particularly in relation to small, isolated business activities and particularly when the enterprise is providing a service to tourists in the most isolated part of South Australia. We have someone who has gone up there and constructed a punt to take tourists down the Cooper Creek to enjoy the amenity of the area. Why would we want to have people standing on the bank counting them? Why would we want to make it as difficult as we can for that person? Why would we want to make it hard for him to get a site so that he can put a shed on it when, at the same time, the national parks service constructed a weekender—a very large building on the side of the hill—without any approvals whatsoever? Mr Ware's business activity is seasonal. I understand that the department has said that he is making a profit out of a national park. Heaven help us—what a terrible thing! How can he operate if he does not make a profit? At the end of the day, do we want tourism? Do we want tourism developers to go and do the right thing? Look at all the nonsense that took place at the time of the construction of the new motel units—an outstanding development at Innamincka and great for the tourism industry in South Australia. During winter, a huge number of people move through from Victoria, New South Wales and elsewhere to enjoy the services provided there. What many people do not understand is that people want to travel the Outback, but they also want services, and they want things that they can see and do. Why would we want to charge someone 10 per cent of their turnover? It would be bad enough if it were 10 per cent of their profit, but 10 per cent of their turnover is outrageous. The poor man now faces the threat of debt collectors chasing him out of it. On at least three occasions I tried to ring the person who wrote some of these objectionable letters to Mr Ware, but I could not get an answer. They are in isolation. They are obviously petrified of dealing with the public. I have a quote from a letter that Mr Ware sent out to people. This is what he had to say: ...I have been forced to seize my cruise operation on Cooper Creek at Innamincka. The constant financial harassment from National Parks and the continual demand for 10% on my turnover—which is far greater than the percentage incurred by the majority of operators...combined with a lack of help from Tourism SA over the past six years has forced me into the position of having to cease operations. Unfortunately, there seems to be no incentive to operate in these harsh, remote environments—just very large disincentives...my attempts to negotiate...have all failed. If you wish to pen a letter... He wants people to write to the federal Minister for Tourism and the federal Minister for the Environment in relation to these particular matters. This house should immediately support Mr Ware. We should attempt to convince the minister and those who surround her that common sense should apply. At the end of the day they are claiming some $3,000 or $4,000 from Mr Ware out of a budget of about $12,000 million. If there was a safety issue with the boat—if there was a charge—no-one would object, but that is not the case. It is purely a desire to dip the hands into his pocket no matter what the circumstances or whether it is fair, reasonable or just. This matter goes back a long way. It was of the many outstanding features of minister Kotz. She started it and minister Gago has finished it. Together, they have a lot to be proud of in this exercise. The bureaucrats have continued to dud them. I make no apology for what I said. What has gone on is an absolute public outrage and a disgrace. It is unnecessary and it is contrary to the best interests of the people of this state. We should be actually encouraging small operators to get involved, to create opportunities and more employment. If you stay overnight at Innamincka, it is a nice thing to go down to the creek. Why would you want to plunder the poor bloke's pocket? I think he made a turnover of $50,000-odd. You cannot say that that is a fortune, but there have been National Parks officers in the past—I am not including the current ones—who have done everything they can to harass tourists up there. It is unreasonable behaviour. They are trying to tell people that they cannot camp in certain areas. There have been private operators up there at the hotel and the shops who have done a great job. There is a history of failure to understand the needs of Innamincka. I well recall when they took away those unallocated freehold blocks up there. The local community at the time went to the then minister and tried to convince her that it was a foolish escapade and said, 'Don't do it'. But, no, Sir Humphrey knew best. Well, now there are not enough blocks. If people want blocks they cannot get them. That is one of the hassles that Mr Ware has had. He has to be able to have a base from which to operate. I am calling on this house to show a bit of common sense, a bit of compassion, and to give him a go. At the end of the day, as a small average operator, he is at a great disadvantage when dealing with these people with fixed views. I do not know whether they think they have acted in the best interests of the people of South Australia by driving him out of business. If they think that that is a good outcome, well, I would be appalled. That is the end result. They cannot see that. When you look around and see other operators have had massive financial assistance—which is a good thing that I support—so that they can develop their business and create attractive operations for people to enjoy and utilise, that is a great thing. But why would you want to be so vindictive, so narrow-minded and so out of touch with reality to put him out of business? Then they had a bureaucrat write him letters and threaten him with collection agencies and all those things. Okay, if that is what they want, in my view, they have acted unreasonably. That is why this matter is on the floor of the parliament this morning. What other the alternatives are there? That is why there will be investigations by a parliamentary committee—thank goodness for it. That will take a lot of time. Surely, if the minister was on top of her portfolio and really understood what common sense is, it would never have come to this. At the end of the day, what is $3,000 or $4,000 to the government of South Australia? Is it so important that they get their clutches into this man's pockets and put him out of business, or is it important that they allow a small operator to continue to provide a service to the tourists whom we should be attracting to South Australia? Innamincka is one of the most isolated spots in the community. I have tried very hard to get the government to raise the causeway so that it is not isolated. It will not do that. Sir Humphrey will not provide the money. What you have to clearly understand is that the bitumen road is coming very close to the border coming from Queensland. Do you want everything to go to Queensland, or do you want to have some facilities there to help this community? Mr Ware is only a small operator in part of the year, and they have driven him out. Who will be next? Who will they have their clutches on next? Mr Goldsworthy House of Assembly Mr Goldsworthy: Probably the pub. The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, they gave the pub a pretty hard time when he was trying to put up 24 wonderful motel units to provide a great opportunity. It was a very large investment. There is an excellent shop there. What they should be doing is providing money to seal the airstrip—that is what should happen—so that people can fly in and out and not be isolated. So, I put this on the public record. I look forward to a sympathetic, reasonable response from the government. It has already been brought to the minister's attention in the other place, and she obviously did not know anything about it. There is a poor track record of ministers in the past in relation to this matter, who have been insensitive to the needs of the small operator. I commend the motion to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.