CADELL FERRY

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:08): I move:

That this council calls on the Weatherill government to—

1. postpone indefinitely the closure of the Cadell ferry service until it has acted upon the further terms of this motion;

2. release the:

(a) cost benefit;

(b) family impact; and

(c) social and economic impact

analysis that was conducted prior to the ferry closure decisions and, if such was not conducted, postpone any such decision until the same has been conducted; and

3. consult and decide within a reasonable time frame on the future of the Cadell ferry service in the Riverland.

No doubt members are aware that the government proposed to close the Cadell ferry (that is not a shock to anyone in this chamber, I am sure) but has recently reversed that decision, I think much to its credit. What a great decision it was for the government to reverse its decision, sir; I thought you would enjoy hearing that. The original motion, which I now propose be amended (in fact, my colleague the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will amend it), called on the Weatherill government to postpone indefinitely the closure of the Cadell ferry service until it released the cost-benefit analysis, family impact analysis, and social and economic impact analysis.

The decision by the government to keep the ferry open is welcomed, applauded even; however, there are some outstanding issues of course. It is of concern that the government should have chosen to announce the ferry closure without any real consultation with the local community. I think that they have acknowledged that; in fact, the words I heard from the Premier appear to acknowledge that aspect directly.

The result has been to create fear in the local community, and there was a huge amount of time spent by locals in lobbying for the decision to be reversed. A great amount of fear was also created in the community, quite apart from concerns about access for locals and farmers who need to move machinery, and access for emergency vehicles. Some locals expected to be without a job as a result of that decision.

There was concern about the local school, which has only a small number of students but, nonetheless, it is very important to those students and the staff, and there was some concern that it might have to close if the ferry closed. There was concern that houses and businesses in the town would also have become unsaleable and that the town would slowly die.

When the survival of a town is at stake, there is more than just economics to consider. I would like to place firmly on the record that Family First opposed the original decision and obviously supports the government's reversal on this. I think it is very much something that should be acknowledged.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:11): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Leave out all words after 'That this council' and insert the following:

1. congratulates the Weatherill Labor government on abandoning its decision to close the Cadell ferry on 30 June 2012;

2. condemns the government for its failure to consult with the local community on the issue; and

3. calls upon the government to table in the parliament its plans and past, present and projected expenditure on the ferries to ensure their continuation in service at Lyrup, Waikerie, Cadell, Morgan, Swan Reach, Walker Flat, Purnong, Mannum, Tailem Bend, Wellington and Narrung.

As I said at the beginning, I congratulate the Weatherill Labor government on the backflip. It is a backflip for common sense, so I want to try to be fair where I can with respect to the comments I am making regarding this amendment. As my colleague Hon. Dennis Hood has already said, Family First was vehemently opposed to the proposal to close the Cadell ferry.

I want to congratulate the hard work of all of the people involved in ensuring that this closure did not occur; the hard work of the local people, particularly of the Cadell region, and the regions beyond including the Riverland; and also the media, both local and state who did a good job in ensuring that the government—particularly cabinet, more so than the backbenchers—woke up to the fact that this decision was nonsensical. When you look through the media, you see story after story, and I want to place a few of them on the record; for example:

I owe my life to ferry. State government putting lives at risk to save just $400,000.

Christine Kipling says she is alive today thanks to the Cadell ferry. Waikerie resident, Ms Kipling, 60, was [unfortunately] one of five young people involved in a car crash with a semi-trailer across the river from Cadell in 1972.

It goes on to state:

If not for the Cadell ferry, the ambulance would have had to travel through Morgan, 10km west, before reaching the crash site and rushing Ms Kipling to the Waikerie Hospital.

That was a tragic set of circumstances. However, it could have been even more tragic had the Cadell ferry not been operating. The Cadell ferry has been the Riverland's lifeline during times of emergencies and natural disaster. The 90-year-old ferry was the only ferry in the Riverland that was able to operate during the 1956 and 1974 floods, which saw rising waters strand vessels at Morgan and Waikerie. It was interesting to see a Sunday opinion piece in the Sunday Mail, which states:

In Cadell's case the cutting of the ferry is the cutting of a community's lifeline...It cuts an escape route in flood and fire; it cuts a life-or-death access route for emergency services and accidents; it cuts a vital tourism artery; it cuts a link to a school that could teeter towards closure if students are forced to go elsewhere.

It further states:

The Labor government's cavalier attitude towards it—no consultation and just three weeks' notice—is similar to its attitude when it planned to shut The Parks.

Then it questions: 'Who cares?' It also states that tourism minister, the Hon. Gail Gago, told a budget estimates committee:

...no-one from that community has raised with me any concerns about the closure.

The article further states:

...tell that to tourism body Destination Riverland which four days earlier sent her a letter outlining their grave concerns. No doubt it would have gone earlier if there had been public consultation.

It further states:

Here's a thought for a government desperate to save $400,000 on the ferry, one that might solve two problems at once—cut back on the [number of senior executive] MPs using chauffeured limousines...

The list goes on and on. Mr McKay, who has both the RAA's mechanical and towing services said that he attends a number of vehicle breakdowns and accidents on the Murraylands road as part of his RAA services, and he estimates that that will only increase if the ferry is closed.

I congratulate Mayor Dave Burgess of the Mid Murray Council, as well as its CEO. They did a strong lobbying job to ensure that this backflip did occur. They said that they had not received any letter regarding the proposal to close the ferry service and had not even been asked for their views or been consulted. Cadell has been through a very difficult time—like most of the Riverland—with low water allocations, drought, low commodity prices, and the list goes on, and the last thing that Cadell needed was its lifeline being cut off.

I want just to finish with one other media comment which I found interesting. I found also a very strong approach by a gentleman called Andre Boers, who is actually a runner for one of the local footy clubs, Willaston A grade. The Premier was in the Barossa Valley region on the Saturday before 20 June. The Premier was there watching the game—Gawler Central versus Willaston—after joining the local member, Tony Piccolo, on his 'tour de Light' on the Saturday morning.

The Premier tossed the coin at the start of the A-grade game. Mr Andre Boers, the runner, after being on the oval and seeing the Premier, ran to the coaches' box and told the Premier what he thought about his decision. That is a very courageous but important thing for any constituent to do. I am sure that the Premier was enlightened on the importance of keeping the Cadell ferry going after the runner delivered a message to the Premier.

Even Dr Dean Jaensch, in the first paragraph of an article in State of the Nation headed, 'Cadell ferry decision a bridge too far', said:

With the AAA rating gone, cuts to almost everything the Treasurer can think of and public sector charges rising, there is no doubt that the South Australian government is in financial and economic trouble. It is no surprise that its razor gang is pressuring every department to find any more areas which are ripe for pruning.

That is where I want to highlight that Family First will be introducing a bill in the near future to ensure that there must be legal consultation if there is to be any closure of a state government road in the future so that we can stop this happening again. Specifically, there will be some words in that bill that I am having drafted to protect ferry services. A ferry is part of a road and it takes traffic from one side of the river to the other. Clearly, without that ferry service, it is a road to nowhere.

Country people deserve to have their fair share of state government revenue spent on them. I find it interesting that, even in 1993 through to about 2002 when the state had to be rebuilt after the State Bank situation, there was never a decision—never, ever—to close a ferry. Times were tough then, but it was always recognised by the government of the day, and the members of parliament, that no consideration whatsoever would be given to doing something as draconian as closing a ferry. South Australia is not part of a third world country and, with proper prudential management, we should not be in the situation we are at the moment.

I ask the chamber: why should an ill-founded decision like this stress out and potentially jeopardise a community, and not only the immediate community but the tourism opportunities and the general economic opportunities that occur? Life can be at risk. They talk about golden minutes in an emergency situation and without that ferry operating a lot more golden minutes would be required to get to an emergency situation.

I am calling on the government to learn from this mistake. I note that the Hon. Patrick Conlon has been blamed for this and he is the fall guy, because this had to go through cabinet. In fact, if this did not go through cabinet, then cabinet is inept. To make a decision to close off a significant state government road by virtue of proposing to close down a ferry and save $400,000 a year is one that should have gone through cabinet and, if cabinet let this one go through, where was cabinet on the day that it was discussed?

The Hon. J.A. Darley interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, absolutely. As my honourable colleague John Darley says, it is in contravention of the strategic guidelines the government put out. I am asking my colleagues here to consider the amendment bill that I will be putting up to the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act to ensure that this does not happen again.

By the way, that $400,000 that they were going to save could have been saved in myriad different ways. There is still a lot of fat and waste in areas that the government does not want to touch. Please look after all South Australians while you are on watch as a government. That includes getting away from this city-centric focus and realising that you must govern for all South Australians. All South Australians are part of this state, from border to border, and that is what government is here for.

I believe—not only do I believe but I know—that this current Premier was critical of the former premier because of the announce-and-defend attitude of the government over the last 10 years or thereabouts. This was certainly announce and try to defend. It was nothing to do with debate and decide at all, and we need proper consultation. If some public servant is going to get some harebrained idea like this to suggest to a minister for the saving of $400,000, there has to be proper consultation and consideration.

In conclusion, I commend and support all my colleagues who also did get in and bat to argue the case for keeping open the ferry. I particularly commend the community and the leadership people. They know who they are and I will not single them out, because there are a lot of them who rapidly got a campaign together. We could have had a rally on the steps of Parliament House today. It would have been a significant rally, but, as a result of a combined effort, today can be more of a day of celebration.

I will leave the government with this one final thought. I am sure, with all the spin doctors they have got, they would be reading the letters to the editor. It was interesting to see in the main papers, The Advertiser and Sunday Mail, that a lot of the letters condemning the government over this were from city people. City people want a fair go for all South Australians. So, if the government thinks it can get away, in the future, with belting a seat that is not a marginal Labor government seat or a seat in Adelaide, they really need to think again. Whilst they may feel that they can single out areas financially and disadvantage them, the people who vote in Adelaide do not agree, and if the government is not careful those Adelaide people will be very, very important in voting out the government in March 2014 at the next election.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.