Question Time

TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism a question in relation to the use of taxpayers' money.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In a moment of apparent lunacy, and with the former minister's concurrence, the Tourism Commission's visitor information centre moved out of its ideal premises on King William Street to a dungeon in Grenfell Street. The experiment, sadly, was not success. A private company called Holidays of Australia was contracted by the Tourism Commission to market, book and promote South Australian holidays.

The company alleges (and there seems to be convincing proof) that the commission dudded the company. The promised returns were not there. Holidays of Australia was running at a loss because the commission had oversold its product, and Holidays of Australia believed it had been so seriously misled that it had a legal case for recompense.

The Tourism Commission immediately sent for the Solicitor-General, asking for help. The board members, acting together as a board, took their own legal advice. They went collectively to the firm of Fisher Jeffries and sought advice as to whether they—the members of the board of the South Australian Tourism Commission—were liable under the law.

The opposition today has irrefutable evidence on information that the legal costs incurred by the board of the commission totalled more than $150,000—to be exact, $150,487. That may still not be the end of the story. My questions to the minister are:

1. Did any member of the board of the SA Tourism Commission seek any legal advice regarding the Holidays of Australia contract on an individual basis?

2. If so, did the commission then reimburse the individual board members for those legal fees?

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) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for his important question. With the moving of the visitors centre to Grenfell Street, unfortunately those arrangements fell through, and I have spoken at length about what occurred and the SATC's response to that to assist the owner through that very difficult time. We were able to reach a mutually agreed position in relation to that, and it is a testament to the skill and expertise of the SA Tourism Commission and also of the goodwill of Holidays of Australia that we were able to land on a mutually agreed outcome.

The issue of the contracts at the time was a complex one and it would be irresponsible of the Tourism Commission going through that process not to seek legal advice. It would, indeed, be extremely irresponsible, so that is not an unusual practice at all and, in fact, it is good practice when it comes to what can be complex and very technical contractual obligations, and particularly when aspects of that are in dispute it is absolutely reasonable, and the responsible thing to do is to seek legal advice.

I am aware that the board did seek advice. I have no knowledge of any individuals seeking advice. I do not know the answer to that; that is an operational matter, and that is a matter for the board. I am happy to take that question on notice and bring back a response but, as I said, I would expect that the board receive the legal advice that it needs to make prudent decisions that are in the best interest of South Australians.