HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

TOUR DOWN UNDER

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): It is with pleasure that I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism a question about secrecy and drugs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Tour Down Under is a great event, a great Liberal government initiative, but the Labor Party corrupted the process and the race. It made secret deals with Lance Armstrong. Millions of taxpayers' dollars went to pay this contemptible drug user. The Australian's award-winning sports writer, Patrick Smith, goes further. He calls Armstrong a creep, a liar, a fraud and a bully, as not just part of a drug regime that saturated cycling when Armstrong was at its peak but that culture's bodyguard, its enforcer. While being paid by the South Australian taxpayers, Armstrong campaigned for Labor and its premier, Mike Rann. He called Rann his close personal friend. He urged people to vote for Mike Rann's Labor.

The premier kept secret, even from his cabinet colleagues, how much the lying hypocrite was paid for what appears to be the premier's 'Lance Armstrong slush fund'. Working families in impoverished suburbs, businesses large and small, ordinary South Australians from all walks of life were fleeced through their taxes to pay for this electioneering. My questions to the Minister for Tourism are:

1. The government has legislation to prevent criminals from profiteering from their crimes (for example, it's illegal for David Hicks to take profits from his book) so why won't the Labor Party demand that Armstrong refund the millions of dollars that the then premier siphoned off from South Australians to pay this reprehensible fraudster?

2. How much did the people of South Australia pay the drug addict? Armstrong and his team were provided with a house during the Tour Down Under: how much did we pay for this house; did we stock this house with food and wine; was his private jet serviced and fuelled using taxpayer funds?

3. Why does South Australia not immediately follow Victoria's lead and publicly disclose how much it pays sportsmen and women to compete in that state?

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) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for his questions. The assertions that the honourable member makes are quite irresponsible on a number of fronts. The Tour Down Under is an extremely successful event. It generates roughly around $42 million worth of revenue to this state. It attracts something like 760,000 people who come to attend this race, and a large number of those attending are in fact interstate visitors who, by coming here, spend money on accommodation, food and hospitality. This is a highly coveted event—highly coveted by the other states and, in particular, it is highly coveted by Victoria who would do anything, I am sure, anything at all to take this race from us, as they did our car race.

The performance or attendance money that was paid to Lance Armstrong is commercially confidential. The government uses those attendance fees and arrangements to attract special guests here. There is nothing new about that, we are open about that, and it is not an uncommon thing to do. However, it is commercially confidential information and it is commercially confidential because it would disadvantage our negotiating ability for future events.

What is more, as I said, this is a highly coveted race and Victoria would love to know how much we have offered for special attendances. They would love to know and I am sure they would trump us if they could—and they can. They would love to know that, so we do not divulge the details of those arrangements. We do not divulge them because we negotiate special guests and special performance attendances.

As I said, when entering into future negotiations to divulge what we have paid other special guests would jeopardise and possibly prejudice our position in any future negotiations. That is an irresponsible thing to do because it could end up costing this state significant amounts of money. But even worse than that, it opens it up for those states which covet this race—and it is highly coveted—to attempt to take this prize from us.

I can only reiterate that this race is a highly successful event and it has gone from strength to strength. The special appearance money that we pay various guests from time to time is commercial in confidence; it would be irresponsible for this government to divulge that for the reasons I have outlined and it is for those reasons the details of those contracts remain confidential.

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