HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-02-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

KANGAROO ISLAND SURF FESTIVAL

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:13): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism questions about the KI Surf Festival.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In May of last year, the former tourism minister (the deputy premier) announced a surfing event to be held on Kangaroo Island to replace many of the major events that have been lost by this government over the last few years. This event was open only to those ranked outside the top 32 in the world. The cost to the government was to be $300,000.

The opposition raised questions about the viability of such an event, given the cost of transport to and from Kangaroo Island. We have since learnt that Surfing SA was to assist SeaLink in encouraging people to attend through package deals. SeaLink has graciously agreed to wipe away $70,000 owed to it by Surfing SA.

We now know that the government has had to bail out festival organisers by reimbursing local businesses to the tune of $400,000 for assisting with the festival. My questions are:

1. Why would the government sign off on such an event when its viability was extremely precarious in the first place?

2. Is the government expenditure of $400 per attendee acceptable, given that those attending paid only $75 per ticket?

3. Does the minister consider the spending of an extra $400,000 and the waste of $700,000 a success, as she stated on radio on 8 February? If so, what does the minister consider to be a failure?

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) (16:15): I thank the honourable member for his important question. Indeed, the inaugural KI Surf Music Festival was held on KI in November of last year. The SATC was a major sponsor of that event. I have been advised that the response from locals and other visitors was extremely positive, with the event injecting significant amounts of money into the KI economy.

A post-event debrief reported just under 4,000 attendees with just under $3 million generated in economic impact for South Australia and the value of $3.2 million in national and international media coverage. So, this event was very popular and it was enjoyed by those who attended—and a number of people did attend. It generated a significant economic benefit for the Island.

However, I am advised that it was not until after the event that SATC was made aware of the shortfall of the budget and then during subsequent events that we were informed that a number of local businesses were going to be impacted. The local Liberal member, Mr Pengilly, called on me to provide financial assistance to bail out those businesses.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Called on me to do that. As members would be aware, we provided assistance. There were 16 creditors that were either partly or wholly owned by KI businesses, so a significant number of businesses were going to be impacted, so we assisted with an assistance package of about $400,000. In terms of the due diligence that was undertaken, after discussions going back over two years—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —Surfing SA formally approached EventsSA in early 2011 with a proposal to bring this first world tour surfing event to South Australia. It was proposed that the event be on KI and include a small-scale music festival. Surfing SA is very experienced at running very successful events in the past. They have run numerous events in the past, albeit at a smaller scale than this one, but nevertheless they are an experienced event operator.

EventsSA required Surfing SA to provide documentation on managing issues such as risk, traffic, spectator movement, environment, emergency response and the general event budget before agreeing to sponsor the event. EventsSA required regular event updates and also allocated a project manager who was in weekly contact with the Surfing SA team, as well as holding regular face-to-face meetings.

These updates occurred regularly, and at no time during those updates did Surfing SA indicate that they were having significant budget issues. The first occasion that EventsSA knew that there were budget issues was 10 days after the event. So, that was disappointing because perhaps if we had been informed earlier we could have put some things in place to assist at an earlier stage and help prevent this from happening. I think Surfing SA has learnt a lot out of this episode.

We took this unprecedented step, and of course we considered this issue very carefully. Providing an assistance package to an event that has failed is something that we would think carefully about. We made this decision because of the special circumstances around KI. We know that KI has been in economic difficulties for some time. We know that they have a small ratepayer base and we know that they have huge infrastructure burdens beyond the capacity of their current ratepayer base, and we know that they are faced with challenges to do with distance and such like.

We were advised that the overruns were largely a consequence of things like the short time period that Surfing SA had to organise the event and obviously issues around the remote location, and there were considerable extra costs that they did not anticipate in the infrastructure establishment and such like. We considered the very special circumstances of the island and its economy and the impact that not assisting those 16-odd businesses was likely to have on the economy of the island.

In light of that, we chose to assist with a package of $400,000. As I said, this is in line with the local member Mr Pengilly's calls for government assistance. When we made the announcement, the local Liberal member in fact expressed gratitude and support for the decision, and said what a good decision it was. It is interesting, however, that the Leader of the Opposition came out and said that she in fact did not support our decision and that she thought we hadn't got our priorities straight—hadn't got our priorities straight is what she first came out and said. She then backflipped the next day, mind you, but her first announcement: hadn't got our priorities straight.

What would she have us do? Watch this economy fail even further; watch these businesses hit the wall? Is that not getting our priorities straight? What a callous, indifferent response to make. This is a Liberal electorate, not a Labor electorate. These are not our punters: they are the Liberal Party's. But, even in spite of that, party politics aside, this government has stepped in and assisted these businesses and this electorate, even though it is not a Labor electorate.

What a disgrace for the Liberal opposition leader to come out and say she did not support our assisting them and she believed that we did not have our priorities straight. What a disgrace! What a kick in the guts to all those local businesses and families on KI. What an absolute slap in the face and kick in the guts—a disgrace. I was pleased to see that she did backflip the next day and indicated that she did in fact support the decision but expressed some other concerns. What a disgrace.

As usual, not only does the Liberal Party not have any policies but they cannot even get a position straight. On the same day they have the local member coming out saying one thing and the opposition leader saying another. They cannot even pick up the phone and talk to each other. They cannot even get a story straight relating to assisting the good people of KI, their businesses, their families. No: we did not have our priorities straight—a disgrace.

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