PP 397

COMMISSIONER FOR KANGAROO ISLAND ACT 2014- REVIEW OF ACT

EIGHTIETH REPORT

OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Published pursuant to section 17(7) & (8) Parliamentary Committees Act 1991

D'ile Hon chael tkinson, Speaker f 7 /O7 2018

Second Session, Fifty-third Parliament

11

COMMITTEE FOREWORD

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertook a review of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act 2014 (CKIA) starting with an exchange of correspondence with the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island, placing a public notice in the Island newspaper and writing to stakeholders. This process started in March 2017 with the information gathering period culminating in a visit to the Island, to hear witnesses, on 12th July 2107.

A total of 29 submissions were received and seven witnesses gave evidence during the Committee's visit to the Island. Submissions and witnesses included key organisations, businesses and community groups providing a cross section of views and ideas. This report reflects the views garnered and the Committee's analyses of the worth, efficacy and progress against goals of the CKIA.

I would like to thank my fellow Committee members for their work on this Inquiry.

The Committee extends its thanks to those who prepared submissions and presented evidence to the Committee over this period. Being able to discuss issues first hand with the relevant stakeholders is most important for the Committee's understanding of the issues.

Hon Tom Kenyon MP PRESIDING MEMBER

21 February 2018

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Committee reviewed the findings of earlier studies such as the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) and the second reading speech of the Minister responsible for the then Bill and now CKIA to understand the historic context and intention of the legislature. Two possible approaches to the review became apparent, a strict section by section analysis and secondly a measure of the success against the broader intent. The Committee has taken a combined approach based on the expressed desired outcomes and the latitude given in the CKIA.

Also apparent was the difficulty for many responding to the Committee of not discerning fully the difference between the CKIA and the work of the incumbent Commissioner. The Committee has endeavoured to make the distinction but concedes it is often the Commissioner’s response to the CKIA and her role that is being considered.

In considering the initial concerns raised in relation to the Bill the Committee is of the view that those fears have not been realised. The precedent for special treatment for other regions (opening the floodgates) did not eventuate. Government agencies have not reacted in a negative manner because there is another agent operating in their field. Though there is a call for better coordination or recognition of their skills. Some duplication will necessarily occur but this is an acceptable by-product of the overall goal.

The CKIA clearly makes Management Plans the method to achieve the coordination and delivery of State services. The Committee was concerned that after two years only one Management Plan has been produced. It is on the topic of housing. This may be a hot topic for the Island and is certainly pivotal in achieving economic growth, employment, etc but Management Plans on the areas suggested in the CKIA and in its genesis should be evident. The Committee suggests that a closer adherence to the requirements of the CKIA is needed ie more Management Plans. Alternatively the Minister can remove the statutory imperative by deleting “must” from section 17 and recognising Management Plans as only one of many methods of realising goals.

The Committee tempered this concern as it considered that the CKIA in detailing the functions of the Commissioner in itself provides a very broad license to; improve the local economy, tourism, industry development, employment and more. This seems to enable the Commissioner to pursue the broad goals outlined by the Minister in the second reading speech.

Accepted, in part, is that in the first two years new systems, networks and processes must be established. Future work is then easier and quicker to achieve. Also that while there may not be a Management Plan for a particular topic much has been achieved in that area. The example provided was tourism; no Management Plan but lots of other tangible outcomes are evident.

Tension and disagreement were evident in some areas with artists and environmentalists critical of the work of the Commissioner. The level of support, for the CKIA and Commissioner, in the business and tourism industry was high. Cooperation with government agencies and the Council in particular was very productive.

The only clear call for an amendment to the CKIA related to state authorities providing a copy of a proposed contract for the Commissioner to consider. Currently section 9 provides that five days is given. Uniformly, submissions suggested that 20 days be provided. The

iv

Committee agrees that the Commissioner should be given at least ten days and more if possible.

A deficiency in the CKIA and not officially compensated for elsewhere is the lack of metrics, measures, benchmarks or performance goals. It was demonstrated to the Committee that various areas are showing growth but it is impossible to attribute this directly to the CKIA or the Commissioner. This may never be attainable given the nature of the role. The Committee acknowledges that the Commissioner has included measures to achieve transparency and accountability to her own activity and this is commendable. However the Committee suggests that the Minister develops metrics.

It can be surmised that as there is no sunset clause but review dates in the CKIA it is the intention for the Act to continue unless evidence to the contrary arises. No alternate model was suggested to the Committee. Only minor amendments were suggested and no fatal flaw was evident. On the contrary the “vibe” was of an Island starting to realise its potential and on the verge of a rise in its fortunes. It is the Committee’s agreed view that the CKIA is of benefit to the Island and the State and is achieving the goals set.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMITTEE FOREWORD ................................................................................................................ ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... v

THE ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELPOMENT COMMITTEE ............................ vi

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE .............................................................................................. vii

TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................... viii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Island .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Duplication ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Precedent .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Justification ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.6 The Act ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.7 Functions of Commissioner ....................................................................................................... 3

1.8 Local Advisory Boards .............................................................................................................. 4

1.9 Management Plans ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.10 Section 9(2) ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.11 Environment, Road safety and the Arts ................................................................................. 6

1.12 Economic activity .................................................................................................................. 6

1.13 Support .................................................................................................................................. 7

1.14 What next? ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.14.1 Transport ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.14.2 Power ............................................................................................................................ 8

1.15 Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.15.1 Local Member ............................................................................................................... 8

1.15.2 Government .................................................................................................................. 8

1.15.3 Local Council ................................................................................................................ 9

1.15.4 Commissioner ............................................................................................................... 9

1.16 End statement ...................................................................................................................... 10

2 References .................................................................................................................................. 11

3 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A: Submissions .............................................................................................................. 13

APPENDIX B: Witnesses 12 July 2017 .......................................................................................... 14

vi

THE ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELPOMENT COMMITTEE

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee (the Committee) is appointed pursuant to the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 (the Act). Membership for the 53rd

Parliament was proclaimed on 6 May 2014. Its membership during the reporting period was:

Hon Tom Kenyon MP, Presiding Member Mr Steven Griffiths MP to 28 March 2017 Mr Eddie Hughes MP Hon Michelle Lensink MLC Hon Tung Ngo MLC Hon Mark Parnell MLC Mr David Speirs MP from 29 March 2017.

During the reporting period the Committee staff was:

Executive Officer: Philip Frensham.

vii

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to section 9 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 the terms of reference for the Committee are:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on such of the following matters as are referred to it under this Act:

(i) any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of the environment might be protected or improved;

(ii) any matter concerned with the resources of the State or how they might be better conserved or utilised;

(iii) any matter concerned with planning, land use or transportation; (iv) any matter concerned with the general development of the State;

(b) to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this or any other Act or by resolution of both Houses.

viii

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act 2014 (CKIA) provides for Parliamentary scrutiny after a period of two years of operation. The CKIA commenced 15 January 2015 (gazettal 15 January 2015 p308) whereas ss 8 to 10 and 15 to 19 commenced on gazettal on 4 June 2015 (p2513).

The relevant section of the CKIA is reproduced:

20—Review by ERD Committee

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament must inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the operation of this Act—

(a) after this Act has been in operation for a period of 2 years; and

(b) at the end of each period of 4 years thereafter.

1

1 Introduction

1.1 The Island

Kangaroo Island is Australia's third-largest island, 112 km southwest of Adelaide. Post whaling the island's economy has been principally agricultural. Recently the mix has broadened from sheep, grapes, honey and grain to include canola, fishing, aquaculture and cattle. Tourism has become the main component of the economy. (submission 23, Tourism KI, p1)

The island’s small population is experiencing slow growth; 4,417 at the 2011 census and 4,702 at the 2016 census. (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/407011145?opendocument) Kangaroo Island is one of South Australia's most popular tourist attractions, attracting over 186,000 visitors each year, with international visitors accounting for more than 25% of these visits.

Kingscote is the largest town and the Island’s administrative centre. Nearly half of the island has never been cleared of vegetation and a quarter of it is conserved in National Parks, Conservation Parks, and five Wilderness Protection Areas with the largest and best-known being Flinders Chase National Park. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Island)

1.2 Background

The potential of the Island not being realised and the reasons for this have been the subject of many debates and plans. Recent history saw The Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) established and one key recommendation emanating from KIFA was for a Commissioner for Kangaroo Island to be established. The Government agreed and the vehicle to implement this was the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act (CKIA).

The second reading speech emphasised the possible additional contribution that Kangaroo Island could make to several targets in the South Australian Strategic Plan. Tourism and farm-gate income being key areas. The Deputy Premier described barriers to meeting these goals. The multitude of State Government services needed coordination and facilitation to compensate for the “lack of critical mass in any of these agencies that can be devoted to Kangaroo Island” (Hansard, HA 8/5/14). As statutory officer, a Commissioner, with the power to establish advisory boards “as he or she sees fit” (Hansard, HA 8/5/15) but with a principal function “to assist in any way with improving the local economy…development of tourism…or in any other way”. (Hansard, HA 8/5/15)

To paraphrase the Deputy Premier the key principles of the CKIA can be summarised as: • improve the management and delivery of services and infrastructure; • assist in improving the local economy; and • prepare management plans.

The functions of the Commissioner to enable this can be summarised as: • power to require information and assistance from government agencies; • an obligation to report to the Minister on delivery of government services and

progress against the gazetted management plans; • obligation to seek the views of the affected parties; Ministers local advisory boards

and local government on drafting the management plans; and

2

• a power to report to the Minister (Premier and Parliament) failure to provide requested information or assistance and any person or body who frustrates a management plan.

During the debate on the Bill the opposition spokesperson (Mr Griffiths) voiced the opinion that CKIA was to “… ensure that the Kangaroo Island community continues to have a direct voice in Cabinet” (following the end of KIFA). (Hansard, HA 16/9/16)

During debate of the Bill the detractors raised several issues, including: • do government agencies agree with this third party (Commissioner) being able to tell

them what to do?; • duplication of effort; and • if representation/special treatment for one geographical area is established the

precedent for other areas claims is created.

1.3 Duplication

The Committee recognised the difficulty for government agencies to be critical of an initiative that is strongly supported by their Minister. Agencies were cautious in any criticism and criticism were mostly restricted to suggestions for improvement. All were from within statements of support. The Natural Resources Management (NRM) Board “…encourages the Commissioner to continually look for ways to work with or through the NRM Board to reduce duplication of effort and delivery and co-ordination of services” and recognised the difficulty of “joining up “of services. Their view was the Commissioner made a positive contribution but would like to see a recognition from the Commissioner of the “broad spread of skills” in the NRM Board. (submission 19, NRM Board, p1) The SA Tourism Commission spoke of a “cordial and productive relationship” while warning that as Kangaroo Island is the most tourism dependent region that is expanding there is a risk of “overlap” and “fragmentation of effort”. They voiced support for continuation of the role, recognising the Commissioner’s enabling of tourism and added “there is some way to go in achieving full coordination”. (submission 25, SA Tourism Commission p1)

The feeling from the local community in regards to the CKIA included comments suggesting that it was a “needless…pretence of helping the Island”. Continuing, that the Commissioner merely duplicates others and asks the (indebted) Council for contributions ($80,000 for 2 years). , This submission included the notion that the Commissioner “should live on the island”. (submission 8 p1) The Committee’s view is that the two days per week on the Island has been accepted by the community. Underpinning this is the necessity for the Commissioner to deal with people and agencies who are based on the mainland. The balance is proving to be correct.

There were some views regarding duplication of effort in a particular field. In submission 11 the role in “economy and management plans” was recognised but considered that for vegetation management she “…impinges upon the roles of others” namely the Native Vegetation Council, DEWNR and KI Council. This was described as “reinventing the wheel”. (submission 11, Eco-Action p1)

Submissions from businesses considered that the CKIA does “not usurp others “and that “government investment is well leveraged”. (submission 18, KI Plantation Timbers p1) This is evident in other sections of this report.

There cannot exist a specific Kangaroo Island section in every agency tasked with attaining the goals set in the State Strategic Plan and various aspirational goals. The Committee’s view

3

is that the role is designed to compensate for the “lack of critical mass” adding the weight of the new role to the existing agencies. (Hansard HA 8/5/14) It is therefore reasonable to expect duplication of effort in that both an agency and the Commissioner must consider the needs of the Island. As will be detailed further in the report the agencies are aware of the infringement on their turf but are not providing examples of waste or friction. The verdict on the raised issue of duplication is that it an inherent problem but one that has not prevented the objectives of the CKIA being met.

1.4 Precedent

The argument that the CKIA will set a precedent and other regions or areas will seek similar responses has not eventuated. The Committee was of the view that this, thin end of the wedge argument was nor very relevant. If other areas suggested a similar response then it would be considered on its merits.

1.5 Justification

The Committee had to consider has the response to concerns relating to the Island been justified. Is it all worth it? This is considered in more detail later in the report in specific headings but the answer from most of the business community is yes. One good summary from a 25 year resident and tourism based business included; “KI is a unique case with low rate base, low socio-economic demographics, geographic isolation and high visitor numbers” and asked for ongoing support. (submission 29, Fine Art KI p1) Another business supportive of CKIA described the CKIA as “a useful experiment, in an isolated community that needs external help of some sort” and referred to the Commissioner as the “co-ordinator in general”. (submission 18, KI Plantation Timbers p1)

Not everyone agreed, with one submission summarising similar views; “no evidence to show an improvement” and we could “spend money on better things”. (submission 28, N Clark p1) This submitter also suggested the Commissioner’s actions do not support locals but only those with gains to be made. (submission 28, N Clark p1)

On balance the Committee is of the view that the CKIA seems to have few detractors. The potential problems raised at the onset have not materialised. The unwritten but often spoken purpose; to stop mainland bureaucrats making decisions without local input and lift the economy have been met.

1.6 The Act

A review of an Act at its most literal is a consideration of the effectiveness of the implementation of the sections of the Act. The Act’s preamble says it is to establish a Commissioner and to provide for the development of Management Plans for delivery of infrastructure. The following is that review and discussion of sections of the Act.

1.7 Functions of Commissioner

Section 8 states the functions of the Commissioner. They are much broader than the preamble suggests and are more in accord with the statements of the Minister in the second reading speech. In relation to government agencies the Commissioner is to, “improve … delivery of infrastructure by government agencies” 8(a) and assist “…residents and business

4

in dealing with government agencies” 8(b). Whereas 8(c) is very broad; “… improving the local economy”. The examples provided in the Act are; “marketing of the Island or products”, “create employment…tourism or other industry development”. This was considered by the Committee to give broad license to the Commissioner. Section 8(d) requires the Commissioner to prepare “Management Plans”. More later. Section 8(e) “any other function …by the Minister” again suggests an intent that the Commissioner’s role is envisaged to be wide ranging and not adhere to a strict prescription of tasks.

Have the suite of functions provided by the CKIA proved effective? The Committee’s conclusion is yes. The following paragraphs will explain why. The Committee has done its best to not let the question be; has the Commissioner fulfilled the functions prescribed? To be the focus of the report. Many of the submissions and other response have made comment on the performance of the incumbent Commissioner. The review of the CKIA and expressing views on the incumbent Commissioner are difficult to differentiate. Most submissions and witnesses included personal accounts of interactions with the incumbent Commissioner. The following report headings provide commentary on both the sections of the CKIA and the issues raised by Islanders.

1.8 Local Advisory Boards

Section 15 of the CKIA provides for the establishment of Local Advisory Boards (LABs). The LABs can be considered a precursor to the Management Plans. Consequently a system of consultation with agencies and locals was determined.

To date the LABs established are; housing, native vegetation and economic development. There is one other in development; arts. The number and focus of the LABs must be a measure of the CKIA success. The CKIA does not provide or suggest a guide to the number. It can be inferred that the CKIA envisages Management Plans on the topics the focus of the Act, such as: economic development, employment, infrastructure, services, marketing, produce and tourism. In isolation counting the number of Management Plans suggest the aims of the CKIA are not being met.

In regard to the requirement for consultation it seems this has been adequately met. Many submissions have commented on the Commissioner’s willingness to listen; “always available and willing to discuss…”. (submission 14, Business KI p1) This is tempered by the comments of others claiming that they have not been listened too or listened too adequately. The key stakeholders are positive in this respect. As example, “Council has substantial involvement in the establishment of local advisory boards and also the review of appointments to those boards.” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p2)

The Committee asked the opinion of the Mayor; why an advisory board on native vegetation rather than “...the council or NRM Board or Department of the Environment would be dealing with…” The Mayor said this was an example of the Commissioner trying to resolve issues and conflicts. The conflict is, roadside native vegetation being preserved against its clearance for road safety, the advisory group seeks the “win win”. (Committee Hansard p6 12/7/17)

5

1.9 Management Plans

Section 17 of the CKIA provides for the preparation of Management Plans. Their aim being to have an agreed coordinated delivery of State services. The principal administrative responsibility of the Commissioner was to develop Management Plans. These would bind Government (submission 18, KI Plantation Timbers). Again the number and focus must be a measure of the CKIA success. The CKIA does not provide or suggest a guide to the number. It can be inferred that the CKIA envisages Management Plans on the topics the focus of the Act, such as: economic development, employment, infrastructure, services, marketing, produce and tourism.

Mr Walkom’s evidence emphasised that the CKIA says that the Commissioner “must” prepare Management Plans (Committee Hansard p 10) and that the legislation should include timeframes. (Committee Hansard p11) Mr Walkom considered they should be mandated (he has suggested 19 Management Plans).

After two years only one management plan is in place; housing. The Committee was concerned that after two years of operation only one Management Plan was in place.

The Committee accepted, in part, the argument that these are early days and establishing the office and initiating systems is time consuming and as in all works, subsequent work is easier and quicker. One local couple saying; “The Commissioner has a difficult task and albeit slow, I understand the issues, problems, and inertia that need to be overcome before results are realised.” (submission 16, Philip and Debbie Clarke p1)

The Committee considered that the Management Plans are a statement of policy and direction but not envisaged as an enforceable document. Mr Walkom’s criticism is valid but does not look broadly enough. Any criticism can be tempered by looking at the broader goals. For instance there may not be a Management Plan for tourism but there is widely recognised progress on this front. Evidenced by the submission from Tourism KI the “peak tourism industry body” who said there was “capacity building demonstrated via initiatives such as KI Transformation Project, supporting the Food, Wine Tourism award and the Beverages Project … all of which have delivered tangible results”. (submission 23, Tourism KI)

In the next reporting period there is a need for a consensus either that Management Plans are the key method of providing the desired outcomes or recognition that the broader goals should prevail and that the Management Plans are part of the process. The Committee suggest that the Minister consider removing the “must’ (in section 17) and replacing it with may or in some way recognising that Management Plans are one method but not the only way to achieve the desired goals. The notions that these are early days and alternate methods have been employed is accepted in this first review period but before the next review more Management Plans need to be in place if the Management Plans retain the statutory “must” imperative.

1.10 Section 9(2)

Section 9 (2) of the CKIA, in full: “A state authority must not enter into a contract of a prescribed kind unless the State authority has provided a copy to the Commissioner and allowed the Commissioner not less than 5 business days to comment on the proposed contract”.

6

Several submissions added a suggestion for an amendment to the CKIA, namely the time period for the Commissioner to comment on proposed contracts should be changed. They said five business days was inadequate and 20 days more appropriate (submission 20, Australian Property Projects p1). Submission 2 suggested more time and made the relevant point “though can be ignored”. The Minister (agency) can choose to take or ignore the Commissioner’s comments. The Committee suggests that as the section delays an agency entering a contract the balance between this significant impost and allowing sufficient time for the Commissioner to make a useful contribution should be better balanced in favour of the Commissioner. Certainly 10 as a minimum and longer for contracts over a certain value. This will also serve to heighten the agencies motivation to consult early.

1.11 Environment, Road safety and the Arts

The heading suggests an unusual grouping but several submissions had two or three of these issues grouped together in their submission. The comments not supporting the CKIA and the Commissioner come from these sectors. As example, submission 5 (R Byass) has “disappointment with the performance of Commissioner…” in regard to “mishandling of the Creative Communities Partnership Program” and her “support of the “Road Safety group”.

Submission 9 went further than saying the arts community is being let down; saying that the Commissioner was a “hindrance”. (submission 9, p1) The allegation that the Commissioner listens to farmers and not scientists regarding the environment was also made. This was echoed in the D’Estrees Entomolgy & Science Services submission where Dr Glatz detailed that he was not considered for “membership of the Native Vegetation Management Committee” despite him being a published scientist in the field and one of two registered consultants on Kangaroo Island able to perform vegetation assessments and calculate offset areas under the Native Vegetation Regulations. Dr Glatz also was of the view that the Commissioner does not communicate with some sectors and prefers to accept anecdotal evidence rather than science/facts. The risk is “…shortcomings mean that KI will likely become a more expensive version of the mainland”. (submission 10, D’Estrees Entomolgy & Science Services p4)

It is possible to dismiss some complaints as about the personalities involved, but not all. Discussion on these issues led to the Committee concluding whatever the merits of the complaints the best course of action was to encourage the Commissioner to extend the olive branch to those feeling disenfranchised. It is noticeable that the disgruntled are in the minority and the list of supporters is longer. It may seem too obvious to state but the evidence does suggest support coming from the beneficiaries of the Commissioner’s actions and negative comments from those who are not beneficiaries.

As there is a LAB on native vegetation with a few meeting now held and a nascent LAB on arts it is apparent that the Commissioner is addressing these areas.

1.12 Economic activity

Another key aim of the CKIA was to enhance economic activity on the Island. No specific metrics are provided for the measure of this. The evidence received suggested that this goal was being met. The government’s submissions stated that there was an increase in economic activity on the Island. (submission 7, DPTI p1) For instance, “… significant uplift in the economy of Kangaroo Island, albeit at an early stage. We have between $150 million and $200 million worth of projects in the pipeline.” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p3)

7

As in other goals the Committee was reminded that there are lead times for projects and inherently for the effect of the CKIA. The Mayor summarised this, “… the commissioner will be replicating a process, rather than working to establish a process with the new legislation, thereby increasing the productivity of her work.” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p3)

1.13 Support

There were many statements of support for the CKIA such as; “… the legislation and resultant administration is effective, efficient and worthy of ongoing support”. (submission 3. p1) Many of the submissions mixed comments on the Act or the ideas behind the Act with comments about the incumbent Commissioner. This included the Federal Member for Mayo“…support of the achievements and ongoing work the Commissioner has achieved to date” and identified housing as an area the Commissioner has identified and addressed as an example of the advocacy and support for people of Kangaroo Island. (submission 4, Federal Member for Mayo p1 S4) This support ranged from big players to a coordinator of volunteers who said the Commissioner’s “information and support provided to be unstinting”. (submission 24, Dolphin Watch p1)

Local small business such as the hardware shop urged continued funding; “that will pay dividends” (submission 21, Mitre 10 p1) as did the local tourism operator, Raptor Domain. (submission 22, Raptor Domain p1) A&G Earthmovers described themselves as a business faced with dire problems and are thankful for the Commissioner who they described as the “local problem solver”. (submission 27 A&G Earthmovers p1)

Particularly encouraging were comments from developers not only as evidence that the focus on economic development was strong but that competitors have been converted into “co-operators”. (submission 26, FieldingHill Capital) The operator of the hotel where the Committee stayed the night while gathering evidence described the process where the Commissioner was “smoothing the way” for key projects (his addition of 42 rooms to the Aurora, Kingscote Hotel) and showed “imaginative leadership” in having him talk with his competitors so that a more strategic plan for the betterment of the Island was created. (submission 20, Australian Property Projects p1)

1.14 What next?

Many issues were raised that are not strictly within the purview of a review of the CKIA. However the Committee considered that these issues or emerging issues could or should be the focus for future Management Plans so are included in this report. Tourism KI suggested that the focus of the Commissioner should turn to “… matter such as power and water supply … and focus and impetus ease and cost of access…” (submission 23, Tourism KI). Business KI added the “problem” of getting bank loans but recognising, “not within direct sphere of influence”. (submission 14, Business KI) In a review of the CKIA it was important to note comments supporting the Act that demonstrated its worth as the appropriate vehicle to address Island issues, existing and emerging. As Tourism KI said the CKIA provides the “longevity to address these hurdles…” (submission 23 Tourism KI)

1.14.1 Transport

Ms Kaupilia summarised the problem “as cost of access to the island” (submission 13 and 14) similarly expressed in submission 8 that, port fees and SeaLink are too expensive. (submission 8, P Wheaton p1)

8

Kangaroo Island is reliant on ferry services for the majority of its transport to and from the mainland. Ferry services are currently provided by Kangaroo Island SeaLink. SeaLink has outlasted several competing companies since it began operations and now holds a virtual monopoly on sea transport to Kangaroo Island, primarily due to its long term lease of the Cape Jervis berth. Island residents have expressed concerns with the exclusive agreement granted to SeaLink by the SA government. This expires in 2024. The Committee noted that there is a new passenger ferry in the listed projected economic developments for the Island (The Advertiser 11 November 2017 p 25). Extra capacity and competition both auger well for the Island.

In June 2017, Qantas announced direct flights to Kangaroo Island from Adelaide and Melbourne from December 2017. An $18 million upgrade of the Kingscote Airport was due to be completed in November 2017 and the Qantas service is still scheduled to start in December 2017. Competition from a rival airline is mooted.

1.14.2 Power

Kangaroo Island is connected to the main South Australian power grid by a subsea cable. This cable is reaching the end of its design life. The Kangaroo Island power station has standby diesel generators to provide stability of supply if the submarine cable is unavailable.

The issue of power on the island was only mentioned very briefly in a couple of submissions. Submission 6 as example expressed optimism for farming and aquaculture but “still struggling with power and transport”. (s6 p1) The Committee noted that there is a new undersea power cable in the listed projected economic developments for the Island (The Advertiser 11 November 2017 p 25)

1.15 Stakeholders

The Committee decided that the views of key stakeholders should be reported separately.

1.15.1 Local Member

It is evident from the debate in Parliament, press releases, and the contributions to this review that the Local Member does not support the CKIA or the role of the Commissioner. Mr Pengilly provided examples of problems including local contractors not paid for Government contracts and the cost of the CKIA. He felt the relationship with the KI Council was “too close” and criticised the “over self- marketing” or hype. The Commissioner advised that she has a media promotion adviser for 15 hours per week. The Committee considers one of her roles is “promotion” of the Island and did not need to adjudicate if this was too much or too little or correctly focused.

Further he felt the Commissioner was “picking sides” alleging Plantation Timbers case has been adopted at cost to Yumbah Abalone.

Pertinent to the CKIA specifically was that the Act does not provide any measures of performance; “there is no specific criteria, outcomes or strategic plans identified with the role to assess tangible results for the community”. (submission 12, Member for Finniss p1)

1.15.2 Government

The submission from DPTI was just more the a page in length but expressed support, stating there was a “positive increase in economic and investment interest” with the Commissioner “playing an active role”, recognising the necessity for an “on the ground connection” and listed

9

four projects as an example (golf course, American River Resort, Plantation Timbers port proposal, Airport upgrade). (submission 7, DPTI)

The submission from SATC was another short expression of support with ten dot points, providing some Island statistics warning of agencies overlap and applauding the Commissioner efforts in the field of tourism. (submission 25, SA Tourism Commission)

1.15.3 Local Council

The Kangaroo Island Council did not make a submission but spoke at the public meeting on the Island. Though very supportive of the Commissioner and CKIA the Mayor suggested the need for mechanisms to”… provide greater visibility of progress…” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p3) This is similar to several others in recognising the lack of measures “…the reporting requirements could be strengthened to provide a more objective assessment of the priorities and progress against them…” Also emphasising that “…elements of the role not easily codified and reported against.” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p4). Supporting the broader argument emerging from the evidence that the CKIA and the Commissioner are tasked with a wide ranging role and there is an expectation to do more than just comply with the Act.

The Committee, aware of the Local Member’s (and others) concerns, questioned the Mayor on how the Council felt the CKIA/Commissioner dealt with the issue of “picking winners”. The example given was the current debate regarding an established aquaculture industry and a new entrant timber/port industry. Mayor Clements responded; “I think she is handling that, currently, very carefully and with strong advice from other community leaders” (Committee Hansard 12/7/17 p5). The Committee accepted that in attempting to achieve the broad goal of improving the local economy there will necessarily be those who back one approach over another, one business over another.

Based on the evidence provided the Committee concluded that the Council is of the view that the Commissioner has balanced the legislative requirements and the stated intentions of the CKIA and was cognisant of the competing demand to satisfy the non-codified expectations.

1.15.4 Commissioner

The Commissioner’s submission provided a lot of information. The attachments even more. From this and the other evidence gained during the review the Committee was able to glean what the result of the CKIA has been. It confirmed the Committee’s view that the Commissioner understood the requirements of the CKIA but also the license given in the Act to act more broadly and in line with the expectations established by earlier studies and the Minister’s expressed ambitions. The Committee is of the view that this is a correct response to the requirements and responsibilities of the Commissioner role.

The Commissioner has established her own metrics and benchmarks. These are promulgated via such devices as the annual report and the “Newsletter” which listed a summary of achievements (May 2017). This published the figure of a financial contributions of $1,073,889 to the Kangaroo Island community. A breakdown is provided and advises that this includes amounts from government agencies (DSD, PIRSA and Council). The Commissioner asserts that the LABs will provide an internal monitoring function. The Newsletter and other publications can be seen as an attempt at accountability and transparency. (submission 15, Commissioner for Kangaroo Island p7) The Committee appreciates the Commissioner’s response to the lack of initial benchmarks and performance measures but recommends that the Minister establish a more formal practice. This does not necessarily entail an amendment to the CKIA an administrative response would be adequate.

10

In appendix 4 “KI Transformation Projects” the Commissioner provides that 70 businesses have received her support in identifying opportunities, again with government agency assistance. An unquantified number of individuals or businesses have been assisted. An “influence and monitor” role.

The Committee considered the publications; “Case for KI” and KI Economic Outlook”. These identify major projects on the Island and the opportunities for economic enhancement. They are “structured around the State Government’s Economic Priorities”. The Committee considered that this was a good example of the Commissioner’s role. The Commissioner is demonstrating that she is actively aligning Island initiatives with State priorities and goals.

The Commissioner reported that neither s9 nor s10 had been utilised (S 9 request provision of information from agencies and s10 ministerial direction).

The Commissioner’s submission included graphed statistics on population, labour force growth, unemployment, number of businesses gross value added by industry sector, visitors and expenditure. These were all useful in the Committees examination of the CKIA’s effect.

1.16 End statement

The government wanted a vehicle whereby the potential for Kangaroo Island could be realised. Various plans saw an island doubling its population, similarly expanding its farm gate income and with a huge boost in tourism. Strategic plans factored this into the States strategic documents. The CKIA was designed to make this happen. The Committee is of the view that the CKIA is delivering on these goals. There may be some delay in the outcomes and the report discusses this. The Committee saw optimism and confirmation of progress for instance the Mayor as quoted in the media recently highlighting the boost to economic activity “in the pipeline”. Also; “I’m looking at our rate-payer base doubling within the next 15 years…” (Mayor Clements, The Advertiser 11 November 2017 p 25). The Committee’s conclusion is that the CKIA is working as intended and with some minor adjustments should continue to do so.

11

2 References

Commonwealth Government, Government of South Australia and the Southern and Hills LGA. (2016). Regional Development Australia, Adelaide Hills Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island, Regional Road Map 2016 – 2019 Volume 1. South Australia. Commonwealth Government, Government of South Australia and the Southern and Hills LGA.

Department of Planning and Local Government, Government of South Australia. (2011). Kangaroo Island Plan, A volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy. Department of Planning and Local Government, Government of South Australia.

Economic Development Board. (2011). Paradise Girt by Sea, sustainable economic and social development for Kangaroo Island. South Australia. Economic Development Board.

McShane, P. (2017). Impacts of a proposed wharf development on the marine environment and an existing abalone aquaculture facility, Smith Bay, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. South Australia. Global Marine Resource Management Pty Ltd.

Office of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. (2015). Annual Report 2015. South Australia. Office of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

Office of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. (2016). The Kangaroo Island Economic Development Outlook, Office of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. Office of the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

The Commissioner for Kangaroo Island. (2016). Annual Report 2015 – 2016, South Australia. The Commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

12

3 Acronyms

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CKIA Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Act 2104

DEWNR Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ERDC Environment, Resources and Development Committee

KI Kangaroo Island

KIFA Kangaroo Island Futures Authority

NRM Natural Resource Management

13

APPENDIX A: Submissions

No Submitter

01 Sara Hourez 02 Jayne Bates 03 Exceptional Kangaroo Island 04 Federal Member for Mayo 05 Ria Byass 06 KI Industry and Brand Alliance 07 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 08 Penelope Wheaton 09 - Confidential not for publication - 10 D’Estrees Entomology & Science Services 11 Eco-Action 12 State Member for Finniss 13 Kauppila Pty Ltd 14 Business Kangaroo Island 15 Commissioner for Kangaroo Island 16 Debbie Clarke- 17 - Confidential not for publication - 18 KI Plantation Timbers 19 KI NRM Board 20 Australian Property Projects P/L 21 Linden Lee Mitre 10 22 Raptor Domain 23 Tourism KI 24 Victor Harbor Dolphin Watch Coordinator 25 SA Tourism Commission 26 Fielding Hill Capital 27 A&G Earthmovers P/L 28 Nada Clark 29 Fine Art KI

14

APPENDIX B: Witnesses 12 July 2017

No Witness Organisation

01 Mayor Peter Clements Kangaroo Island Council 02 Ms Bates 03 Mr Walkom 04 Ms Kauppila Business Kangaroo Island 05 Dr Glatz D’Estrees Entomolgy & Science Services 06 Mr Pengilly Member for Finniss 07 Ms Campana Commissioner for Kangaroo Island