RIVERLAND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES FUND

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Regional Development a question regarding the Riverland Futures grants program.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Riverland Futures has a lot of potential, and has some very dedicated local Riverland people working on it. An example of a positive concept developed with the help of Riverland Futures is the proposal towards an Australian date industry that received publicity in recent times in Adelaide and locally in the Riverland. I am pleased to see there have been some grants announced, including $20,000 to the fresh and dried fruit industries. However, out of the $20 million to $21 million fund, there is still a significant amount that was rolled over from the 2010-11 budget due to underspend.

The Scholefield Robinson research identified, for the Riverland Futures Task Force prospectus released in September 2010, the viable prospect of growing vegetables and other annual crops, many of which can be grown in a particularly water efficient way in glasshouses. I understand that there are opportunities—with an application at the moment through Grow SA—to actually reinvigorate the Riverland with diverse market gardening opportunities, as well as to restore the former Berri fruit juice site into a progressive food processing plant.

The application that Grow SA has put to the department is supported by organisations such as the three Riverland councils, AUSVEG, Horticulture Australia Limited, the Primary Industries Skills Council, and the Central Irrigation Trust, plus seven private enterprise partners.

It appears that the department may have been slow in putting recommendations to the minister on this application considering that it has taken longer than the decision for the government to spend $500 million on the proposal put by the AFL to reinvigorate the stadium at Adelaide Oval. My question to the minister is: given that the application has been in for over six months, when can we expect a decision one way or another on this important application from Grow SA to reinvigorate in real terms jobs and economic opportunity in the Riverland?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:40): I thank the honourable member for his question; indeed, he is being most mischievous and misleading in his question, which is incredibly disappointing. He has been quite disingenuous and most unfair in some ways around some of the statements he has made. You would think that if he really wanted to get behind this proposal and really make sure that it succeeds, which he obviously does, he would be prepared to approach this with a great deal of truth and honesty.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I beg your pardon? I have been to see you about this on several occasions. It has taken six months. I have been totally truthful and honest. I am asking a simple question. That's an outrageous allegation from the minister, and untrue.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: He is being most misleading. I will outline—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr President, I ask that she withdraw those remarks because they are untrue and unacceptable and out of order.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable minister can answer the question in any way she sees fit.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you, Mr President. I will outline the arguments and the reasons that I have made those statements. In relation to the Sustainable Futures Fund—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On a point of order, the minister made comments that are untrue, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister is answering the question, and she is entitled to answer the question. You can dispute the relevance, or whatever, but the minister can answer in any way she thinks fit.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: He is afraid of listening to the answer. If we go back to the Riverland futures fund, a $20 million fund over four years that was an election commitment of this government, it is about trying to reinvigorate investment into the Riverland region to help it overcome the adversity it faced in terms of the 10-year drought—one of the most dreadful droughts on record—followed by floods. It was a community that needed assistance to transition its industries into more long-term viable and sustainable areas and to attract new industries. As I said, it was about building on a community to help its long-term financial position and its prosperity generally in a sustainable way.

There are many projects from that fund that I have granted. Just to briefly outline a few: $620,000 to AgriExchange, which is about supporting the expansion of a fruit packing house; $10,500 to GM Arnold & Son that looks at a new trial crop; $20,000-odd to the SA Fresh Fruit Growers Association, helping a dried fruit association put forth a marketing plan for dried apricots; just over $447,000 to assist Wild n Fresh with their products; $250,000 to JMA Engineering to assist with a new grit-blasting machine; $245,000 for Biological Services; and also $438,000 to Plumco, which I recently spoke about in this council.

All applications—and I have spoken to the honourable member directly about this in the past—are dealt with expeditiously by our agency. To suggest that in any way our agency or the government or my office is holding up or dragging the chain is completely misleading. We deal expeditiously with these applications.

As you can see, there have been many that we have dealt with already. Of course, there is a high degree of due diligence that is required in terms of making sure that these applications fulfil the eligibility criteria and that rigorous financial analysis is done. We have an accounting firm from outside (independent of the office) that does some work on the financials. There is a risk analysis that is done, Mr President. You would appreciate, I know, that the $20 million is taxpayers' money—it is the money of the general public, hard-earned money—and it is most important that the government allocate this in a highly responsible and accountable way, and that is exactly what we do.

Grow SA is an applicant that has obviously been lobbying very hard to have its application—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In fact, Mr President, I am not aware of any of the—only what people have lobbied me to the best of my recollection, Grow SA and the honourable member, so the honourable member needs to be careful when he talks about who has been lobbying me.

Grow SA, a not-for-profit statewide organisation, aims to implement industry strategies for the advancement of horticulture. Grow SA's initial application was seeking $4.1 million from the fund to help to develop a futures food centre on the former National Foods site at Berri. All of this is public information, so I am not breaching any confidentiality here. The centre aims to be a focal point for growers and businesses in the region looking to grow and market different crops and are able to adjust for climate and water conditions.

As the honourable member points out, that is most consistent with the reports that were completed and funded by the South Australian government and showed the sorts of opportunities that existed in the region. Indeed, it is most consistent with that. That original application for $4.1 million was processed and the application was unsuccessful. The project concept was considered to have potential; however, it was found to be unsuccessful. So, to say that we have not processed their application is simply wrong. It is most incorrect and wrong, and it is misleading to come here and say that the government has not processed their application.

However, the application did have merit and we recognised that. So, although we were not able to support the application per se, we went back to Grow SA and had the agency work with them to go through where there were issues of concern and where there were weaknesses in their application, where more rigour and detail were needed and provided assistance to help develop that proposal in a way that might meet the rigorous requirements that are established to protect the public interest.

Grow SA has since submitted a revised application, and that application is currently being considered, and I will be making a decision about that and announcing that in the foreseeable future. But he is not going to help Grow SA's case by coming into this place and, as I said, misleading this place in terms of information around the processing of the application of this proposal.