Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund RIVERLAND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES FUND The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council RIVERLAND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES FUND The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Regional Development regarding the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund. Leave granted. The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I have noted recent Riverland media reports attributing comments regarding the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund to the minister. There has been significant local criticism of the process by which the Riverland Sustainable Futures projects have been determined. Indeed, the member for Chaffey in another place, Mr Tim Whetstone, told TheMurray Pioneer that, despite the often stated aim of using this money to diversify the region's economic base away from a reliance on irrigated horticulture, almost all of the money distributed to date had, in fact, gone to projects that rely on irrigated horticulture. Responding to criticism of community concern about the level of Riverland input in the decision-making, the minister described to TheMurray Pioneer the Riverland office of the RDA (Regional Development Australia), as 'absolutely critical' to processing the funding applications. The minister's comments continued as follows: The RDA itself provides the community interface, with the nature of the projects. The RDA link is absolutely critical, and that's the on the ground interface between the proposals and the work that the agency does in sifting through and analysing in a vigorous way the integrity of the project itself. The roadmaps the RDA has compiled...established what the priorities are for the region, where the opportunities are [and] where the main drivers are, and we look to make sure that the proposals meet those roadmaps... My questions are: 1.	Given the minister's impressive declaration of faith in the RDA, how can she justify the government's decision to remove all state funding to the RDA network by June 2013? 2.	What action will the minister take to ensure that more projects that can broaden the economic base of the Riverland, beyond the horticultural sector, are supported? 3.	Will she confirm that, in more than one-third of the time allocated for the Riverland futures programs, only 10 per cent of the funds have been paid out? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council 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 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) (15:24): In relation to the scope of the fund, the fund is—I have said this in this place before, so I won't go into it in great detail again—about promoting local businesses and existing businesses and helping to attract new businesses. It is about helping to develop and create industry development to bring about long-term sustainability of the Riverland area that, as we know, has been through a very tough time, and it needs to reposition itself in terms of its industry. The state government provided funds through the RDA, and a number of building blocks or blueprints have been developed to assist in identifying those areas where opportunities lie and where projects should look to be taken on board. They include the RDA road map, the prospectus that was developed, and there are a number of supporting documents to that prospectus such as the Scholefield report which, in itself, identifies protected horticulture as a really important area for future development of the area. So, I just do not understand why the honourable member can come into this place and criticise the horticulture projects when, in fact, the reports that have been done identify particular areas of horticulture development that a number of the successful applicants to this program have adopted. They have done exactly the right thing. They have taken on board that information, incorporated it into a proposal and have been successful, and that is how it should be. It was set up to work that way, to fund those projects that are identified to have a potential long-term sustainable future. There has been one project—a successful grit blasting proponent—that is not involved in horticulture, but the challenge is to businesses and industries to identify potential for them and to put their proposals forward. I would be very pleased—and I go out and encourage industry to take advantage of this scheme and to put forward proposals. So, I guess it is only limited by the lack of diversity of proposals being put to me at present. All I can do is again put on record how important it is that industries right across the board take this up. In terms of the funding, I have already put on record in this place that we are looking at alternate funding arrangements (exploring the possibility or potential for alternative funding arrangements) and no decisions have been made on that yet. Those discussions and considerations are still in place. In terms of how much is spent of the project, as I have said in this place before, the proposals were slow to be put forward for consideration. It took some time for those building blocks to which I referred to be put in place so that adequate direction for future potential could be clearly articulated and also for time to promote the grant scheme. As the honourable member rightly points out, the RDA has a critical role. It is a critical community interface in helping to identify suitable proponents, to identify where suitable partnerships might exist, and to be encouraging those proponents and assisting them to put forward and develop up grant proposals.