Legislative Council
GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO RURAL GRANTS COMPARED TO V-8 CAR RACE IN
ADELAIDE
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking
the Minister representing the Minister for Natural Resources and Regional Development (but
I would also assume the Treasurer would have some interest in this) a question about the
Rural and Regional Areas Infrastructure and Facilities Fund.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: On 14 April this year the Rural Local Government Regions of
South Australia wrote to the Premier under the heading `Grants for major cultural,
recreation, tourist and public infrastructure projects.' The authors of this letter are
the leaders of local government areas, and I will list them in a moment. After listing
major projects that have gone ahead in the metropolitan area of Adelaide and South
Australia, the letter states:
. . . what we do find regrettable and unacceptable is the lack
of anywhere near comparable commitment in the non-metropolitan areas of the State. We
propose to you that this clear imbalance be tackled not in an ad hoc way through the
selection of a small number of projects in rural areas which the Government might agree to
support, but rather through the putting in place of an ongoing program on a systematic
basis. In summary, our specific proposal is as follows:
1. The creation by the Government of an interest bearing account
to be known as the `Rural and Regional Areas Infrastructure and Facilities Fund';
2. The payment into that fund of a minimum amount of $10 million
a year for the seven years commencing 1998-99 (noting that a case for substantially more
than the $10 million could well be made);
3. Both capital and operational expenditures to be eligible for
assistance from the fund; all associated costs (research, design, administration, etc.)
would also be met from the fund;
4. The projects to be supported to be recommended by a committee
comprising the majority of representatives of rural and regional areas but also with some
Government involvement.
That letter was signed by the Chair of the Mid North Local Government Region Inc., representing Eyre Peninsula, Northern, Yorke Peninsula, Murray and Mallee, and South-East Local Government Associations. I have seen the Premier's responses to that letter and also a briefer one from the Treasurer. I will not quote from them, but they both virtually turned down the request flat. Today I received a letter from the Central Local Government Region of South Australia signed by the secretary, Bob Hart. Referring to the response from the Premier, its second paragraph reads:
Unfortunately, the response from the Premier was negative and the initiative could not be supported as he was of the view that the State Government was supporting regional South Australia in a variety of ways to the tune of over $750 million on rural and regional capital works over the past five years. For this reason, the Premier does not believe that the proposal should be pursued further at this time. We do not necessarily dispute this level of funding, but the rather cursory dismissal of the concept is not acceptable in our opinion as we feel that the whole point of raising the idea for examination has been missed entirely. There did not seem to be even a willingness to question closely the merits of the proposal before reaching a more informed position. At a time when rural and regional communities are clearly under economic and social stress, there can be little doubt that the application of a fund of this nature has the potential to not only bring some equity between city and country but also lead to substantial benefits for country people.
Virtually simultaneously to this response, we hear that the Mallala V8 motor race
event will join the Gawler Three Day Event, which was pulled from Gawler to the parklands;
and the Schutzenfest from rural South Australia (Hahndorf) to the parklands. Now this
event will move from Mallala to the parklands at an estimated cost of $14.7 million. Does
the Minister—or the Treasurer in this case—agree that—
The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting:
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Yes, probably: the Tunarama would fit in well in the
wetlands of the south parklands. Does the Minister agree that regional South Australia is
justified in feeling let down by the Premier's refusal to consider the regional fund
contribution of $10 million while at the same time putting up $14.7 million to pull the V8
event from country Mallala to Adelaide? How can this be seen to be supporting regional
South Australia? Will the Government reconsider its earlier refusal to look at the
proposal by the Rural Local Government Regions of South Australia and set up a fund?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will need to read the honourable member's question again,
but my recollection of his explan-ation was that the request was for $10 million a year.
It is not fair to compare a one-off cost—$14.7 million, I understand, with some
one-off costs—with a smaller amount of money over a longer period for the operations
of the race. With the $10 million figure the honourable member would acknow-ledge
that—
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: The Advertiser article said $10 million.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was a request.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: No, that was for the Mallala V8 event.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No. I understood that the honourable member explained that the
request for the regional infrastructure development fund was for $10 million a year and,
therefore, I think it would be important to compare that figure, like with like over that
period—whether it be a request for $50 million or $70 million or whatever it
is—with the five year cost of operating the V8 car race just announced. I am happy to
get that information and compare those comparative costs for the honourable member.
Governments get a lot of good ideas which we as Minis-ters would love to be able to
fund. If the Government were in a position, through the sale of ETSA and Optima, to
generate this up to $150 million a year in our third and fourth year in our budget, some
good ideas like a regional development infrastructure fund might be a sensible way (and I
am not suggesting $10 million a year) for some of the proceeds of the money to be spent in
terms of infrastructure and development for rural and regional communities.
The Hon. T.G. Roberts: Barker needs some major projects.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not enter into that. The reality is that this is not an
idea that has been dismissed easily by the Premier. I reject the notion that the Premier
looked at it, said `No', turned away and said that we will not do anything about it.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: What about your reply? It's shorter than the Premier's.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The length of a reply does not indicate the degree of thought
that goes into the consideration of the question, because otherwise we would all be
speaking for a very long time in this Chamber on every issue. If you can concisely
summarise your Government's position you do not need a three page letter to say, in
effect, `We don't have the money.' In all portfolio areas there are hundreds if not
thousands of terrific ideas in terms of new programs where we could spend money doing
worthwhile things for the community, both regional and metropolitan. I do not seek to
decry this suggestion or proposal at all: I am simply saying that we are in difficult
financial circumstances.
We are trying to construct a budget to do all the things I have said in the budget
speech in terms of new expenditure on Kangaroo Island infrastructure, a $100 million
employ-ment program, our railway expenditure, our convention centres, our rural arterial
roads, and reasonable wage increases for teachers, nurses and police. We are trying to do
all those things and on occasions we try to fund things and events that might capture a
bit of excitement, attract people from other States to come and visit South Australia,
spend their money in our restaurants, hotels and caravan parks and enjoy themselves.
We do not spend all our time on the bread and circuses, but it is important that
events that can assist our economy and that can also, in effect, give the State a sense of
pride in being able to achieve and attract important sporting events—whether they
happen to be a footy final or a netball grand final or a car race or a Tunarama or
whatever—a rodeo—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A Democrat national convention.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Is that an offer? I'll take it.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to talk to you, Mr Elliott. It will not surprise you
what I might want to talk about. In the first week of October we are spending money on an
alumni convention, where all the alumni from our three universities are coming back for a
major convention, and we hope that they will spend some of their money in our hospitals,
cafes and restaurants, but also be part of that alumni convention for our—
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: What about The Ring cycle?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And our Ring cycle. If we were to ask regional
communities whether we should spend the money on The Ring cycle or a car race or a
netball stadium as opposed to this event, I am sure that we would receive a response from
those communities that they would prefer the money to be spent in that particular area.
But these are the difficult decisions of Governments in trying to achieve a reasonable
balance of expenditure across portfolios, including important portfolios such as
recreation and sport and arts and cultural heritage, in terms of the overall development
of our State and providing for a balance of the needs of all the members of our community.
As I said, if we are able to free up this up to $150 million a year in our budget, we will
have the capacity to look at some of these terrific ideas that regional and metropolitan
communities put to Governments so that we can agree to fund some of those proposals.
I am certainly happy to refer other aspects of the honour-able member's question to
the responsible Minister to see whether I can provide any more detailed advice, but I am
sure that the response will be not that Ministers and Governments have not given it
consideration and not that Ministers do not believe that it is a good idea (at least in
part) but that, in the end, we are constrained by the debt and the difficult financial
circumstances that we in South Australia face. That is an issue that all members in this
Chamber, including the Hon. Mr Gilfillan, will need to address when we revisit this and
other debates in the October session.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In light of the fact that the Treasurer responded to that
proposal personally, will he undertake to look again at that proposal and give me a
detailed answer as to why he turned it down?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I believe that I just did, but I am happy to do it again.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: He said `detailed', not `lengthy'.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Gilfillan was judging the consideration that I had
given to the issue by the shortness of my reply.
Members interjecting:
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I will not go for the next 10 minutes, but I will again
look at the honourable member's question. However, as I said, I believe that the response
will still be not that we do not think it might not be a good idea, but that we just do
not currently have the money. But there is a way that we might be able to get some of the
money.
Read the Government's Reply: 9 February 1999
Site assisted by Intramedia Design