Hon. Kate Doust questions the Attorney General regarding the Department of Regional Development's decision not to endorse stage 2 of the SBDC's Buy Local campaign and how the SBDC reconciled a $1 million revenue loss. The response clarifies the funding allocation and timing issues.

AnsweredQoN 1180Legislative Council
Asked
21 October 2014
Portfolio
Small Business

QuestionView source ↗

SMALL
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — BUY LOCAL CAMPAIGN
1180. Hon KATE DOUST to the
Attorney General representing the Minister for Small Business:
I refer to pages 92 and 93 of the Small Business Development
Corporation's 2013–14 annual report.
(1) What
reasons did the Department of Regional Development give for not endorsing stage
2 of the SBDC's Buy Local campaign?
(2) How has the SBDC reconciled the loss of $1 million of
expected revenue for 2013–14?

AnswerView source ↗

On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I thank the
honourable member for some notice of the question.
(1) The
business case to access the funding for stage 2 of the program was prepared and
submitted to the Department of Regional Development in 2013–14;
however, final approval was not received until 2014–15.
(2) The $1 million
allocated from royalties for regions to the SBDC in the 2013–14 Budget Statements formed part of a
broader $10 million commitment over four years for the regional Buy Local
program. Subsequent to the publication of the Budget Statements , the funding was split between the SBDC and the
Department of Commerce. In 2013–14 this resulted in $500 000 for each
agency. The business case for the funding was not finalised in 2013–14;
therefore, the program did not commence and the funding was not drawn down.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more