❓ The Minister for Agriculture will not continue rural youth leadership programs in their previous format, aiming for an expanded version. Funds are available from the RAFCOR No 1 trust account ($5.4 million) and the government is seeking further funding from the Commonwealth and private sector.
AnsweredQoN 53Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Will the minister continue with the rural youth leadership programs in the same format and numbers as put in place by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Monty House? (2) What funds are available to the Rural Business Development Corporation for programs such as this program and to assist those who have missed out on exceptional circumstances boundary enlargement? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(2) What funds are available to the Rural Business Development Corporation for programs such as this program and to assist those who have missed out on exceptional circumstances boundary enlargement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(2) What funds are available to the Rural Business Development Corporation for programs such as this program and to assist those who have missed out on exceptional circumstances boundary enlargement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
(2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.