❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Ord River Irrigation Scheme Stage 2, specifically the expressions of interest process and its alignment with Commonwealth government requirements for a larger, cross-territory irrigation project.
AnsweredQoN 494Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ORD STAGE 2 - EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST PROCESS
I refer to the state government’s announcement on 14 June 2007 that the selection process for the Ord stage 2 M2 development area north of Kununurra will be extended and modified. (1) In what ways were the expressions of interest incompatible with the issues that had emerged at the national level since the selection process began? (2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to the state government’s announcement on 14 June 2007 that the selection process for the Ord stage 2 M2 development area north of Kununurra will be extended and modified. (1) In what ways were the expressions of interest incompatible with the issues that had emerged at the national level since the selection process began? (2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(1) In what ways were the expressions of interest incompatible with the issues that had emerged at the national level since the selection process began? (2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(1) In what ways were the expressions of interest incompatible with the issues that had emerged at the national level since the selection process began? (2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(2) Were the 10 expressions of interest compared with the criteria set when they were called? (3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(3) What criteria were they compared with before the decision was made that they were incompatible? (4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(4) How many of the expressions of interest included infrastructure proposals? (5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(5) Were any of the proponents given an opportunity to discuss their proposals with the Department of Industry and Resources prior to the announcement being made? (6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(6) On what date and by what means were the 10 proponents contacted and informed that the proposals were incompatible? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(1) During discussions with the commonwealth government it became clear that the commonwealth would consider only a large irrigation project that included the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(2) Yes. (3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(3) The assessment process considered performance criteria, which is found on page 21 of the expression of interest invitation, and the extent that the expressions of interest could meet the state’s objectives for the project, which are found on page 8 of the expression of interest invitation. (4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(4) The expression of interest invitation sought the proponents’ views on infrastructure requirements, and the proponents responded to varying degrees. (5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(5) No. (6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
(6) Proponents were verbally advised of the government’s decision to extend the expression of interest process on 14 June 2007.
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.