❓ Hon Helen Bullock questions the Department of Agriculture regarding the Gascoyne Murchison Strategy, focusing on funding allocation, effectiveness, and potential misuse of funds related to pastoral station viability. The Department provides answers, but lacks specific details in some responses.
AnsweredQoN 1191Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) What period did the Gascoyne Murchison Strategy cover?
(2) Who in the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the strategy, the allocation of funds and the verification of acquittal of those funds?
(3) Which stations received funds and what was the purpose for which the funds were provided?
(4) Given that the strategy was intended to make pastoral stations in the area more viable, has any follow up been done to assess the effectiveness of the strategy?
(5) Were funds provided to a station in the Eastern Gascoyne to purchase an adjoining station in order to make both stations more viable?
(6) Was the purchased station subsequently resold by the recipient of the fund?
(7) Was the money received for the sale of that station ever refunded to the Department of Agriculture?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Were any of the funds provided to pastoralists ever refunded when equipment or businesses purchased with those funds, were subsequently resold?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(2) Who in the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the strategy, the allocation of funds and the verification of acquittal of those funds?
(3) Which stations received funds and what was the purpose for which the funds were provided?
(4) Given that the strategy was intended to make pastoral stations in the area more viable, has any follow up been done to assess the effectiveness of the strategy?
(5) Were funds provided to a station in the Eastern Gascoyne to purchase an adjoining station in order to make both stations more viable?
(6) Was the purchased station subsequently resold by the recipient of the fund?
(7) Was the money received for the sale of that station ever refunded to the Department of Agriculture?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Were any of the funds provided to pastoralists ever refunded when equipment or businesses purchased with those funds, were subsequently resold?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
13 October 2009
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
33 days
(1) April 1998 - August 2004.
(2) The Gascoyne Murchison Strategy 'board' (and its sub-committees) were responsible for the strategy and the allocation of funds as per the State and Federal Intergovernmental Agreement, while funds were acquitted by and through the Rural Business Development Corporation.
(3) Some 180 grants where funded, the majority going to pastoral stations in the Gascoyne Murchison for productivity and sustainability works.
(4) The strategy had an extensive evaluation and monitoring program built into it to specifically evaluate its outcomes as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement.
(5) Yes - a number were assisted.
(6) Without detail of the specific station being referred to it is not possible to answer this question.
(7) Please refer to part (6), however as a general rule if a property were to be sold prior to two years following a grant then this was to be refunded.
(8) Please refer to part (6) and (7).
(9) Not to the knowledge or recollection of the department. As a general rule "portable" assets were not eligible.
(10) Please refer to part (7) and (9).
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) The Gascoyne Murchison Strategy 'board' (and its sub-committees) were responsible for the strategy and the allocation of funds as per the State and Federal Intergovernmental Agreement, while funds were acquitted by and through the Rural Business Development Corporation.
(3) Some 180 grants where funded, the majority going to pastoral stations in the Gascoyne Murchison for productivity and sustainability works.
(4) The strategy had an extensive evaluation and monitoring program built into it to specifically evaluate its outcomes as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement.
(5) Yes - a number were assisted.
(6) Without detail of the specific station being referred to it is not possible to answer this question.
(7) Please refer to part (6), however as a general rule if a property were to be sold prior to two years following a grant then this was to be refunded.
(8) Please refer to part (6) and (7).
(9) Not to the knowledge or recollection of the department. As a general rule "portable" assets were not eligible.
(10) Please refer to part (7) and (9).
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.