❓ A parliamentary question regarding the lease of the Water Corporation's "Water Valley" property, including details of the lease agreement, tendering process, and prior access to the property. The Minister provides detailed answers to all questions.
AnsweredQoN 168Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the lease of the Water Corporation’s property “Water Valley” at Allanooka. (1) Is this property leased for grazing purposes? (2) If so, will the minister table the following information: (a) the name of the lessee; (b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent? (3) Were tenders called for the lease? (4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(1) Is this property leased for grazing purposes? (2) If so, will the minister table the following information: (a) the name of the lessee; (b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent? (3) Were tenders called for the lease? (4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(2) If so, will the minister table the following information: (a) the name of the lessee; (b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent? (3) Were tenders called for the lease? (4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent?
(c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent?
(d) the annual rent?
(4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(1) Is this property leased for grazing purposes? (2) If so, will the minister table the following information: (a) the name of the lessee; (b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent? (3) Were tenders called for the lease? (4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(2) If so, will the minister table the following information: (a) the name of the lessee; (b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent? (3) Were tenders called for the lease? (4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(b) when the lease term began; (c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent?
(c) how many years the lease and option of renewal extend; and (d) the annual rent?
(d) the annual rent?
(4) If so, will the minister table the annual rental that was offered by the other tenderers? (5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(5) Did the lessee have access to the property prior to the beginning of the current lease term? (6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(6) If so, what rental was paid during that period of occupation? (7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(7) What price did the Water Corporation pay for the property? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(1) Yes; by the Water and Rivers Commission. (2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(2) (a) Astrik Pty Ltd; (b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(b) 1 September 2000; (c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(c) five years with an option to extend for a further five years; (d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(d) $22 000 per annum to 30 June 2003, whereupon a current market rental rate will apply. (3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(3) Yes. (4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(4) The original tender resulted in only one non-conforming tender, which offered rent of $11 250 per annum for only a small part of the property. The tender period was extended and two tenders and three offers were subsequently received. One tender offered $8 546 for the small part of the property and, as an alternative, $19 992 for the same lot subject to the commission injecting $19 350 of funds to improve pasture and fencing. The second tender was that of Astrik Pty Ltd, which offered $22 000 per annum for the whole property. (5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(5) Yes. (6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(6) Nil. Astrik Pty Ltd provided caretaking and a security service in return for limited agistment rights. (7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
(7) The Water Authority originally purchased the property but archival research is required to determine the price paid. The property was transferred to the commission on its formation in 1996.
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.