Ms BADGER – That’s great, thank you. Minister, through the EOI process, proponents that are having their proposal actively considered provide six‑monthly updates on how they’re progressing their proposal, to show that they are valid, and they’re still doing that. In the last, not this recent six months, the six months prior to that, the proponent for the Lake Malbena proposal was not requested to give that six‑monthly update. Why is that, and what message is that sending to everybody else that’s doing the right thing and being required to provide those updates?
Mr DUIGAN – In essence ‑ and correct me if I’m wrong ‑ but I think because that proposal now sits in the realm of the Commonwealth government and the EPBC referral, which has been delayed and delayed and delayed, it was deemed acceptable for the proponent, given there had been no movement from the Commonwealth on that, that the proponent was able to continue through.
Ms BADGER – Can we confirm that’s the case, please? Of course, that’s not progressing through the EPBC because the proponent’s not provided the adequate cultural heritage assessment that the department’s been waiting on for some time. They’re now having to make a decision, if they have enough information to make a decision. Surely this, as a test case, as this proposal has been for their EOIs for some time, if they’re not having to provide that information and there’s no expectation of them to do so, what message is that sending to anyone else that’s trying to have a private proposal in our World Heritage Areas and national parks?
Mr DUIGAN – Well, the state doesn’t monitor the Commonwealth’s approval processes. Is there anything further that the department would like to add? That is underway, that’s my understanding. I’m happy to hear if there is a contrary view to that.
Ms MULLER ‑ Through you, minister, no additional information in relation to that. I guess just to point out that the EOI process is managed through the Department of State Growth ‑ the OCG.
