❓ The Premier defends the Ningaloo coast regional strategy, criticising Hon Norman Moore's support for the Mauds Landing proposal and highlighting the government's commitment to environmental protection and sustainable tourism development in the region.
AnsweredQoN 489Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Premier comment on the recent announcement of the Ningaloo coast regional strategy and respond to the criticisms of that strategy made by Hon Norman Moore in his parliamentary statement of 20 August 2004? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
I am very happy to comment on that strategy and on the comments Hon Norman Moore made in the other place. The protection of the Ningaloo Reef and the Ningaloo Marine Park is one of the priorities of this Government. It is a priority of our Government to have a proper planning strategy for the Ningaloo coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. To that end, we rejected the Mauds Landing proposal, which would have threatened the environmental integrity of the marine park. We are pursuing World Heritage listing for this area; we have extended the Ningaloo Marine Park to include the entire Ningaloo Reef; we have boosted resources for management and research; and we have provided much needed infrastructure for Coral Bay, including the sewerage system, which I had a great deal of pleasure in opening recently. Last week we put forward the “Ningaloo coast regional strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth”, which gives us a proper framework for sustainable tourism development along that coast. We will make sure that proper planning and development controls are in place to bring about a sustainable future for that area. It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I am very happy to comment on that strategy and on the comments Hon Norman Moore made in the other place. The protection of the Ningaloo Reef and the Ningaloo Marine Park is one of the priorities of this Government. It is a priority of our Government to have a proper planning strategy for the Ningaloo coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. To that end, we rejected the Mauds Landing proposal, which would have threatened the environmental integrity of the marine park. We are pursuing World Heritage listing for this area; we have extended the Ningaloo Marine Park to include the entire Ningaloo Reef; we have boosted resources for management and research; and we have provided much needed infrastructure for Coral Bay, including the sewerage system, which I had a great deal of pleasure in opening recently. Last week we put forward the “Ningaloo coast regional strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth”, which gives us a proper framework for sustainable tourism development along that coast. We will make sure that proper planning and development controls are in place to bring about a sustainable future for that area. It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
I am very happy to comment on that strategy and on the comments Hon Norman Moore made in the other place. The protection of the Ningaloo Reef and the Ningaloo Marine Park is one of the priorities of this Government. It is a priority of our Government to have a proper planning strategy for the Ningaloo coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. To that end, we rejected the Mauds Landing proposal, which would have threatened the environmental integrity of the marine park. We are pursuing World Heritage listing for this area; we have extended the Ningaloo Marine Park to include the entire Ningaloo Reef; we have boosted resources for management and research; and we have provided much needed infrastructure for Coral Bay, including the sewerage system, which I had a great deal of pleasure in opening recently. Last week we put forward the “Ningaloo coast regional strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth”, which gives us a proper framework for sustainable tourism development along that coast. We will make sure that proper planning and development controls are in place to bring about a sustainable future for that area. It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I am very happy to comment on that strategy and on the comments Hon Norman Moore made in the other place. The protection of the Ningaloo Reef and the Ningaloo Marine Park is one of the priorities of this Government. It is a priority of our Government to have a proper planning strategy for the Ningaloo coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. To that end, we rejected the Mauds Landing proposal, which would have threatened the environmental integrity of the marine park. We are pursuing World Heritage listing for this area; we have extended the Ningaloo Marine Park to include the entire Ningaloo Reef; we have boosted resources for management and research; and we have provided much needed infrastructure for Coral Bay, including the sewerage system, which I had a great deal of pleasure in opening recently. Last week we put forward the “Ningaloo coast regional strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth”, which gives us a proper framework for sustainable tourism development along that coast. We will make sure that proper planning and development controls are in place to bring about a sustainable future for that area. It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
I am very happy to comment on that strategy and on the comments Hon Norman Moore made in the other place. The protection of the Ningaloo Reef and the Ningaloo Marine Park is one of the priorities of this Government. It is a priority of our Government to have a proper planning strategy for the Ningaloo coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. To that end, we rejected the Mauds Landing proposal, which would have threatened the environmental integrity of the marine park. We are pursuing World Heritage listing for this area; we have extended the Ningaloo Marine Park to include the entire Ningaloo Reef; we have boosted resources for management and research; and we have provided much needed infrastructure for Coral Bay, including the sewerage system, which I had a great deal of pleasure in opening recently. Last week we put forward the “Ningaloo coast regional strategy Carnarvon to Exmouth”, which gives us a proper framework for sustainable tourism development along that coast. We will make sure that proper planning and development controls are in place to bring about a sustainable future for that area. It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
It was very predictable that Hon Norman Moore should criticise our approach. He said in Parliament on 20 August - I have been arguing long and hard in support of the Mauds Landing proposal on the basis that it would have been the best outcome for the environment. That is where the Liberal Party is coming from on this issue; that is, support for Mauds Landing. Hon Norman Moore’s argument had two parts. First, he said that under the Government’s strategy the population of Coral Bay would double and, second, that it would have been better to approve the Mauds Landing development to cater for those extra numbers. This argument is flawed in a number of respects. First, we will not double the population of Coral Bay. In the short term there will be a moratorium on the development of Coral Bay until proper infrastructure is provided. In the long term, expansion of bed numbers will be allowed if strict environmental and planning criteria can be met, up to a maximum of 3 600 beds for overnight visitors. That will not expand the population but will cater for the existing number of visitors to that area. The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor Party.
The most gaping hole in Hon Norman Moore’s argument is his suggestion that the Opposition would have kept official bed numbers in Coral Bay at or below the current level of about 1 800 if the Mauds Landing proposal had gone ahead. Let us look at the real situation. Let us look at what actually happened when members opposite were in government. On 4 May 1998, the then Minister for Planning, Graham Kierath - he is well known to the Leader of the Opposition - approved changes to the town planning scheme for Coral Bay. Those changes endorsed the Coral Bay settlement plan, which allowed for development to cater for up to 4 000 visitors. It is very clear that under the Opposition there would be a bigger Coral Bay than has been proposed by this Government, but with fewer environmental controls on that development, plus another development equal to the size of Coral Bay at Mauds Landing. This is an important issue for the people of Western Australia. The Government has put its cards on the table. We are opposed to Mauds Landing. We will have orderly development of the Ningaloo coast, we will restrict numbers at Coral Bay and we will properly plan for Coral Bay into the future. Where does the Liberal Party stand? It still supports Mauds Landing. We will make sure that every voter in Western Australia knows where the Liberal Party stands on Mauds Landing. It supports it, as indicated by the comments of Hon Norman Moore. There is only one party in this Parliament that will protect the future of the Western Australian environment; that is, the Australian Labor 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.