❓ Question on Notice regarding the refusal of a mooring site application near tuna cages due to navigational safety concerns. The Minister disputes the accuracy of the information provided by the questioning member regarding the proximity of the tuna cages.
AnsweredQoN 870Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to questions without notice 801 and 837 on 19 and 21 October 2004 respectively. I received a copy of a faxed letter dated 21 September 2004 from Ms Shelley Grice, the goldfields-Esperance manager of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, to Mr Marcus Gray from South East Fisheries refusing approval for a mooring site application. The fax states that the department is of the opinion that having other mooring sites in the area may pose a threat to navigational safety by way of interaction between different types of work vessels. (1) (a) Does the minister consider that it is the proposed tuna cages or the existing users who may pose a threat to navigational safety; and, if it is the latter, does that mean that the minister considers tuna feedlots are incompatible with other fisheries or recreational tourism businesses that regularly use the area? (b) Is the minister aware of any other safe overnight mooring sites in the Remark group of islands, which are considered by South East Fisheries to be its most reliable pilchard fishing grounds? (2) Does the minister concede that the same Ms Shelley Grice, in her internal memorandum of 30 July 2004, which was tabled on 21 October 2004, provided incorrect information to the acting manager of the marine safety division of DPI, Mr Mark Beal, that the new mooring site requested by South East Fisheries was “in close proximity” to the MG Kailis Group tuna cage trial, when it was actually more than one kilometre from the approved location of the Kailis trial? If so, what action does the minister intend to take? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
(1) (a) Does the minister consider that it is the proposed tuna cages or the existing users who may pose a threat to navigational safety; and, if it is the latter, does that mean that the minister considers tuna feedlots are incompatible with other fisheries or recreational tourism businesses that regularly use the area? (b) Is the minister aware of any other safe overnight mooring sites in the Remark group of islands, which are considered by South East Fisheries to be its most reliable pilchard fishing grounds? (2) Does the minister concede that the same Ms Shelley Grice, in her internal memorandum of 30 July 2004, which was tabled on 21 October 2004, provided incorrect information to the acting manager of the marine safety division of DPI, Mr Mark Beal, that the new mooring site requested by South East Fisheries was “in close proximity” to the MG Kailis Group tuna cage trial, when it was actually more than one kilometre from the approved location of the Kailis trial? If so, what action does the minister intend to take? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
(1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
(1) (a) Does the minister consider that it is the proposed tuna cages or the existing users who may pose a threat to navigational safety; and, if it is the latter, does that mean that the minister considers tuna feedlots are incompatible with other fisheries or recreational tourism businesses that regularly use the area? (b) Is the minister aware of any other safe overnight mooring sites in the Remark group of islands, which are considered by South East Fisheries to be its most reliable pilchard fishing grounds? (2) Does the minister concede that the same Ms Shelley Grice, in her internal memorandum of 30 July 2004, which was tabled on 21 October 2004, provided incorrect information to the acting manager of the marine safety division of DPI, Mr Mark Beal, that the new mooring site requested by South East Fisheries was “in close proximity” to the MG Kailis Group tuna cage trial, when it was actually more than one kilometre from the approved location of the Kailis trial? If so, what action does the minister intend to take? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
(1) (a) Threats to navigational safety in this case relate to the interaction between vessels in a confined and unsurveyed area. (b) Safe anchorage is clearly marked on the north-eastern end of Frederick Island - refer to AUS chart 119 - in surveyed waters. (2) No. I - that is, the minister - point out that the information that the member has provided about the location of the Kailis tuna cage trial is not accurate. The Kailis tuna cage is less than 200 metres from its approved location and approximately 300 metres from the proposed South East Fisheries mooring site. The close proximity of the Kailis tuna cage to the South East Fisheries mooring site would cause potential safety hazards with vessels operating in the area.
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.