❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the M.G. Kailis Pty Ltd sea cage mooring, specifically concerning licensing, notification to mariners, and changes to the mooring location. The Minister provides answers and tables a document.
AnsweredQoN 1098Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to questions without notice 801 of 19 October, 837 of 21 October and 870 of 26 October 2004 regarding the M.G. Kailis Pty Ltd sea cage mooring, I ask - (1) Can the minister advise whether any licence or written correspondence was provided to the applicant, M.G. Kailis, with regard to its original mooring application or any amended application; and, if so, will the minister please now table copies of that documentation? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(1) Can the minister advise whether any licence or written correspondence was provided to the applicant, M.G. Kailis, with regard to its original mooring application or any amended application; and, if so, will the minister please now table copies of that documentation? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(1) Can the minister advise whether any licence or written correspondence was provided to the applicant, M.G. Kailis, with regard to its original mooring application or any amended application; and, if so, will the minister please now table copies of that documentation? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(3) Can the minister advise whether any Kailis mooring location near Remark Island has been placed on a nautical chart or provided as a notice to mariners; and, if so, will the minister please table copies of all such notification? (4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(4) If not, why not? (5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(5) Was any written request or notification provided by M.G. Kailis to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure regarding a request to change the location of its mooring from that in its original licence application; and, if so, when was that received, and would the minister please now table that documentation? (6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(6) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(1) Yes. I table that document. [See paper No 2974.] (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(3) No. (4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(4) The Kailis mooring is in an unsurveyed area, is not within port limits or shipping channels and is clearly lit by four special markers. Bearing these facts in mind, a notice to mariners was not considered necessary. (5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(5) No. (6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
(6) The notification was given verbally and the revised location was within the area designated on the original application.
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.