❓ A parliamentary question regarding the status of Blue Lagoon Pearls' leases and the possibility of granting them 21-year tenure. The Minister acknowledges the issue and its complexities, particularly concerning native title and dolphin migration.
AnsweredQoN 1405Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BLUE LAGOON PEARLS PTY LTD, LONG-TERM LEASES
I refer to Blue Lagoon Pearls Pty Ltd at Denham, operated by Peter and Helen Morgan. I understand the minister knows of the operation. (1) Can the minister advise the House of the current status of the pearl leases at Blue Lagoon Pearls? (2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to Blue Lagoon Pearls Pty Ltd at Denham, operated by Peter and Helen Morgan. I understand the minister knows of the operation. (1) Can the minister advise the House of the current status of the pearl leases at Blue Lagoon Pearls? (2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(1) Can the minister advise the House of the current status of the pearl leases at Blue Lagoon Pearls? (2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(1) Can the minister advise the House of the current status of the pearl leases at Blue Lagoon Pearls? (2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(2) When will Blue Lagoon Pearls be granted 21-year tenure leases to provide greater security of tenure for its pearling operations at Denham? (3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(3) Does the minister support and will he assist in the early issue of these long-term leases? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
I could describe that question as being in a genre of questions of a similar nature, but I will try not to be flippant. (2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(2)-(3) The issue of 21-year leases is the proverbial hot potato of the pearling industry. I am sympathetic to the pearling industry’s position on the issue of leases. Pearling proponents and operators make a very significant long-term investment when they enter into the development of a pearl farm. It would be a comfort to them to be licensed over a longer time. However, the problem is that the seabed leases are of extremely short-term duration. This is a problem for not only the Morgans, but also every other pearling operator in Western Australia. No-one has yet been able to resolve that problem. The resolution is somewhat difficult because the issue of long-term leases could raise the matter of a future Act under native title in some circumstances. We are seeking to determine a resolution to that question. (1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
(1) I should be more updated on the Morgan’s position than I am now. It is some months since I have considered their case and I do not have a question before me for consideration at this time, which is why I have not kept on top of the issue. Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon George Cash: Perhaps I could ask the minister a question tomorrow. Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
Hon KIM CHANCE: That would be helpful. I am not aware of a question before me concerning their lease. However, over its six-month history, I am aware of issues relating to the location of their lease, which, as I recall, is in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay. I remember that questions were raised about dolphin migration routes into the well-known Monkey Mia area and the conflict that those dolphin migration routes had with the lease boundaries held by the Morgans. I cannot add much beyond that. I would appreciate the member raising the question with me tomorrow and I will try to give him more assistance.
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.