Question challenges the Premier on the timing of the Mauds Landing development approval relative to the Future Ningaloo process and public consultation, given EPA recommendations. The Premier's answer only addresses the public consultation aspect.

AnsweredQoN 1303Legislative Council
Asked
21 October 2003
Portfolio
Premier

QuestionView source ↗

I refer the Premier to the EPA’s advice on the Coral Coast Resort proposal for Mauds Landing which states ‘ … the impacts associated with the footprint of the proposal could be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives with satisfactory implementation of environmental management commitments and recommended conditions, …’ ‘… the proposal should not be approved for implementation unless the government is able to - identify and confirm the environmental management resources required across the natural resource management sectors to adequately protect all values of the Ningaloo Marine Park and its adjacent coastline …’, and ask -
(1) Since the Government is currently undertaking an assessment of the long term management of Ningaloo, through the Future Ningaloo process, why wasn’t the decision on the Mauds Landing development made subsequent to the findings of the Future Ningaloo process, as recommended by the EPA?
(2) Since the Premier has claimed in Parliament that this Government is interested in public views on Ningaloo, why didn’t the Government leave the Mauds Landing development option in the public discussion paper?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
18 November 2003
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Premier
Response time
28 days
(2) Public views on the Maud’s Landing proposal were expressed through the environmental impact assessment process.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more