❓ Question on Notice regarding the Kimberley Marine Support Base proposal at the Port of Broome, focusing on approvals, safety, economic viability, and Aboriginal heritage considerations. The Minister's answers provide some clarity but deflect on certain aspects.
AnsweredQoN 1912Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the
Kimberley Marine Support Base (KMSB) proposal approvals and economic analysis at
the Port of Broome, and I ask: (a) has a works approval
been issued to KMSB for a floating jetty; (b) if no to (a), when will it
be advertised; (c) who in government
would be responsible for ensuring the engineering design for the floating jetty
would be safe and robust enough to withstand the extreme tides and cyclones
that occur in this area; (d) in question on notice 1603 (Port –
Kimberley Marine Support Base), the Minister states that he has not undertaken
an economic analysis of the project. If the development was to fail, would the Government remove the floating jetty or seek to run it at a profit as a state entity; (e) if the Government was
to choose to remove the floating jetty, has the Government estimated how much this would cost to
taxpayers; (f) in question on notice 1603 (Port – Kimberley Marine Support Base), the
Minister states that KMSB has finalised the design and engineering elements of
the proposed new facility. Will the Minister table the report(s) that detail the
design and engineering elements of the facility; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) has KMSB received
cultural heritage approvals under the Aboriginal Heritage Act for the work
conducted to date; (i) if yes to (h), when did they receive this; (j) under the Aboriginal
Heritage Act , agreement is required from the landowner by a party conducting
work to be able to apply for a Section 18 permit. As the landowner, has the Port of Broome agreed to KMSB applying for a Section 18; (k) if yes to (j), when did the Port of Broome agree to this; (l) if yes to (j), will the Minister table the document that shows evidence of this; and (m) if no to (j), why hasn't the Port of Broome done this?
Kimberley Marine Support Base (KMSB) proposal approvals and economic analysis at
the Port of Broome, and I ask: (a) has a works approval
been issued to KMSB for a floating jetty; (b) if no to (a), when will it
be advertised; (c) who in government
would be responsible for ensuring the engineering design for the floating jetty
would be safe and robust enough to withstand the extreme tides and cyclones
that occur in this area; (d) in question on notice 1603 (Port –
Kimberley Marine Support Base), the Minister states that he has not undertaken
an economic analysis of the project. If the development was to fail, would the Government remove the floating jetty or seek to run it at a profit as a state entity; (e) if the Government was
to choose to remove the floating jetty, has the Government estimated how much this would cost to
taxpayers; (f) in question on notice 1603 (Port – Kimberley Marine Support Base), the
Minister states that KMSB has finalised the design and engineering elements of
the proposed new facility. Will the Minister table the report(s) that detail the
design and engineering elements of the facility; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) has KMSB received
cultural heritage approvals under the Aboriginal Heritage Act for the work
conducted to date; (i) if yes to (h), when did they receive this; (j) under the Aboriginal
Heritage Act , agreement is required from the landowner by a party conducting
work to be able to apply for a Section 18 permit. As the landowner, has the Port of Broome agreed to KMSB applying for a Section 18; (k) if yes to (j), when did the Port of Broome agree to this; (l) if yes to (j), will the Minister table the document that shows evidence of this; and (m) if no to (j), why hasn't the Port of Broome done this?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
7 May 2024
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Ports
Response time
12 days
(a) No.
(b) This process does not require advertising.
(c) Kimberley Ports Authority (KPA).
(d) The members question pre-empts an outcome and is therefore hypothetical.
(e) N/A
(f-g) The report is the property of KMSB
(h) KMSB received approval from Yawuru Prescribed Body Corporate.
(i) 16 April 2020
(j-m) KPA has provided authorisation for KMSB to submit a notice under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
(b) This process does not require advertising.
(c) Kimberley Ports Authority (KPA).
(d) The members question pre-empts an outcome and is therefore hypothetical.
(e) N/A
(f-g) The report is the property of KMSB
(h) KMSB received approval from Yawuru Prescribed Body Corporate.
(i) 16 April 2020
(j-m) KPA has provided authorisation for KMSB to submit a notice under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
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.