❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Premier's decision regarding the Coral Coast Marina Development, specifically regarding conflicting advice from the EPA, CEO of the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Appeals Convener. The Premier, through Hon. Kim Chance, acknowledges awareness of the advice and deems further discussion unnecessary.
AnsweredQoN 1411Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Premier to his ‘open letter’ outlining the reasons for the Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd decision, particularly to the part in which he stated that he determined that the proposal was environmentally unacceptable and should therefore not proceed, and ask - (1) When the Premier made his decision was he aware that the Environmental Protection Authority’s advice to the Appeals Convener was to dismiss the appeals and accept the EPA’s findings? (2) Is the Premier aware that the chief executive officer of the Department of Environmental Protection supported the EPA’s advice? (3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(1) When the Premier made his decision was he aware that the Environmental Protection Authority’s advice to the Appeals Convener was to dismiss the appeals and accept the EPA’s findings? (2) Is the Premier aware that the chief executive officer of the Department of Environmental Protection supported the EPA’s advice? (3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(2) Is the Premier aware that the chief executive officer of the Department of Environmental Protection supported the EPA’s advice? (3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(4) This was not necessary.
(1) When the Premier made his decision was he aware that the Environmental Protection Authority’s advice to the Appeals Convener was to dismiss the appeals and accept the EPA’s findings? (2) Is the Premier aware that the chief executive officer of the Department of Environmental Protection supported the EPA’s advice? (3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(2) Is the Premier aware that the chief executive officer of the Department of Environmental Protection supported the EPA’s advice? (3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the recommendation made by Ms Fiona Keating, the person appointed by the Premier as the one-person Appeals Committee, contradicts the EPA and CEO’s advice? (4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(4) If the Premier was aware of the contrast between the recommendations of the EPA and the department’s CEO and the opinion of Ms Fiona Keating, why did he not discuss the appeals with the EPA and the CEO? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(1)-(2) The Premier is aware of the advice provided by the EPA, the department’s CEO and the Appeals Convener. (3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(3) The Premier is aware that following the consideration of the appeals and all relevant advice, Ms Fiona Keating recommended against allowing the implementation of the Mauds Landing proposal. (4) This was not necessary.
(4) This was not necessary.
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.