A WA parliamentary question seeks details about a mooring licence application by M.G. Kailis near Remark Island, including its nature, location, consultation process, and related approvals. The Minister agrees to table relevant documents.

AnsweredQoN 801Legislative Council
Asked
19 October 2004
Portfolio
Planning and Infrastructure

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to an application made by M.G. Kailis in late 2003 for a mooring licence near Remark Island in the Recherche archipelago. (1) What was the nature of the mooring applied for? (2) Was the mooring located at the position indicated in the application? (3) What consultation was undertaken with respect to other users of the area in which the mooring was to be located? (4) Has any other approval or authority been issued with respect to this location or this mooring? (5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS

AnswerView source ↗

(1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(1) What was the nature of the mooring applied for? (2) Was the mooring located at the position indicated in the application? (3) What consultation was undertaken with respect to other users of the area in which the mooring was to be located? (4) Has any other approval or authority been issued with respect to this location or this mooring? (5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(2) Was the mooring located at the position indicated in the application? (3) What consultation was undertaken with respect to other users of the area in which the mooring was to be located? (4) Has any other approval or authority been issued with respect to this location or this mooring? (5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(3) What consultation was undertaken with respect to other users of the area in which the mooring was to be located? (4) Has any other approval or authority been issued with respect to this location or this mooring? (5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(4) Has any other approval or authority been issued with respect to this location or this mooring? (5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(5) Will the minister table all correspondence and documentation with respect to this licence application and its approval? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(1) The nature of the mooring application related to the testing of oceanographic impacts on a sea cage. (2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(2) The mooring location was checked on 7 December 2003 and found to be in the area indicated in the mooring application? (3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(3) None. Standard practice involves consultation with port authorities and other key local authorities. Consultation with users is impractical for mooring licences. (4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(4) No. (5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
(5) Yes. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]
Leave granted. [See paper No 2718.]

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more