❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Minister for Environment and Heritage's impartiality regarding the Mauds Landing project, given her previous opposition as shadow minister. The Minister is seeking legal advice before responding.
AnsweredQoN 425Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I asked this question yesterday and I apologise to the minister; there was a fault in my office and the question was not sent in correctly. Hon Tom Stephens: I am sorry for my churlishness for highlighting the member’s incompetence. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let us not be overwhelmed by sentiment at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
Hon Tom Stephens: I am sorry for my churlishness for highlighting the member’s incompetence. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let us not be overwhelmed by sentiment at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let us not be overwhelmed by sentiment at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
(ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
(iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
(iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
Hon Tom Stephens: I am sorry for my churlishness for highlighting the member’s incompetence. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let us not be overwhelmed by sentiment at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let us not be overwhelmed by sentiment at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I refer the minister to the answer to my question without notice of Tuesday, 26 November 2002 in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage confirmed that she had, in her capacity as the shadow Minister for the Environment, lodged an appeal against the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision in the Mauds Landing project. I further refer the minister to her appeal on that occasion based on the following assertions - (i) The scale and nature of the development is not consistent with the scale and style of development favoured by ecotourism. (ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee. In view of the fact that the current proposal before the Government has been appealed against in similar terms to those used by the minister in her previous capacity as shadow minister, will the minister accept that she has a biased view of the Mauds Landing project and disqualify herself from any involvement in the decision of Cabinet in respect of the future of the project; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
(ii) There is a limited database of scientific knowledge for this area of Western Australia. (iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
(iii) The proposed development site is located in a remote arid area of Western Australia, which is considered to be very fragile, both on the land and Ningaloo Reef areas. (iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
(iv) No development should be allowed to proceed adjacent to Ningaloo Reef until an overall strategy for this area has been undertaken in accordance with the finding of a select committee.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is at present seeking advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member and will respond more fully at a later time. I therefore ask that the question be placed on notice.
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.