❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the Mangles Bay marina-based tourist precinct development. It seeks updates on land status, legal advice, and the Commonwealth's involvement, reflecting concerns about project progress and intergovernmental relations.
AnsweredQoN 910Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MANGLES BAY MARINA-BASED TOURIST PRECINCT
I refer to the minister’s answer to my question on notice 3881 on 23 June 2011 and my question without notice on 10 August 2011 regarding the proposed Mangles Bay marina-based tourist precinct. (1) Has the state completed a search of relevant documentation regarding the status of land earmarked for development? (2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN
I refer to the minister’s answer to my question on notice 3881 on 23 June 2011 and my question without notice on 10 August 2011 regarding the proposed Mangles Bay marina-based tourist precinct. (1) Has the state completed a search of relevant documentation regarding the status of land earmarked for development? (2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(1) Has the state completed a search of relevant documentation regarding the status of land earmarked for development? (2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(1) Has the state completed a search of relevant documentation regarding the status of land earmarked for development? (2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(2) As almost 10 weeks have passed since the question was asked on 10 August, has the government received advice, anticipated to be completed within four to six weeks, from the State Solicitor’s Office on the issue? (3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(3) What were the additional questions raised by the commonwealth officers that led to the government seeking the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office even after the government had committed $3.7 million to the project? (4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(4) If the government has received the advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, will the minister now provide a substantive response to my question on notice 3881 of 23 June 2011? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I deliver this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(1)–(2) Yes. (3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(3) The government received advice from the commonwealth which sought to repudiate the previous commonwealth advice received in 2000 that indicated it had no residual interests in the area or influence over the long-term use of the site. The additional advice from the State Solicitor’s Office confirmed that the original 2000 commonwealth advice was correct at law, and that the commonwealth’s actions since that 2000 advice effectively prevents repudiation of the commonwealth’s 2000 opinion. (4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
(4) Correspondence between the commonwealth and state on this matter continues and a response will be provided as soon as a resolution is reached.
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.