Hansard

Disallowance motions

Marine park orders

Disallowance motion

Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (4:02 pm): It does not give me great pleasure to rise today, but I am rising to move the disallowance of the following marine park orders. I move:

That the:

(1) Mamang Maambakoort Marine Park Order;

(2) Mirning Marine Park Order;

(3) Western Bight Marine Park Order; and

(4) Wudjari Marine Park Order

published in the Government Gazette on 8 November 2024 and tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 12 November 2024 under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 be disallowed.

Collectively, these four orders represent the declaration of the South Coast Marine Park, an initiative that should have been a model of science-led, community-driven marine conservation. The problem I have today is too much information. What I want to start with today is that I have gone back and done a bit of research—back to the former Premier, former Leader of the Opposition, Mark McGowan and his WA Plan for Jobs. In it, I found a few interesting things, including:

Fishing is COOL

Australian consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the sustainability challenges facing world fish stocks. Consumers want to know that the seafood they purchase is of high quality and originate from well-managed sustainable fisheries.

That was from Mark McGowan's WA Labor Plans for Jobs. There is another one here—the Mark McGowan plan for the agricultural region to grow our fishing industry. It says that as part of the implementation of the aquaculture development plan, a re-elected McGowan Labor government will create further aquaculture zones that will attract investment opportunities to expand this important industry. Apparently, cutting down the area that people can fish in will attract further investment to expand this important industry. That was part of the old Mark McGowan Labor government's plan for the agriculture region. Then of course, there was the death knell—getting things done in the first two years of the McGowan government, March 2017 to March 2019. Under "Expanding our conservation estate", I quote:

Announced a bold vision to expand our conservation estate by five million hectares over five years, a 20 per cent increase, managed in collaboration with traditional owners

There it is Madam Acting Speaker—the Mark McGowan bonanza spelling the death knell to our fishing industry on the south coast, in the South Coast Marine Park. Of course, as we know, it was driven by the likes of Pew Charitable Trusts. Here we have a $7 billion outfit based in Boston, Washington. The CEO of Pew Charitable Trusts came out and said, "We're having trouble trying to make any difference on the US coastline. So what are we going to do? We're going to move to the Australian coastline. We're going to try and inflict our beliefs and thoughts on the Australian coastline." It has done it with the help of the WA Labor Party. As I said, one of those documents includes "Fishing is COOL" but the government used companies like the Pew Charitable Trusts that, no doubt behind the scenes, donated money to the Australian Labor Party. By the way, it originally made its money from oil, if members can believe it. The $7 billion Pew Charitable Trusts, a good friend of the Australian Labor Party that made its money from oil—but tried to inflict its thoughts on the coastline of Western Australia on the south coast.

I want to give a little bit of a history lesson for some of those who may not have been here before. I think it is important because the South Coast Marine Park was not born from science. It was not born from a groundswell of community demand. It was born from, as I said, the 2021 election promise made hastily under the umbrella of the McGowan government's Plan for our Parks initiative. From the inception, the process was flawed. The only primary justification that this government had was the 30 year old document, the 1994 Wilson Report. Even that report, limited as it was by the science of the time, explicitly acknowledged the lack of data for the south coast and the need for further study before marine reserves could be designed.

In response to mounting criticism, the government commissioned the 2021 Carijoa report. Again, this reiterated and what the Wilson report had already concluded That the south coast is chronically understudied and that we lack the most basic data on biodiversity population estimates and habitat mapping and the ecological functions of the region.

The report says that while there are many gaps, comprehensive bathymetry and benthic habitat mapping for the five proposed areas is required to ensure that no significant geomorphological features or habitats are missed. That says that we do not even have full maps of the sea floor, yet in the face of this so-called glaring knowledge vacuum, this government chose to proceed and said, "We're going to have five million hectares of conservation land and sea-based parks. We're going to do that regardless of people's lifestyle. We're going to do that regardless of the fishing industry. We're going to do that regardless of those communities, the likes of Bremer Bay, Hopetoun and Esperance. We are going to push on regardless." In some way, I feel sorry for the former Minister for Environment because he had to carry out the plan.

Several members interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members!

Mr Peter Rundle: He quietly slipped down to Esperance on the morning of the Melbourne Cup when everyone was focused on the Melbourne Cup. He went out on a little tour, but when they were coming back to port, they noticed a few protesters on the jetty: "Turn back! Turn back! Let's go and land somewhere else." He did not want to fight the public.

Several members interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members!

Mr Peter Rundle: He organised a bit of a press conference there with a couple of likely journalists: "Nothing to see here. This is a great announcement. We won't front up to the public." He got back on the plane and I do not know whether he got back in time for some late afternoon Melbourne Cup event, but it certainly was very, very disappointing for the people of Esperance. They were just standing there quietly on the jetty wanting to greet the minister and have a chat to him, but, no.

As I said, I felt sorry for the former Minister for Environment in some respects because he was the man that had to carry out Mark McGowan's Plan for Our Parks with five million hectares of land and sea-based parks with its backing coming from, as I said, the likes of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which loves to inflict its thoughts on countries that are not even within its realm: "Let's just go overseas. Let's influence the Australian coastline. Let's donate a few dollars to the Labor Party behind the scenes and everything's sweet." It has been one of the most disappointing episodes that I have seen here in the last eight years. Of course, it contravened former Premier McGowan's Plan for Jobs. Fishing is cool, apparently, but this particular episode demonstrated that the government was not going to take any notice of that. That was just for the glossy document at the start of the 2017 period.

I want to go back to the socio-economic impact assessment. First we had the scientific failure, which was the Wilson report from 1994 pointing out that not enough study had been done around the area. Then the Carijoa report from 2021 said that the area had been chronically understudied. What did this government decide to do? It thought that we had better have a socio-economic impact study of our local communities and industries that were involved. In October 2022, a comprehensive socio-economic impact assessment was put to tender. It was detailed, it was rigorous and it was supported by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions; the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, which paid for it; and the Goldfields–Esperance Regional Development Commission. The evaluation panel even selected a preferred contractor. Funding was available and then, without warning, the government pulled the pin. Why? It was because apparently it did not offer value for money. What did we get instead? We got the old desktop report, a bare bones economic snapshot by ACIL Allen that offered no real engagement with local fishers, no modelling of cumulative impacts and no serious consultation. As usual, that was the substitute, the smokescreen, and the people of Esperance and Bremer Bay and along the coast deserved better. They deserved to be heard. Instead they were ignored. We saw it there with, I think, three rallies. One was attended by over 1,000 people and another couple were attended by about 300 people because they were being ignored by this government. The office of Hon Shelley Payne was in Esperance and occasionally she was there to try to defend things, but this government was not listening. This government did not go there to consult. It did not turn up to rallies. It did not want to receive that information from that community. A petition calling for planning processes to be halted and a parliamentary inquiry to be launched was signed by 1,674 Western Australians. A second petition was tabled in November last year that raised even more serious questions, including the failure of the then responsible minister in Minister Whitby to properly assess the socio-economic consequences of the South Coast Marine Park.

This disallowance motion is not just about maps and zoning; it is about trust, and the fact that trust was broken when the people of Esperance, Bremer Bay and Hopetoun were not listened to. The future worry is the next round of marine parks. Where are we going next? We are going up and around the coast to the Marmion Marine Park. What a disaster that will be electorally for the Labor government. We heard on the rumour file that the government is—

Mr Reece Whitby: The rumour file?

Mr Peter Rundle: That is it. It is a very good source of knowledge.

Several members interjected.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Where's the member for Pilbara when you need him?

The Acting Speaker: Members!

Mr Peter Rundle: It is a rumour confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Several members interjected.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lorna Clarke): Members! I cannot hear the speaker who is on his feet.

Mr Peter Rundle: What is going to happen to the Marmion Marine Park? Apparently it is going to be pushed out past the next election. The member for Scarborough will not want to know anything about the Marmion Marine Park. That will be the death knell of the member for Scarborough. The member for Hillarys will not want to know anything about the Marmion Marine Park. She will be gone.

Several members interjected.

Mr Peter Rundle: That was a long time ago. I think that COVID saved the day on that one. I can assure the members for Hillarys, Scarborough and Mindarie that they will all be breathing heavily when the Marmion Marine Park turns up. They will be gone. The electorates of Albany and Geraldton will be consolidated into the hands of the Nationals WA.

Dr Tony Buti: The former Liberal Minister for Environment, Hon Albert Jacob, was a great fan of the marine park.

Several members interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members, all right! Come on.

Mr Peter Rundle: Albert Jacob? He has moved on.

I have given some background to the situation. As I said, I like the member for Scarborough, I like the member for Hillarys and I like the member for Mindarie, but I do not think they will survive Marmion Marine Park because we know how Western Australians react and we know that they do not like it. We know that this government is once again pushing its values on everyone.

What we have seen created by the Labor government is what I am calling the city versus country divide. I am sure the member for Central Wheatbelt will enlighten the chamber about this in the world of agriculture later. We have seen the Labor Party put city ministers into regional areas to try to put the lid on it. It created the city versus country divide—

Mr Basil Zempilas: They call it the "GPS club".

Mr Peter Rundle: That is it. Labor had an appalling result in the election, so it now has to send these city-based ministers to the regions. I will say that they have turned up on a couple of occasions. The Minister for Great Southern has been down to Albany a couple of times. The education minister, the Minister for Wheatbelt, came to the budget breakfast in Narrogin and spent a day or two out there. The member for Central Wheatbelt and I were at the budget breakfast. They have turned up on a couple of occasions, but they cannot turn around the damage that Labor has done to our regions and they cannot turn around the city versus country divide.

Mr Mark Folkard interjected.

Mr Peter Rundle: I am glad the member for Burns Beach is back. As I said, he will be gone when the Marmion Marine Park comes up.

Mr Mark Folkard interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members!

Mr Peter Rundle: I will be very sorry to see the member for Burns Beach go, but nonetheless.

Mr Mark Folkard interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Burns Beach, I cannot hear the member for Roe.

Mr Peter Rundle: I want to talk about the next element, which is the compensation framework. It is unfit for purpose. What of the fishers? What of the access to their traditional grounds? We were told that they would be compensated under the Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act 1997, but history tells us a far more troubling story. Even the former Minister for Fisheries, the member for Bunbury, admitted in this chamber that this compensation process has not worked and is not working. We can go back in history. The Ngari Capes Marine Park was gazetted in 2012 but some fishers still have not received compensation 10 years later. The Buccaneer Archipelago marine parks were announced in 2022. By late 2023, fishers were still in limbo, with compensation not expected until 2025 despite restrictions coming into effect in 2026. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation's 2024 report confirmed what many have said for years: compensating for the impact of marine parks presents special challenges under current legislative settings. The FRICMA model—that is, the Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act—is broken. It relies on the market value of fishing licences, a value that evaporates overnight once a marine park is declared. Intergenerational licences, often held by families for decades, become unsellable and their value collapses once zoning changes are announced. That is what I want to get across to members today. When we look at somewhere like Esperance, we have the Gray family, the Mansteds, the Bradleys, the Daniels and the Tonkins. Their businesses have been established for many, many years. They are intergenerational families with fishing licences. Once the Minister for the Environment announces a marine park, the value of those licences drops overnight. I equate it to farms. If something gets taken away, the value of the farm will potentially drop.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: Dave Kelly's crayfish grab.

Mr Peter Rundle: That is it—the 17% crayfish grab of the former Minister for Fisheries. Luckily, he saw the light or I suspect someone else saw the light and told him to drop his 17% ban. Member for Central Wheatbelt, I had to actually go out and catch some yabbies at one stage, just in case the Minister for Fisheries extended his 17% licence over farming dams! That was the concern.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: Sounds like a NIMBY situation.

Mr Peter Rundle: Luckily, he was moved on. The FRICMA model does not account—

Mr Mark Folkard interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members!

Mr Peter Rundle: It does not account for things like mental health deteriorating under financial stress. It does not account for coastal communities watching their lifeblood disappear without recourse. The State Administrative Tribunal reviewed the FRICMA process and found it lacking. Reform has been called for, yet nothing has been done. Now with the South Coast Marine Park, the government is preparing to repeat the same mistakes, only on a larger scale.

The first thing to consider is: what happens when local seafood supplies disappear? Let us look at the wider implications, because I think it is important to take into account that everyone loves to eat local seafood. I actually equate this to the forestry decision. Once again, Mark McGowan, the former Premier, stood up in here one day and totally surprised everyone, including everyone in the forest industry. They were looking after the voters of Fremantle. The member for Fremantle would have been glad about the announcement because the voters of Fremantle supported banning the self-sustaining forestry industry. But what has happened now? We are now importing our timber from Indonesia and South America. What have we got? We have got the shot-hole borer! I am sure the member for Central Wheatbelt will talk about that as well in the next section. This is what this government does. It does not consult; it just bans viable industries and then we get these results. What are we going to have now? We are going to have seafood brought in from one of those farms in Vietnam with questionable activities. That is what is going to happen. All the seafood that we will eat will come from frozen packages at Coles or Woolworths that will have come from Vietnam and other Asian countries because we will have lost our supply of fresh seafood. This government bans local industries. It has created the city versus country divide. It washes its hands and says, "Look at us. We've done a great job. We've banned forestry. We've messed up the fishing industry with the South Coast Marine Park." Then we get all the flow-on effects. The family timber mills in the forestry industry have been messed up. The member for Warren–Blackwood is trying to liaise with them and their communities to try to patch up the divide that has been created by this government. That is a short summary, but these are the results.

Esperance Professional Fishermen's Association vice-president Manue Daniels, who spent years engaging in consultation, puts it like this:

With the future I have painstakingly built poised for erasure, I question the Government's agenda, which seems irrevocably set against us.

That is spot-on. She summed it up very well. She is part of one of those fishing families. She also stated:

It's a process that listens without hearing, consults without changing, asks for input while pushing decisions already in motion.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that sounds familiar—like the Burswood racetrack.

Mr Basil Zempilas: It's the Burswood racetrack! Didn't ask anybody there.

Mr Peter Rundle: Yes. That is it. I repeat:

It's a process that listens without hearing, consults without changing, asks for input while pushing decisions already in motion.

It reminds me of the Burswood racetrack. I will say no more.

The fishing industry is not just about seafood; it is about food sovereignty, local economies, regional jobs and cultural identity. When fishers vanish, so do the stories, the traditions and ancestral marine knowledge carried across generations.

I could go on for much longer. Marine protection and sustainable fishing are not mutually exclusive. We can and we must pursue both, but to do so we must have a process that is transparent, evidence based and respectful of those impacted. The South Coast Marine Park orders fail on all three counts. They represent a betrayal of science, a betrayal of community consultation and a betrayal of the hardworking Western Australians who rely on our oceans not just for income but for identity. Let us not allow a bad process to become a bad legacy. As I said, we have seen the creation of the city versus country divide. As I said, I have some sympathy for the environment minister who had to implement this particular scenario of this government, part of the five million hectares of land and sea-based parks. As I said, there are documents, such as Getting Things Done, which is about Mark McGowan: "Fishing's cool, but, by the way, we will just wipe out your industry." There is the plan for the agricultural region—seriously! The reference to "growing our fishing industry" states:

As part of the implementation of the Aquaculture Development Plan, a re-elected McGowan Labor government will create further agricultural zones that will attract the investment opportunities to expand this important industry.

Seriously, who is he kidding? Let us reduce the fishing area and somehow that will increase investment. That is what has happened. Unfortunately, as I said, we can also compare that industry with the forestry industry. The government wants to wipe out sustainable forestry, all those timber mills, the furniture-making businesses and all the other things that go with it to cater for a few voters in Fremantle and other areas. The government says, "Don't worry about the consequences. Don't worry about importing timber from Indonesia. Don't worry about importing it from South America and all the biosecurity issues that come with it." It is a similar case with our fresh seafood.

I have a lot of empathy for our fishing community in Esperance. I know that the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council has had preliminary meetings. It even acknowledges the length of time that the Ngari Capes process took and needing to allow sufficient time for the compensation working group process to occur. It is looking for feedback from fishers and all the rest of it. Compensation is a challenging thing, but if this government is going to mess up perfectly viable industries that were going along well with its policies that mess up our regional communities, it should compensate our fishers properly. It should put the effort in. It should not let the former minister stand there say, "Oh, this isn't working. We're not sure." We had these other parks 10 years ago and those fishers still have not been compensated. We can imagine the concern of the current fishing groups.

As I said, let us see some action and some compensation from this government. From my perspective, when Marmion Marine Park is established, unfortunately, this government will lose several members. The community of Esperance has demonstrated how bad it was for their community. If that is multiplied by the electorates across the metropolitan region, many members will be gone because people do not like it. I urge this house to disallow these marine park orders. Let us send a message that conservation policy in Western Australia must be grounded in science, community respect and fairness, not ideology, election promises or expediency.

I commend this motion to the house.

Mrs Kirrilee Warr (Geraldton) (4:35 pm): I rise today to also speak to this disallowance motion in support of the member for Roe, in particular with much empathy for the communities he represents and as the newly minted shadow Minister for Fisheries. This decision relating to marine parks was made by simple mandate as a result of an election commitment, yet we heard from the member for Roe today how this decision was made. Was it based on scientific evidence, environmental need or through meaningful consultation with local communities and industry? They are the questions I put today. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Environment does not sit in this place—he sits in the other house—but I am sure many of those in that chamber today will be intently listening to why this disallowance motion has been moved and why we are speaking to it today.

Fishers themselves are stewards of the sea. They protect and have respect for the environment in which they fish, and for good reason—it is their livelihood. Why would they not want to protect that? Why would they not want to be environmental protectionists and conservationists of the place in which they work? I have been fortunate in my first six months as the shadow Minister for Fisheries to meet with stakeholders and fishers themselves from across Western Australia and hear firsthand the stories about how policy and decision-making of government is impacting their futures.

We heard today from the member for Roe about the consultation process that occurred, which was before my time in this place. The history is on Hansard and it lays bare the inadequacy and the poorly targeted consultation process that many of the local communities, stakeholders and fishers alike felt and are still feeling. They do not feel that their voices have been heard in this process around locking up waters and locking them out from the fishing grounds that they have fished for generations. Many have lived and worked across that coast for decades. They are asking for some transparency. We have to hold on to some hope that this government will listen. They have hope that governments will listen. They want to trust government. They want to know that the government will make decisions in the best interests for them and their communities.

It does not just impact fishers; it impacts the communities themselves. We are talking about businesses that support these industries. We are talking about families that live in these communities who support the local shops and attend the local schools. They are part of the social fabrications that make up our regional communities. I am very passionate about that because without that fabrication, we would see a decline in population. When we see a decline in population, it starts to impact other things such as community organisations, volunteers, volunteers in our emergency services and the mental health support we get from being interactive with our peers and people in our communities.

Under this plan, we know that potentially 20% of the park will be declared sanctuary zones and all forms of fishing will be banned. This translates to more than 1,200 kilometres of coastline being locked up. That is quite concerning. Recreational and commercial fishers will no longer be able to access a significant portion of the south coast. As the member for Roe mentioned, the impact will be significant. Our commercial fishers are appropriately granted licences through processes and systems, and we are very supportive of that. We understand that is part of commercial fishing. But with these decisions has come uncertainty, and that has created a lot of anxiety for not just the fishers who are going to be directly impacted by this marine park zone, but potentially also fishers in other waters who might be feeling they will be next. We talk about the Marmion Marine Park. The Labor government has listed that as an area to be declared. We understand that has been delayed. Why choose one park over another as a priority? The anxiety that this marine park is creating amongst commercial operators and recreational fishers and the communities that support those industries and sectors is quite large. It is perhaps more significant than we think.

We have inconsistency with some government priorities—we heard about that from the member for Roe today—and politically there will be some sensitivity. I really hope this government is hearing what that might mean for some of the current members of this place. We also know more broadly about the marine estate itself. We are a vast state; WA is very big with over 48 different fishing sectors that fish across the waters from Kununurra through to Esperance. That is a significant part of our state and we need to balance conservation and commercial outcomes as well as social outcomes so that Western Australian people get to enjoy it.

Furthermore, I call on this government to start investing in its very own fisheries department. Over the years, it has seen its funding eroded, particularly investment in research. Without seeing the research, we start to question how decisions are being made. Are they underpinned by science? Without seeing data for the whole marine estate, we do wonder how these decisions are being made. Fish swim, right? I am sure species swim across the waters. I do not mean to be sarcastic about the matter, but drawing a line on a map and saying, "This is where the sanctuary will be and this is where you can't fish", does not mean the fish stocks we so desperately want to protect will remain in the sanctuary. We cannot be certain of that, and I am not sure we actually have a handle on the data to understand the patterns of breeding and migration of all the species that recreational and commercial fishers like to fish.

I think an important part of any decision-making in this place is that it is underpinned by science, so I encourage further investment, where we can, into our own fisheries department to allow for that research and development to happen so that we can ensure we have conservation and sustainability across the whole marine environment. As the member for Roe mentioned, it should be data-driven and backed by science. Let us take a step back and look at the data and create benchmarks so that we can make an informed decision around where sanctuary zones, fishing and marine parks could potentially lie across our very, very vast coastline.

Without further ado, our regions certainly deserve transparency. They deserve to be heard and they want to be able to trust governments, whether it is this side, the other side or whatever. We know people want to be able to hold hope for and trust governments to make informed decisions without further impacting all our underpinning industries. That is very much the backbone of the state of Western Australia.

Before I conclude, I want to talk about the potential support that would be available should any further decisions be made on this marine park. The member for Roe also touched on this around transition packages or compensation, or however you want to term it. Commercial fishers have spoken to me about this. They are very concerned about the adjustments and the shortcomings of any potential package. It reminds me of other industries, whether that is the sheep industry or forestry, and the impact of these decisions and how sectors are supported going forward into the future and how they may transition across. If we are serious about supporting our regions, our primary producers, our fishers and our regional communities, I sincerely ask that we look at how packages can be best funded, the investment required and how we can best consult with those who will be impacted most to ensure that they are satisfactory and sufficient, because without that communities will decline. Transition assistance packages do not account for mental health or the closure of regional businesses. As I mentioned, it is the social fabric that holds our regions together so tightly.

That concludes my contribution today. Hopefully I spoke for only 10 minutes. I commend this motion to the house.

Mr Scott Leary (Albany) (4:45 pm): I, too, rise to speak on this motion for the disallowance of the South Coast Marine Park, probably more from the aspect of how it will affect us in Albany and the Great Southern. We have one of the premium seafood suppliers in Albany. Adam and Margaret Soumelidis operate Great Southern Seafoods. It is a great supplier and sources some of its fish from the areas within the proposed park. I have spoken to Adam at length about the impact this is going to have on his business. It will drive up costs for fuel. One of the things I said when I came to this house is that I have a commercial background, and I am happy to explain the cost of sale and what it is like to run a business to anybody here. Having to travel further to those fishing grounds means costs will go up. What impact will that have on consumers with our cost-of-living crisis? How much will prices go up? Adam talked about the consultation process they had been through about the parks when they were told they would be coming. Much to Adam's surprise, they supplied the location of all their fishing grounds and everything, and when the park maps turned up, lo and behold, those sanctuary areas were exactly where their fishing grounds are—the locations they had provided to the people doing the consultation. The government's transparency was not good. They supplied their fishing grounds in good faith but were sort of locked out, and that pushed them down to a no-take zone.

We did not think that there was a proposal for a ground between Bremer Bay and Cape Leeuwin. I did not think that was on the cards, but with the natural evolution of things, probably from Pew Charitable Trusts, we will see those grounds extended from the South Australian border right the way around our coastline. I did not think that Adam had any knowledge of it, but he actually produced a map and showed me how those grounds are already in the thing from Bremer Bay around to Leeuwin, with the exclusion zones already marked out. I was quite concerned to actually see that is happening, and it may be on the cards for our area as well.

What will those restrictions do to our industries locally and to people and their livelihoods? We are not talking about fly-by-night companies or fly-by-night families; we are talking about families who have been in this industry for a long, long time. They are proud of their history. They are proud of their knowledge of the fishing industry and how sustainable they make it. They know where to fish. They know where not to take stock and how to spread the risk across their fishing grounds. These are seasoned professionals and they need and should be shown respect for their knowledge and what they bring to the south coast and predominantly to our area.

I support this disallowance motion. It has got to stop. We have to see more consultation. We have to see a proper process. Let us get some science behind this decision and not just react on a whim or for political expediency. We need information across the sector that can be taken on board so that we can make a rational decision and so we can have the benefit. We have sustainable industries. Let us keep them sustainable. Let us get to the people who operate them so that we know we will continue to have safe, locally procured produce that is of world-class quality to supply to domestic markets.

Tourism is on top of that as well. We have people who come to our south coast. We enjoy fishing, four-wheel driving and shooting. Let us have these things available for everybody to enjoy without restrictions to the point that people do not come to our regions because they cannot do anything. There is a lot of red tape. We have some great restaurants, granted, and people can console themselves in those, but we want to get outside. We are outside people. We are recreational people.

Mr Basil Zempilas: You want to get out and do it.

Mr Scott Leary: Yes. We can have the fish and chips if it is not too expensive. What we hope to see from this is really great, proper consultation. We invite the government to really listen to what regional Western Australia is telling it and asking of it and to please consider it going forward.

Mr Liam Staltari (Carine) (4:49 pm): I, too, rise to speak on this motion. I thank the previous speakers, the members for Roe, Geraldton and Albany, for their contributions. I note in particular the member for Roe's fierce advocacy on behalf of his community, because one does not get the biggest winning margin in the whole state by doing nothing for one's community.

Although I share the concerns of the previous speakers, I also want to talk about something that some of the speakers have touched on that deeply affects my community and, as the member for Roe noted, the entire northern suburbs of Perth, which is this government's proposed radical expansion of the Marmion Marine Park. This government's ham-fisted approach to marine parks extends beyond just those on the south coast, and right now it is a source of real anxiety for fishers, anglers, divers, snorkellers and the many people in my community and neighbouring communities who live where they live for a reason—because they love the beach and they love coastal living. I am pleased to speak on this today on their behalf.

Members may be aware of the Marmion Marine Park. It covers about 10,500 hectares, it runs from just south of my electorate in Trigg up to Burns Beach, and, in fact, in 1987 it became WA's first-ever declared marine park. I think, since its inception, the beauty of that marine park is that it has actually struck some balance between protecting our natural environment and allowing people to enjoy life on the water. I think that is a really important point I want to make and that fishers in my community are the first to make. We all want to see our natural environment, especially in our oceans, protected and preserved, and we want to see those marine ecosystems thrive. Of course, the Marmion Marine Park has sanctuary zones that allows that to happen, but, crucially, there are longstanding, well-used designated areas for recreational fishing, snorkelling, diving and other activities.

The member for Geraldton used the term "stewards of the sea" with respect to fishers. Having doorknocked fishers, I always love chatting with them, whether they are recreational, commercial or other fishers, because that is exactly the mindset they bring, and it is the first thing they will tell you. They understand, as only they can, the logic of a sustainable approach to these things, especially people who have been fishing as a hobby or have had a fishing business in the family for generations. People in that community will work within the boundaries of today's Marmion Marine Park every weekday or on the weekend. They recognise the value of those protections, but they will not accept ham-fisted, ideological interventions on things like Marmion Marine Park, which actually is not broken. It works well. If it ain't broke, the general approach is you do not need to try to fix it—especially Marmion Marine Park, which is a gateway to some of the best fishing and ocean terrain in the northern suburbs. Hundreds of thousands of people across Perth and from abroad use it every year.

I raise this principally as the member for Carine because in my first speech, I made the point that one can walk through or drive around Carine and see that on almost every street there will be a fishing boat. Often there is more than one. There are a few on my street. People live there because they love to fish; they love the hobbies and the family life that that brings with it. One thing Carine is quite famous for, I think proudly, is we are home to the mighty MAAC—the mighty Marmion Angling and Aquatic Club. A lot of members here might know of the MAAC, and if they have not heard of it, they are always welcome. It is a great place. There is not really anywhere like the MAAC on a Tuesday night. It is packed with hundreds of members. There is a 10-year waiting list—my family and I know that, because we are still on the list—because it is so loved. People love it because they get good fellowship, great food and good company. If people want to escape the really noisy part of the MAAC, they can go downstairs, because that is where the anglers, fishers and others are doing their thing and applying their craft. It is a really great thing because people can see how much they are invested in that hobby.

Again, members of the MAAC really understand the value of the ocean ecosystem, and I think their concerns match those articulated by previous members from the south coast who know these things really well, who love it as a hobby and have friends who run it as a business. They are at risk of being trampled on.

The government's proposed expansion, which was an extreme extension of the boundaries, would basically take the marine park up to Two Rocks. It would go out from the shore to large sections of the Three Mile Reef. Fishers at the MAAC have told me that if one actually looks at that stretch between the shore and the Three Mile Reef, they will see that there are no large species of demersal fish there—it is too shallow—and there are proposed sanctuary zones that would impact areas out from Hillarys, Ocean Reef, Mindarie and the Two Rocks boat ramps, which would risk locking thousands of people out of some of the best prime crayfishing grounds that are close to the north metro boat ramps. Of course, right now, it has been paused; I will get to that in a moment. But when this was announced, a lot of these local fishers were watching in real time the experience of the community down south thinking, "Is this exactly what the government is going to subject us to as well?" It raised a lot of concerns. Will significant new sanctuary zones prevent people from doing things as basic as dropping an anchor? Is the government going to make it harder to find areas for fishing? What is the government going to reserve all those stretches of ocean for, and how is it going to affect longstanding hobbies and patterns of activity? Of course, it drove them to act in the same way as thousands of people who mobilised in the south. Thousands of them joined Recfishwest's "Cast of Thousands" campaign. I think that Recfishwest had something like 750 submissions on the marine park extension in Marmion alone. Of course, as the member for Roe mentioned, that was paused in 2024. It was said that it will be paused "until the South Coast Marine Park process has concluded". My observation is that that was the government realising it had bitten off more than it could chew. It was annoying and frustrating many communities at the same time, and, sure enough, it decided to park that for politically expedient reasons, to deal with the south coast, where, as has been mentioned, a lot of communities are still hurting. Of course, crucially, it was before an election year.

Now the challenge we have is that a lot of those anglers, fishers and others are stuck in limbo. They have watched what has happened down south and seen the people who are struggling, and they are now wondering, on the flip side of the election, when is this government going to circle back around for a second crack at this expansion? I make it clear that this did come up during the election. I spoke to dozens of different fishers, whether at the MAAC or on their doorstep, and I mean no disrespect to the previous Minister for Fisheries and the previous Minister for Environment, but it is true to say that I literally did not meet a single fisher who thought that this government was getting it right or that it understands recreational or commercial fisheries. I am not saying that to be funny; it is a fact that they provided me that feedback. Again, they were mortified to think that the substance of this proposal could be so damaging with such a radical expansion, and they were concerned to think that if there was going to be any consultation, it would be cursory or a check-box exercise, as they were seeing down south.

Of course, it turns out that those fishers were not alone. Documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act in 2023 revealed that the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development levelled its own criticisms at the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and its approach to consultation on this topic—so there was already internal conflict within the government on this consultation. DPIRD's concerns joined the concerns of the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council and the Western Rock Lobster Council, which were all concerned about the potential impact of this process. I quote the lobster council:

… industry bodies had been "misrepresented, disrespected and completely ignored" during the consultation for the Marmion Marine Park.

Its CEO said, touching on the previous point about the importance of data:

"We've been asking from day one for evidence and justification for removing the resource access from our fishers … and to date we've received no evidence or justification,"

That goes to the point about data. A really important point that recreational and commercial fishers raised with me was that they are not sure about the quality of the data that is being used to justify all this. They have an interest in data, they base decisions on data, and they are not confident that these decisions are actually being informed in that way.

I conclude by noting that the fishing community is really quick to mobilise. It is quick to stand up for its rights and way of life. We saw that during the election on a related topic, because, of course, out of the blue, during the election, the former Minister for Fisheries in this government walked away from a commitment to implement an overhaul of fishing licensing and quota arrangements.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Who was that?

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

Mr Liam Staltari: No, this was the previous Minister for Fisheries, member for Central Wheatbelt.

Several members interjected.

Mr Liam Staltari: I am going to try to restrain the member for Central Wheatbelt so that I can make my point.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lorna Clarke): Thank you, member for Carine.

Mr Liam Staltari: Right during the election, the government broke its word. It walked away from fishing families, and thank goodness fishing families did not take it lying down. I remember it, because thousands mobilised in the regions. I know that they had a big road trip down to Albany and made a big hoo-ha down there, but they also mobilised up in coastal communities. I remember it because it was during the election. There were corflutes everywhere, red, blue and green, and suddenly there were new corflutes, and what did the corflutes say? They said, "We stand with fishing families. Labor don't." It was very apt. I want to commend Fishing Families WA for making their voices heard. Sure enough, it took only a few short weeks for the government to change its mind, realise it had made the wrong decision and reverse it. If we reflect on events of the last week in the health space, we see a consistent theme here. The government will deflect, deny and say everything is fine, until it realises it is a bit of a political livewire, and then it backflips straightaway.

Mr Don Punch: I see you're rewriting history.

Mr Liam Staltari: This is very recent history.

I will close by making the point that the Marmion Marine Park expansion really is a source of ongoing anxiety and concern for my community. My community is waiting for more information. As has been mentioned, I note that many seats span the northern suburbs. People in those suburbs have the same hobbies and lifestyles as residents in Carine. I know those people will be hoping that their members stand up to the government and the minister on this. I can promise them I will. I will fight for them. We are hoping that we can prevent some really bad action from being taken that would lock up huge stretches of our local ocean for fishers and others who love it so much.

I will conclude by again commending members for their previous contributions. I will certainly continue to stand with our fishing communities. Thank you.

Mr Reece Whitby (Baldivis—Minister for Great Southern) (5:00 pm): I was waiting to see whether members opposite wanted to contribute further. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I note the contributions from the member for Roe, the member for Geraldton, the member for Albany and the member for Carine. I hate to pick favourites, but I think my favourite contribution was made by the member for Albany because it was heartfelt and made a lot of sense. It was a good solid contribution. The aspirations the member talked about aligned with what the government is hoping to achieve from this process. The government on this side is absolutely committed to the great outdoors. We have seen that in our budgets with our funding for fishing, boating and camping infrastructure. As a former Minister for the Environment, I am actually glad and happy that this disallowance motion has been brought on because it gives me the opportunity to reminisce and go back to another place and another time. It also gives me the opportunity to remind the chamber of the 6.5 million hectares of new national parks that this government has secured. It is one of the great legacies of this Labor government that will be here for all time for future generations in Western Australia. That is something to be proud of. It is an amazing contribution. Our election promise was five million hectares. We went beyond that, with 6.5 million hectares of biodiverse land, marine parks and national parks, which will be protected for future generations. The community will have the ability to engage and enjoy that environment because I have always believed that our national parks are there for active engagement and involvement.

Who was the member who identified the seats that would be gone? I think it was the member for Roe.

Mr Peter Rundle: That was me.

Mr Reece Whitby: That was the member. It was a very interesting comment to make. I think of seats like Kalamunda, Churchlands, Cottesloe and even Carine, where we know there is strong support for environmental initiatives. I just wonder what they think of the coalition partners that would have reintroduced native logging, which is part of its agenda. I wonder how those communities feel about what was said in this place today about going back and undoing protections in valuable marine environments and cutting down more native forests. Members in those seats that I have identified need to be aware of that, but I guess that is an issue for those members to consider.

I will not be supporting this disallowance motion, nor the other three motions listed by Mr Peter Rundle on the creation of the South Coast Marine Park. I well remember the last time the member for Roe was in here talking about the South Coast Marine Park. I remember the shenanigans, the misinformation, the flyers that were distributed in letterboxes across Esperance and the condemnation that came forward from the member's own community because of the misinformation he was spreading. When I heard about this dissolution motion—

Mr Lachlan Hunter: Dissolution? Don't talk about your own government like that!

Mr Reece Whitby: Disallowance motion, I should say. Well, it is very disillusioning. When I heard there was a disallowance motion, I thought that at last there is something new—the member for Roe has discovered an exciting new revelation that we had not heard about before. Instead, we got the same old falsehoods, the same old fabrications and the same old lines that are designed to divide community and create anxiety and fear. Most appallingly, I remember what happened in Esperance when the member for Roe was putting out his falsehoods and misinformation, creating anxiety and fear. Part of the community in Esperance, Indigenous families—this was quite disgusting—felt in fear for themselves. They were absolutely concerned and anxious about the tide of resentment that was being fuelled by misinformation against them.

The member mentioned some proud multigenerational local families in Esperance. I want to mention some other proud local families that actually go back probably a few more generations. The Aboriginal communities in that town felt afraid to turn up in town because of the misinformation and the anxiety that was being fuelled by disinformation. We remember the flyer I waved in here that had the names of the member and one of his colleague's on it. It was misinformation. It helped to create and fuel the division that existed in that community. I think the member is on the wrong side of history. We have seen this playbook play out before. Other parts of Western Australia have gone through a similar process. We had the same misinformation. I remember in another part of Western Australia, a four-wheel drive rammed the local Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions office. This is going back two decades. I was told by DBCA staff that a hangman's noose was produced. There was real fear, division and anger based on misinformation. When we go back to that community today and talk about whether it likes and supports its marine park, there is overwhelming support. It is overwhelmingly seen as a positive thing. It is good for the community, the environment, business, tourism operators and recreational fishers who are seeing biodiverse areas and nurseries being protected. If anyone bothers to read Hansard and look at this debate, there will come a time when the member's words of today will appear a bit silly. I think in the future we will see a community on the south coast come to accept and value what a marine park does for community, like the support and the premium brand it offers, the opportunities for investment and promotion worldwide and of course the environmental values that protect valuable nurseries and hatcheries, biodiverse areas that are valuable and that people want to see protected—not just people who might belong to Pew, but people who want to ensure that their grandkids can also go fishing in the future. This is why marine parks are so important.

I am advised that the marine park zoning scheme is yet to be gazetted and that the fisheries adjustment schemes are progressing and on track to open prior to that gazettal. The issues that the member is concerned about regarding fishing prohibitions are not in effect now and they will not come into effect until 12 months after the gazettal of the marine park zoning scheme. As I have said, adjustment schemes are progressing to occur before gazettal. The issue raised by the fishing sector about the impacts on the marine parks are recognised and were recognised in the process. When the marine park was announced, a commitment was made to establish a voluntary fisheries adjustment scheme to allow fishers who want to exit the fishery the capacity to do so. To assist with these processes, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development established a compensation working group chaired by the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) to provide recommendations to government on adjustment and compensation processes prior to formally opening any compensation or adjustment scheme. It would have input. Progress has been made on this commitment, with a voluntary fisheries adjustment scheme committee of advice being established. In addition to VFAS, the commercial fishers who remain in the fishery will be eligible for compensation should the market value of their authorisations be impacted. To reiterate: fishing prohibitions will not come into effect until 12 months after the gazettal of the marine park zoning scheme, and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development will work closely with industry.

The establishment of four new marine parks along the south coast of Western Australia will fill an important gap in the state's and nation's marine park network. This is something to be proud of. This is something on the level of the Great Barrier Reef. We know that that is an iconic international brand; the south coast could be a similar iconic brand that people come to from all over the world to enjoy, marvel at, and, yes, drop a line and fish as well. Scientific studies have shown that the marine biodiversity of the south coast state waters is globally significant.

In the comments today I heard a lot of things, but I did not hear about the value that should be placed on the environmental resources we have in this part of the world. The south coast marine environment supports vast kelp forests, extensive rhodolith beds, productive reefs and islands, and marine species that are found nowhere else in the world, such as the ruby sea dragon. It is a southern right whale nursery area. It has seal and sea lion colonies and important fisheries. It is globally special; it is unique. It is worth protecting and looking out for. I think the opposition would have a much stronger case for criticising the government if we did not have marine parks. Marine parks are designed to be multi-use.

It has been demonstrated time and again that such initiatives successfully deliver positive environmental outcomes and socio-economic outcomes for local communities. I have heard ad nauseam that there was no consultation. The facts say something very different, and I will go through that. The consultation process for the creation of the South Coast Marine Park was comprehensive and transparent, and extensive consultation was undertaken with a range of stakeholders. The opposition mentioned the role of Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew was just one of a number of important, significant groups that met, debated and talked about that issue. We collaborated with industry and we collaborated with the community. It was a wideranging consultation, as members opposite well know. The position is reflected by recent commentary from a number of organisations.

Members opposite quoted some people, so I am going to quote some people, too. WA's peak recreational fishing body, Recfishwest, when publicly responding to the release of the government's final plans said:

On behalf of the cast of thousands, we're pleased to see the Government adopt large scale changes in today's announcement and we're grateful for the thousands of fishers who united to make their voices heard.

This is democracy working—consultation with a very committed Recfishwest, which is interested in representing its constituency of fishers who said what they wanted. Those concerns were heard and they were acted on, as Recfishwest says. We know that Recfishwest will always stand up for fishers, so members opposite can take what it says seriously when it acknowledges that the government has listened to its concerns and that it appreciates that. There was another comment from the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council—the group that represents the guys with the money and investment and generational involvement in fishing. What did it say? It said:

… it is clear from this decision that the government has taken local voices into its decision-making process reducing the no-take sanctuary zones to approximately 20 per cent of the marine park.

The government received 22,494 submissions. That was a record. There was a lot of interest in this, and that is appropriate for such an undertaking. It is a record for a marine park management plan. During the public comment period, an analysis of public submissions was published and it showed that an overwhelming majority of submissions supported the need for a marine park.

Members will be aware that, from the outset, the government committed to extending public comment by an extra month on top of the traditionally legislated three months, so for four months. As part of the public comment process, DBCA undertook more engagement with the community than had taken place in any previous marine park planning process. This went above and beyond what the government was statutorily required to do. Over a nine-week period, 109 people met with marine park planners, marine scientists and community engagement officers at information stations in Esperance. We went above and beyond. We set up a pop-up shop, if you like, in the local shopping centre; I think it was open for three days a week or something like that. Hundreds of people came through to look at it, and 109 people met and engaged specifically with that information. In addition, information stands were set up at local markets and fairs to provide the community with face-to-face access. We went after people; we went to where people were, to engage. We were not scared or hiding these plans. We were up-front; we wanted people's engagement and input.

Further outreach was achieved through social media ads pertaining to—this is important—mythbusting. There was a lot of misinformation. There was online nonsense out there that was plainly untrue. Those mythbusting posts reached 109,000 people. "Get the Facts" ads reached 21,409 people and there was promotion of the Esperance access point and shopping centres.

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

Mr Reece Whitby: You know what, member? You claim that we did not engage and communicate with the community. Now you are criticising us for doing that. You should make up your mind.

Significant time was taken and effort made in developing a final zoning scheme that maintains the right balance between getting better outcomes for commercial and recreational fishing, and the essential job of looking after the environment. I know that in politics you have to make a call. It is the luxury of opposition to be all things to all people, but in government you are with the grown-ups and you have to make sensible decisions and strike the right balance. When you do that, you tend to upset everyone to a certain degree, because you are getting the right balance. No-one gets all of what they want. When there is criticism from one group and there is criticism from another group, that tends to suggest that we have found the middle ground. That was the case with this outcome. There were environmental groups that came out and said, "We're disappointed. You could have done better than this." My point is that you have to strike the right balance. No-one gets to tick off all their wants in this process, but we do our best to get the right balance and we tick off as much as we can for as many people as we can.

In respect of the specifics of the marine parks, the Mamang Maambakoort Marine Park spans from Point Hood, east of Bremer Bay, to Mason Bay, approximately 30 kilometres east of Hopetoun. This is a specific example I just want to draw to members' attention. To allow for existing recreational commercial use, several changes were made during the drafting process. The Point Hood sanctuary zone was completely removed and reductions were made in multiple other sanctuary zones, including offsets from the shoreline. This resulted in an overall reduction in sanctuary protection. Again, people on another side of this argument would have an issue with that, but it is about reaching the right balance.

About three-quarters of the entire marine park—a very large marine park, going to the South Australian border—is open for fishing. People can fish anywhere in virtually three-quarters of the marine park. We are talking about an enormous area of marine environment in which people can still go out and fish, so it is the right balance across all four marine parks on the south coast. The government believes it has struck the right balance in creating a world-class marine park that will deliver positive conservation outcomes, whilst still ensuring that sustainable commercial and recreational activities can continue.

This is something, members, that all of Western Australia can be proud. Whether you live in Esperance, Albany, Carine, Kalamunda, Cottesloe or Churchlands, you can be proud of the fact that we are protecting our environment for future generations. I believe there will come a day when the communities in Esperance and along the south coast will be the proudest of this marine park; I really do believe that. It might not be during any of our terms because it will take time, but we will get there. We have seen it happen elsewhere in Western Australia. People are proud of the marine parks and the protections that they provide. There will come a day when people all over the state, especially along the south coast, will take pride in this marine park.

The job of true leadership is not to gee-up the mob. The job of leadership is to lead by example and to bring a community with you. That is what the government has done. It is always easy to play short-term politics and build anxiety and fear in the community and put out disinformation. We saw all that happen, but we have reached an outcome that is fair, that has the right balance and that delivers a wonderful outcome for Western Australia's future generations.

With that, I make the point that we will be rejecting this disallowance motion and we will celebrate this South Coast Marine Park and the benefits it will bring for future generations.

Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (5:20 pm) in reply: I thank Minister Whitby for his response and, as always, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I want to conclude the debate and thank the other members who made valuable contributions—the members for Geraldton, Albany and Carine. I will clear up a couple of things mentioned in the minister's contribution. Yes, approximately 22,000 people were involved in the consultation, 20,000-odd of whom were from pro formas from environmental groups. We just need to clear that up when it comes to those figures.

In conclusion, I am here for the communities of Esperance, Bremer Bay and Hopetoun. I am here for those fishing families and we need to make it very clear that the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) needs to make sure that rather than have a meeting every six months or something to that effect, it gets together and works closely with those fishing families to make sure that the potential compensation happens sooner rather than later.

The minister talked about how the community loves it. I say, "Look at the ballot box." Nonetheless, we will see what happens when the Marmion Marine Park extension takes place and how that affects a variation of electorates in the northern suburbs. As I said, I am here for the community. I am here for our fishing families. I just want to close with the with the words of Manue Daniels, vice-president of the Esperance Professional Fishermen's Association. She is a great person and a great advocate for her family, her fishing family and her other compatriots in the fishing industry in the Esperance community. She said:

We've fished responsibly, sustainably, and with a strong sense of stewardship. Yet we now find ourselves being forced to sacrifice our life's work to fit a political agenda.

If this new process is to mean anything, it must start with honesty, compassion, and fairness. And it must end with real outcomes: fair compensation, a sustainable future for those who remain, and a recognition of the essential role commercial fishers play in putting local seafood on local plates.

We remain committed to engaging in good faith. But this time, it must lead to something real.

Those words of Manue Daniels, on behalf of her family and the community of Esperance, sums it up very well. The opposition is very strong on supporting this disallowance and we strongly support that our fishing families and communities are compensated in the right way and in a timely manner. I will now allow this motion to go to a vote.

Division

Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr Stephen Pratt) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result:

Ayes (8)Noes (38)

Question thus negatived.