❓ The Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries addresses concerns about the Western Australian rock lobster industry's marketing difficulties, outlining discussions with processors and the Western Rock Lobster Council regarding price stability and potential interventions like a floor price, while being mindful of Trade Practices Act implications.
AnsweredQoN 904Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Given the difficulties facing the Western Australian rock lobster industry over marketing its catch - (1) Have processors, industry organisations or concerned buyers approached the minister about the present situation, which has the potential to damage existing markets considering the wild fluctuation in prices that is occurring? (2) Can the minister inform the House of any process that is occurring or being put into place to consider and establish a future stable marketing regime for the western rock lobster industry? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1) Have processors, industry organisations or concerned buyers approached the minister about the present situation, which has the potential to damage existing markets considering the wild fluctuation in prices that is occurring? (2) Can the minister inform the House of any process that is occurring or being put into place to consider and establish a future stable marketing regime for the western rock lobster industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(2) Can the minister inform the House of any process that is occurring or being put into place to consider and establish a future stable marketing regime for the western rock lobster industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage.
Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1) Have processors, industry organisations or concerned buyers approached the minister about the present situation, which has the potential to damage existing markets considering the wild fluctuation in prices that is occurring? (2) Can the minister inform the House of any process that is occurring or being put into place to consider and establish a future stable marketing regime for the western rock lobster industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(2) Can the minister inform the House of any process that is occurring or being put into place to consider and establish a future stable marketing regime for the western rock lobster industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. (1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1)-(2) Processors have approached me. Although the catching sector has not formally approached me, I have obviously spoken to a number of fishing industry representatives on an informal basis. The appropriate body - the Western Rock Lobster Council - has met recently to discuss what its approach to me will be. I have been kept involved or at least informed of the nature of those discussions. I expect that I will be meeting with the Western Rock Lobster Council quite soon. However, as I understand it, the nature of the discussions at council level have primarily been about options to foreshorten or otherwise alter the coming season rather than any changes which might be put in place for this season and in isolation of other initiatives which might be put in place to have a beneficial effect on prices. My discussions with the processors have been much broader than that. They did start initially with discussions with a legal representative of one of the processors but broadened later to discussions with Mr Tony Gibson from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Development Association. I then flew to Geraldton to meet with the Geraldton Fishermen’s Cooperative Ltd. I again met with Mr Gibson subsequent to that. Our discussions in that context have been broader. We have discussed alterations to the authorised catching season; indeed, that is how discussions started with the legal representative. However, those discussions have broadened across a wider range of initiatives, including the possibility of negotiating a floor price arrangement with the processing sector. The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage. Hon Peter Foss: At this stage? Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The initiative for a floor price came from me. I put a point of view to the processors. Various levels of enthusiasm have been expressed about whether or how it can be done. I think that I can say now that the bulk of the processors have indicated unity around the principle of a floor price arrangement. There is some disagreement in peripheral areas, which I think are important to the ability to achieve a floor price. This relates to questions of sanction in the event that the floor price arrangement is broken. In any case, I have sought some preliminary legal advice because when one is involved in discussions of that nature, one is necessarily running dangerously close to offending the Trade Practices Act because one is dealing with price fixing which might affect the domestic market. To that degree I sought legal advice on what can be done. It is certainly not our intention to have any effect on the domestic price. We are only talking about price fixing arrangements for the export market. However, by definition, it is virtually impossible to fix prices for the export market without having an effect on the domestic market. We must resolve those questions, and for that reason the discussions amongst processors, which could also offend the Act, and the discussions with me, have all been carried out with a mind to the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I am sure there has been no offence against the Act at this stage.
Hon KIM CHANCE: We must be very careful. Hon Peter Foss would understand why we must be careful. However, I believe it is necessary to send a signal to our buyers, particularly our buyers in the northern Asian trading region, that we are capable of exercising some discipline over prices. On the basis of the issues in the market at the moment, one could probably justify a price fall to around $A21 per kilo. In point of fact, the beach price has crashed to about half that, which is just ludicrous. Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Because we are incapable of exercising discipline in this market, we have seen the back of one of our great industries almost broken. It is legitimate to engage in discussions within the law which can give effect to some degree of price discipline, if not to save our own industry, to save our reputation as an international trader and to save those buyers who place their faith in us when they paid $A35 a kilo early in the season and are now seeing their competitors buying at a fraction of that price. That does nothing for our reputation as an international trader. I believe that the State Government has a legitimate role, but, as I have said, we need to be conscious of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The PRESIDENT: The next question will be from Hon Dee Margetts, followed by Hon Robin Chapple and Hon Graham Giffard in response. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Under current arrangements this half hour, which is normally for government business, is set aside for the continuation of private members’ business. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The PRESIDENT: The point of order is taken. It has been set aside for private members’ business. I will in future curtail question time strictly at the end of the half hour. No questions will be allowed past the expiration of the half hour allowed for question time. Members are now aware of that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is a most unusual day because the beginning of private members’ time was taken up with the reading of the budget speech. I draw to your attention the fact that we had not finished the debate. Many members wish to speak on it. We must finish at half-past-five. This is no reflection on the situation that occurred prior to this, and I think your response to my original point of order is unnecessary, Mr President, because this is a special and unusual occasion. I ask that we finish private members’ business. President’s Ruling The PRESIDENT: I make the point that technically the new sessional order clearly indicates that there are periods for question time and following that on different days there are periods of either members’ statements or orders of the day. We have taken a strict interpretation in respect of not allowing question time to intrude into the 40 minutes for members’ statements or allowing it to intrude, so to speak, into other non-government business. If we are to be consistent, we should not allow it to intrude into government business. The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
The point is taken that in fact I have allowed question time, certainly in the form of the minister’s answers, to go over into what would normally be orders of the day. Today, instead of orders of the day, by virtue of an earlier motion we will deal with non-official business, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made is valid. I ought not to let question time go over on any day. There is really no discretion here. Therefore, I will interpret the sessional order to mean that there is no discretion uniformly whether we are to deal with non-official business or orders of the day. I therefore uphold the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition and clarify for the benefit of members that there should not be a discretion on any day about the length of question time, and there will not be. Questions without Notice Resumed
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.