❓ Opposition questions the Premier regarding a proposed fishing tax, alleging it's about revenue raising, not conservation. The Premier defends the measure as a user-pays system for protecting fish stocks, criticizing the opposition's inaction on the issue.
AnsweredQoN 655Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FISHING TAX
I refer to the Premier’s plan to impose a fishing tax on recreational fishers — (1) Does the Premier have full confidence in the way that the Minister for Fisheries has handled this issue? (2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the Premier’s plan to impose a fishing tax on recreational fishers — (1) Does the Premier have full confidence in the way that the Minister for Fisheries has handled this issue? (2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(1) Does the Premier have full confidence in the way that the Minister for Fisheries has handled this issue? (2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(1) Does the Premier have full confidence in the way that the Minister for Fisheries has handled this issue? (2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(2) Like the funeral assistance scheme, does the Premier now concede that the government has also got this issue wrong and that Western Australia’s recreational fishing community, as well as his back bench, has rejected this tax? (3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(3) Will the Premier now admit that this tax was never about protecting fish stocks, and always about raising more revenue? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This is not about raising revenue; in fact, it does not raise a great deal of revenue. However, it does create some obligation on people who take part in fishing to contribute to the maintenance and protection of the fishing stock and therefore the longevity of their boating and fishing recreation activity. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It is a user-pays system. Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is an element of that in it; and why not? At the moment, the state spends around $11.5 million a year trying to manage the recreational fishing sector. Why should people who benefit from that and enjoy the activities of boating and fishing not contribute something towards the preservation of the species? Why should they not contribute something, albeit a small amount, to the preservation of the species? It is not a tax. It is a licence or permit to engage in recreational fishing. The money, such as it is, will be used for scientific and conservation measures. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : I am sure the interjection was heard the first time, member for Mandurah. I formally call you to order for the first time. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : Likewise, member for Girrawheen—I formally call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is one of those strange things in politics: members opposite purport to care about the environment, but when it comes to a real environmental issue on which we can take a direct stand and shift some responsibility from government across the wider community, the Labor Party will not walk up to the plate. There is no doubt that demersal species are at risk, particularly dhufish, in terms of surviving as a species. Therefore, this government is prepared to make this unpopular decision to preserve that species, and also snapper and other species. Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr A.J. Waddell interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : What an intelligent contribution! Thank you! Please contribute again! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Why is it that when we get to a real conservation issue, the Labor Party falls short of the mark? It has been decided by this side of the house that we will take action to protect this endangered species. It has been decided also that we will take action to protect boating and recreational fishing as the great activity that it is. We will do that. There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
There has been some debate about the mechanics of the scheme. The Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has met with all the fisheries groups, and he is continuing to have discussions with those groups—including backbench members—as he should. There will be some changes to the mechanics of the scheme. But we will not resile from our determination to protect that species. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. The Labor Party in government had clear advice that the catch had to be reduced by 50 per cent. What did the Labor Party do? Nothing. It failed to act. The solution of the Labor Party was, apparently, a four-month ban on fishing. What would that have done to the recreational fishing industry? What would that have done to tourist towns? What would it have done to Mandurah if people had not been allowed to fish for four months? Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Mandurah might like to think about that. I do not apologise for protecting dhufish, snapper and groper. But I cannot protect the member for Mandurah.
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.