Mr Blayney questions the Premier about the Fisheries Minister's communication regarding industry opposition to the government's rock lobster policy. The Premier defends the consultation process and outcome, highlighting increased domestic availability.

AnsweredQoN 4Legislative Assembly
Asked
12 February 2019
Portfolio
Premier

QuestionView source ↗

WESTERN ROCK LOBSTER
FISHERY
4. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY to the Premier:
I refer to the government's
attempted nationalisation of the western rock lobster industry. Did the
Minister for Fisheries explain to the Premier the level of anger expressed by
industry prior to the Premier signing the term sheet or did the minister
intentionally keep the Premier in the dark about the true nature of the impacts
and the industry's stated opposition of his socialist agenda?

AnswerView source ↗

Just so members understand what has
occurred here, last week the Minister for Fisheries and I had a roundtable meeting with representatives from the Western Rock
Lobster Council including Matt Taylor, Kim Colero and a range of other people,
and a representative from the Fishing Families group, Mr Chauncey Hammond, who
came from Sydney. The outcome of the
meeting in my office was that we secured an additional 315 tonnes of rock
lobster, which means that either all, or a significant majority of it, will go
into the domestic market. About a threefold increase in our premium
seafood product will be available for Western Australians. That means tourism
businesses, restaurants, co-ops and supermarkets will have much easier availability
to our premium seafood product, which, before this, was virtually all being
exported to China. That was the outcome of the consultation process.
Going
back to the beginning, we put up-front to the Western Rock Lobster Council a significant
expansion in the catch. Existing rock lobster fishermen would receive more—350
tonnes or thereabouts—and the remainder would be leased and the
government would receive a return. One newspaper article called it the
privatisation of industry; the member for Geraldton called it nationalisation.
My view is that we were just trying to get a better return for taxpayers. A
better return for taxpayers would go towards health, education, community
safety and paying off the debt that the Liberal Party left us. Obviously the
consultation process found that that was not going to work, so we ended up —
Ms M.J. Davies interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : No; you're
not listening.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : It is just a wall
of noise. The opposition asked a question; I want to hear the answer.
Mr M. McGOWAN : We went
through the consultation process, which closed at the end of January. We had
the meeting last week, which was a week or so after the end of the consultation
process, and we reached an outcome that was in the interests of the people of Western
Australia.
As is the Liberal and National
Parties' wont, with their thrashing around, their lack of grasp of
detail —
Mr D.C. Nalder interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : In the member's
case, lack of intelligence —
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr M. McGOWAN : The fact of
the matter is that they failed to grasp what the government was doing. However,
we have now reached an outcome that is in the overwhelming interest of tourism,
hospitality, small businesses and restaurants across Western Australia.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more