❓ Question regarding the Minister's position on the Ningaloo Marine Park expansion, given a perceived lack of evidence linking recreational fishing to biodiversity decline. The Minister acknowledges conflicting scientific views and the need for government decisions despite disagreements.
AnsweredQoN 1110Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the proposed expansion of the Ningaloo Marine Park. (1) As the minister has indicated in Parliament that he is unaware of any research suggesting that recreational fishing is affecting biodiversity within the park, is the minister opposed to the expansion of the marine park and has that position been put to the Minister for the Environment? (2) If not, what is the minister’s position? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(1) As the minister has indicated in Parliament that he is unaware of any research suggesting that recreational fishing is affecting biodiversity within the park, is the minister opposed to the expansion of the marine park and has that position been put to the Minister for the Environment? (2) If not, what is the minister’s position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(2) If not, what is the minister’s position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(1) As the minister has indicated in Parliament that he is unaware of any research suggesting that recreational fishing is affecting biodiversity within the park, is the minister opposed to the expansion of the marine park and has that position been put to the Minister for the Environment? (2) If not, what is the minister’s position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(2) If not, what is the minister’s position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
(1)-(2) This is an interesting scientific question that is difficult to deal with during question time. Suffice to say that there are conflicting views amongst marine scientists about the impact of fishing on the biodiversity of a given area, whether it be a coral reef area, although that is where the concentration of activity has been, or any other area. The science that is available, notwithstanding a degree of conflict of view, which is not unusual because scientists do have different views, has been carefully analysed during the range of processes that led to the establishment of a marine park, but particularly control by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I have been engaged in that scientific debate and my department has also been involved, but the process involving the resolution of marine parks takes account of the conflicting views that are always evident at a time when something of this nature is being constructed. That is not in itself a reason not to do something, and the Government has to make decisions from time to time. We have been through all of this on the forest reservation question. There will always be different ideas about what needs to be done. Our task is to try to analyse them in as effective a scientific manner as we can, in consultation with the community in this case, and by working through those issues. Eventually, we hope to resolve the right question. I hope I have covered the question. Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon Norman Moore: Are you on Mr Riebeling’s side or against him? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been involved in the differing points of view, which add to the diversity of opinion that will lead to an eventual plan being constructed.
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.