❓ A parliamentary question addresses the feasibility of a 3,000km biosecurity fence to protect the pastoral industry from wild dogs. The Minister's response indicates a lack of formal proposal and reliance on expert advice before committing state funds.
AnsweredQoN 286Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WILD DOGS - BIOSECURITY FENCE
I refer to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association’s proposed 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence aimed at protecting the pastoral industry from the ravages of wild dogs. (1) Has the federal government promised to match a state government contribution to conduct a feasibility study on the construction of a 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence in Western Australia? (2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association’s proposed 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence aimed at protecting the pastoral industry from the ravages of wild dogs. (1) Has the federal government promised to match a state government contribution to conduct a feasibility study on the construction of a 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence in Western Australia? (2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(1) Has the federal government promised to match a state government contribution to conduct a feasibility study on the construction of a 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence in Western Australia? (2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(1) Has the federal government promised to match a state government contribution to conduct a feasibility study on the construction of a 3 000 kilometre biosecurity fence in Western Australia? (2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(2) If yes, has the state government chosen to contribute to the feasibility study? (3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(3) If not, will the minister table the research supporting this decision and his stated conviction that the biosecurity fence may not be effective? (4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(4) Does the Murchison regional vermin fence in its limited capacity currently act as a deterrent against wild dog incursions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his four-part question without notice, which I do not have in front of me, but I will do my best to try to remember what is happening. (1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
(1)-(4) I think he was talking about a $3 000 fence; in fact, I am sure he is talking about a $30 million fence. Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon Norman Moore : It was a 3 000 kilometre fence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Okay. There have been a number of proposals for different fences. Some are longer than others. I am not too sure whether the 3 000 kilometre fence is the latest or the original proposal. One proposal was for a fence to run from the east Pilbara out to the Great Australian Bight. I think that is probably longer than 3 000 kilometres. More recently, another proposal has been suggested for a shorter fence to cut off just north of the Gascoyne. I am not too sure what length that fence is but I have not received any formal proposal of that nature. Basically, all I have is a mud map drawing of a fence that ran from the east Pilbara to the bight. That fence cost an estimated $30 million. Has the federal government promised to provide funds for a feasibility study on the fence? Yes, I have seen media reports of that being the case. Indeed, I had a discussion with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on that matter about a year ago when he asked me what I thought of the proposition. Has the state agreed to it? The state makes its decisions on biosecurity matters on advice from the Agriculture Protection Board, which, in turn, is guided in its decision-making process by the zone control authorities. I have had no recommendation from the APB that the government should consider such an investment; nor, as far as I am aware, have the zone control authorities, which represent the pastoralists on the APB information line, made such a recommendation to the APB. That is the process for asking the state to consider that investment. I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
I think the third part of the question asked on what evidence I based my decision. I do not need to provide evidence. I do not have a recommendation before me from the APB that could lead me to contribute $100 000 of taxpayers’ money on any basis whatsoever. It would be quite improper for me to make such a decision without a trail of evidence supporting the investment. The fourth part of the question asked whether the existing Murchison fence provides a barrier to dogs. Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon Anthony Fels : Is it effective? Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
Hon KIM CHANCE : The rabbit-proof fence has been adapted in places to an electrical standard to determine whether an electrical barrier can be an effective barrier to dogs. I am aware of a considerable amount of work being done in that regard. That is still at a research level. I do not have advice from the APB on whether the electrification of the fence has proved an effective barrier. Only relatively short sections are being trialled in any case. Generally, my advice is that the fence is not designed to exclude dogs and is probably not terribly effective in that regard.
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.