❓ A parliamentary question regarding the handling of a whale carcass near Esperance and concerns about the proposed South Coast Marine Park. The Minister's response defends the government's actions and consultation process.
AnsweredQoN 662Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FISHERIES — WHALE CARCASS — ESPERANCE
662. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the lingering whale
carcass off the shores of Esperance over the weekend, raising questions around
community and environmental safety. All the while, the minister's
government is dictating to the community that it will have an unwanted south
coast marine park that 90 per cent of community members oppose.
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Dr D.J. HONEY : I have a point
of order.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : I can barely hear
the excellent question from the member over all the noise opposite.
The SPEAKER : That is clearly
a value judgement about the question, but your point of order is actually
upheld. There were way too many interjections. We are going to have a second go
at this and I would like the question to be heard in silence, please.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr P.J. RUNDLE : Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I refer to the lingering whale carcass off the shores of
Esperance over the weekend, raising questions around community and
environmental safety. All the while, the government is dictating to the
community that it will have an unwanted south coast marine park that 90 per
cent of community members oppose.
(1) Why did the minister's department wash its
hands of dealing with the whale carcass, which is clearly in the
department's jurisdiction, and wait for the carcass to beach and then
become the problem of the Shire of Esperance?
(2) Why is it
the responsibility of local fishers, the shire and a local boat to provide the
solution and protect the community?
(3) How many Fisheries boats are
positioned in the Esperance region?
(4) How many staff will be located in the region to
manage the unwanted and controversial south coast marine park?
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : I was nearly going to
congratulate a couple of members on their restraint. Before the minister starts ,
the question was really too long. If you have a four-part question, you cannot
really have a long preamble with it. That
just provokes a lot of interjections and takes up way too much time. If you
want to stick with a four-part question , do not have the long preamble.
Alternatively, I am a little more forgiving of a longer preamble if you have
only one or two brief questions.
662. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the lingering whale
carcass off the shores of Esperance over the weekend, raising questions around
community and environmental safety. All the while, the minister's
government is dictating to the community that it will have an unwanted south
coast marine park that 90 per cent of community members oppose.
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Dr D.J. HONEY : I have a point
of order.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Order, please,
members!
Dr D.J. HONEY : I can barely hear
the excellent question from the member over all the noise opposite.
The SPEAKER : That is clearly
a value judgement about the question, but your point of order is actually
upheld. There were way too many interjections. We are going to have a second go
at this and I would like the question to be heard in silence, please.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr P.J. RUNDLE : Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I refer to the lingering whale carcass off the shores of
Esperance over the weekend, raising questions around community and
environmental safety. All the while, the government is dictating to the
community that it will have an unwanted south coast marine park that 90 per
cent of community members oppose.
(1) Why did the minister's department wash its
hands of dealing with the whale carcass, which is clearly in the
department's jurisdiction, and wait for the carcass to beach and then
become the problem of the Shire of Esperance?
(2) Why is it
the responsibility of local fishers, the shire and a local boat to provide the
solution and protect the community?
(3) How many Fisheries boats are
positioned in the Esperance region?
(4) How many staff will be located in the region to
manage the unwanted and controversial south coast marine park?
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : I was nearly going to
congratulate a couple of members on their restraint. Before the minister starts ,
the question was really too long. If you have a four-part question, you cannot
really have a long preamble with it. That
just provokes a lot of interjections and takes up way too much time. If you
want to stick with a four-part question , do not have the long preamble.
Alternatively, I am a little more forgiving of a longer preamble if you have
only one or two brief questions.
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) I
always enjoy questions from the member for Roe. He is the Dennis Denuto of the
Legislative Assembly. He often cannot find the actual part of the regulations
that he objects to, but I am happy to take the question today.
There was an incident on the weekend,
and the member mentioned the lingering carcass. A few people opposite might know about those; they are the
experts on lingering carcasses. Seriously, there was an issue . Although
I do not have exact numbers for the member today for a question that was not on
notice, I am happy to respond to him later on those issues. I have to say that
it was an effort that involved the council, local fishers and the Department of
Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. They all had a role in making sure
that the community at the beach down there were safe.
There was an issue with a dead whale,
unfortunately, coming to shore. The DBCA has a policy that usually applies. If
the carcass is about to come to shore, simply towing it out —
Mr P.J. Rundle : It was six
kilometres off when they first knew about it.
Mr R.R. WHITBY : Let me answer
the member's question, which I heard in silence. The policy is that it
should be allowed to beach because, if it is towed out to sea again, it will
return somewhere else on another part of the coast. It would delay dealing with
the issue and open up the opportunity of not being aware of where that carcass
is. They then dispose of the carcass appropriately onshore, not burying it on
the beach but taking it to a landfill site so the remains of the carcass cannot
further attract sharks to the area.
At that beach, there was an issue
for people gaining access to the beachfront, and I am aware of that. It
affected some of the cliff areas around the Esperance community. I think it is worthwhile
that the DBCA considers this policy, and I will be asking it to do that. It
should have a policy that is responsive to the situation at hand and work out
what the best policy is, whether that is towing it out much further or having
the opportunity to have that carcass beached. I will certainly follow that up.
The member referred to the south
coast marine park. Again, he made a comment that 90 per cent of people are
opposed to it. I beg to differ. We have had comprehensive consultation with the
broader community and with the community in Esperance and in the south coast. I
know that the member was very keen to stir up anxiety and dissent when he
distributed to his community this pamphlet, which was absolutely misleading
about sanctuary zones. It was deliberately so. We had a complaint from one of
his own constituents about the misleading nature of this bit of propaganda. He
tried to do that.
We know from the history of marine
parks that there is some uncertainty at the beginning. In the history of Western Australia and Australia, when marine parks
have been created, the community comes together and accepts how good
they are. It accepts the premium benefit that they offer to commercial and
tourism operators, and the extra jobs they create. I have a list here that I will
not read out. Members can see the list of signatures from local businesses in
the south coast—like hardware stores, fishing stores, resorts, caravan
parks, a plumber and an earthmoving company—all supporting the marine
park on our south coast. There is broad support as well.
I am sure that the member can find
people who are concerned. I am not surprised after the job that members
opposite have done to misinform the community in that part of the world. It is
no wonder that people get anxiety when members tell the community big fibs in
pamphlets. It is no wonder that there is a bit of anxiety, but this is a great
achievement.
We have consulted beyond the
statutory requirements for consultation. We have had pop-ups, big screens in
shopping centres and engagement that goes beyond anything we have seen in this
state before. I say to the member that we will release the final plans for the
marine park shortly. We are proud of this achievement, and we want to work with
the community. I urge the member—it is not too late—to get on
board and be part of the solution and the positive things that are happening in
the south coast.
always enjoy questions from the member for Roe. He is the Dennis Denuto of the
Legislative Assembly. He often cannot find the actual part of the regulations
that he objects to, but I am happy to take the question today.
There was an incident on the weekend,
and the member mentioned the lingering carcass. A few people opposite might know about those; they are the
experts on lingering carcasses. Seriously, there was an issue . Although
I do not have exact numbers for the member today for a question that was not on
notice, I am happy to respond to him later on those issues. I have to say that
it was an effort that involved the council, local fishers and the Department of
Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. They all had a role in making sure
that the community at the beach down there were safe.
There was an issue with a dead whale,
unfortunately, coming to shore. The DBCA has a policy that usually applies. If
the carcass is about to come to shore, simply towing it out —
Mr P.J. Rundle : It was six
kilometres off when they first knew about it.
Mr R.R. WHITBY : Let me answer
the member's question, which I heard in silence. The policy is that it
should be allowed to beach because, if it is towed out to sea again, it will
return somewhere else on another part of the coast. It would delay dealing with
the issue and open up the opportunity of not being aware of where that carcass
is. They then dispose of the carcass appropriately onshore, not burying it on
the beach but taking it to a landfill site so the remains of the carcass cannot
further attract sharks to the area.
At that beach, there was an issue
for people gaining access to the beachfront, and I am aware of that. It
affected some of the cliff areas around the Esperance community. I think it is worthwhile
that the DBCA considers this policy, and I will be asking it to do that. It
should have a policy that is responsive to the situation at hand and work out
what the best policy is, whether that is towing it out much further or having
the opportunity to have that carcass beached. I will certainly follow that up.
The member referred to the south
coast marine park. Again, he made a comment that 90 per cent of people are
opposed to it. I beg to differ. We have had comprehensive consultation with the
broader community and with the community in Esperance and in the south coast. I
know that the member was very keen to stir up anxiety and dissent when he
distributed to his community this pamphlet, which was absolutely misleading
about sanctuary zones. It was deliberately so. We had a complaint from one of
his own constituents about the misleading nature of this bit of propaganda. He
tried to do that.
We know from the history of marine
parks that there is some uncertainty at the beginning. In the history of Western Australia and Australia, when marine parks
have been created, the community comes together and accepts how good
they are. It accepts the premium benefit that they offer to commercial and
tourism operators, and the extra jobs they create. I have a list here that I will
not read out. Members can see the list of signatures from local businesses in
the south coast—like hardware stores, fishing stores, resorts, caravan
parks, a plumber and an earthmoving company—all supporting the marine
park on our south coast. There is broad support as well.
I am sure that the member can find
people who are concerned. I am not surprised after the job that members
opposite have done to misinform the community in that part of the world. It is
no wonder that people get anxiety when members tell the community big fibs in
pamphlets. It is no wonder that there is a bit of anxiety, but this is a great
achievement.
We have consulted beyond the
statutory requirements for consultation. We have had pop-ups, big screens in
shopping centres and engagement that goes beyond anything we have seen in this
state before. I say to the member that we will release the final plans for the
marine park shortly. We are proud of this achievement, and we want to work with
the community. I urge the member—it is not too late—to get on
board and be part of the solution and the positive things that are happening in
the south coast.
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.