Labor’s demersal fishing ban isn’t conservation. It’s political vandalism.

The Cook Labor Government wants Western Australians to believe its demersal fishing ban is a hard but necessary act of environmental responsibility. A tough call. A reluctant minister. Science made me do it.

That story is comforting. It is also incomplete.

What this decision represents is not careful stewardship of fish stocks, but the blunt exercise of power by a government that has grown accustomed to making life-altering decisions for communities rather than with them, and then asking those communities to be grateful for the compensation cheque that follows.

The ban on commercial demersal fishing across the West Coast is one of the most economically and socially disruptive fisheries decisions in recent WA history. Entire livelihoods have been extinguished overnight. Small coastal towns that depend on fishing income are being hollowed out. Families who have worked the water for generations are being told the damage will be short-lived, prices will stabilise, and life will go on.

That reassurance rings hollow when boats are already being sold and deckhands are publicly admitting they don’t know how they’ll make rent.

This isn’t an abstract policy debate. It is happening to real people, in real communities, right now.

The Government insists there was no alternative; that a full commercial shutdown was the only option left on the table. Yet that claim deserves far more scrutiny than Labor has allowed. Gradual transitions, staged reductions, co-designed recovery plans and genuinely adequate compensation were all options. They were rejected in favour of the most extreme lever available because it triggered a legislative mechanism convenient to government, not because it was the only viable path forward.

And the compensation on offer does not come close to matching the scale of the disruption inflicted.

Shadow Fisheries Minister and Nationals WA member for Geraldton, Kirrilee Warr, has been clear-eyed and consistent on this point. A $20 million commercial buy-out across the entire West Coast does not “scratch the surface” of what is required when you shut down an industry overnight. She is right. You cannot eliminate a way of life and then declare the ledger balanced because a formula says the numbers add up.

This is where Labor’s framing collapses.

If the policy were truly about sustainability, the Government would be focused on bringing industry along, not sidelining it.

If it were about conservation, transparency and ongoing review would be central, not treated as an inconvenience once a decision is announced.

And if it were about fairness, affected workers wouldn’t be dismissed as over-reacting when they point out the obvious: that a cheque does not replace a career, a skillset, or a community role.

Instead, the message from the Government has been blunt. The science is settled. The decision is final. Fines will be enforced immediately. Adapt, or exit.

That posture may play well in Perth offices. It plays very differently in fishing towns where people feel sacrificed to meet a political deadline.

Labor ministers speak often about “transition.” But transition requires time, partnership and trust. None of those were meaningfully offered here, which brings us to the deeper issue at play here, one that extends beyond fisheries policy.

This is the governing style of a government that has been in power too long. Decisions are announced with confidence. Opposition is framed as ignorance or emotion. And accountability is reduced to explaining why the outcome was unavoidable rather than demonstrating that alternatives were genuinely tested.

That is why this fight matters.

It is not just about snapper and dhufish. It is about whether regional and coastal communities still have a voice when policy is made in this state, or whether they are expected to absorb the consequences quietly once the press conference ends.

The Nationals WA and Kirrilee Warr have approached this issue with the seriousness it deserves. She has not denied the need for sustainable fisheries. She has not inflamed tensions. She has done the work of asking the questions Labor would prefer not to answer: Was this the only option? Is the compensation sufficient? And who bears responsibility for the human cost of this decision?

Those are the right questions. They deserve answers, not slogans.

Conservation and livelihoods are not mutually exclusive. But they cannot be reconciled through blunt bans imposed from above. If Labor truly believes in sustainable fisheries, it should be willing to revisit the process that led us here — not just defend the outcome.

Because when governments stop listening, they don’t just lose trust. They break communities.

And that damage is far harder to repair than any fish stock.