❓ WA Parliament question regarding the potential impact of proposed Commonwealth boundary changes to western trawl fisheries on marine environment and state-managed fish stocks, and the Minister's response outlining concerns and actions taken.
AnsweredQoN 920Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
COMMONWEALTH WESTERN TRAWL FISHERIES — BOUNDARY CHANGES
I refer to the proposal by the commonwealth to change the boundaries of the commonwealth western trawl fisheries. (1) What is the likely impact of these changed boundaries on — (a) marine benthos and environment; and (b) state-managed fish stocks? (2) Has the minister received any advice from the Department of Fisheries on the likely impact on the north west slope trawl fishery and the western demersal trawl fishery, and will he please table this advice? (3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the proposal by the commonwealth to change the boundaries of the commonwealth western trawl fisheries. (1) What is the likely impact of these changed boundaries on — (a) marine benthos and environment; and (b) state-managed fish stocks? (2) Has the minister received any advice from the Department of Fisheries on the likely impact on the north west slope trawl fishery and the western demersal trawl fishery, and will he please table this advice? (3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(1) What is the likely impact of these changed boundaries on — (a) marine benthos and environment; and (b) state-managed fish stocks? (2) Has the minister received any advice from the Department of Fisheries on the likely impact on the north west slope trawl fishery and the western demersal trawl fishery, and will he please table this advice? (3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(b) state-managed fish stocks?
(3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(1) What is the likely impact of these changed boundaries on — (a) marine benthos and environment; and (b) state-managed fish stocks? (2) Has the minister received any advice from the Department of Fisheries on the likely impact on the north west slope trawl fishery and the western demersal trawl fishery, and will he please table this advice? (3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(b) state-managed fish stocks?
(3) What is the minister doing to protect state-managed fish stocks from the impact of bottom trawling close to the Western Australian coast? (4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(4) Has the minister had any discussions with the commonwealth authorities on this matter? (5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(5) If yes to (4), what was the outcome of these discussions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(1) (a) The exact impact of the proposed boundary changes to the marine and benthos environment will vary along the area affected by the changes. The impact will depend upon factors such as the extent of trawling and the habitat. If trawling is occurring in sensitive areas, it has the potential for adverse impacts on the marine benthos and environment. (b) The proposed boundary change would potentially open to commonwealth trawling 6 100 square kilometres currently within state-managed fisheries. Trawling inside the existing 200-metre boundary could place additional pressure on fish stocks associated with the Shark Bay snapper managed fishery, the northern demersal scalefish managed fishery and the west coast demersal scalefish interim managed fishery. These fisheries are already fully exploited and so any additional commonwealth trawling could result in state licensees incurring quota or effort reductions to reduce sustainability risks. (2) The advice received from the department has been mainly concerned with the impact on the state’s managed fisheries. Both the north west slope trawl fishery and the western deepwater trawl fishery are commonwealth fisheries. The proposed boundary change will allow these fisheries to fish closer inshore and potentially take more demersal scalefish. I am not prepared to table the departmental advice because I consider that to do so may not be helpful in achieving a satisfactory resolution with the commonwealth. (3)-(4) In January 2009 I met with Hon Tony Burke, MP, the commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and raised the 200-metre isobath issue and expressed my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed change on the sustainability of the state’s snapper stocks. Additionally, I recently wrote to Hon Tony Burke, MP, expressing my concerns about the proposal and suggested that the current arrangements should remain in place for a further two years to enable further consideration. (5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
(5) I am awaiting a reply from Hon Tony Burke, MP.
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.