❓ A parliamentary question addresses delays in processing Mr. Paxton's application for a fishing license and requests an exemption. The Minister responds that the application has deficiencies and an exemption request hasn't been received.
AnsweredQoN 64Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Western Australian Department of Fisheries has deliberately not conveyed a decision to Mr Mark Paxton on his application for an Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl managed fishery licence for scallops lodged on 1 September 2004. This inaction by the Department of Fisheries has removed the opportunity for Mr Paxton to have his day in court despite a commitment given to him by the minister. According to legal advice, the State Administrative Tribunal cannot hear an appeal until the Western Australian Department of Fisheries makes a decision on Mr Paxton’s application. (1) Will the minister now give Mr Paxton a further exemption to fish until December 2006? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(1) Will the minister now give Mr Paxton a further exemption to fish until December 2006? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
(1) Will the minister now give Mr Paxton a further exemption to fish until December 2006? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Will the minister now direct the executive director of the WA Department of Fisheries to convey to Mr Paxton a decision on the application he lodged on 1 September 2004? (4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that it has not received an application from Mr Paxton for an exemption to fish in 2006. The department has further advised that if an application for exemption is received, it will be assessed on its merits. (3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Fisheries has advised that there were a number of deficiencies in Mr Paxton’s application for a managed fishery licence and associated documents, which the department has discussed with Mr Paxton and his legal advisers in order to rectify them. I am informed that the executive director of fisheries has recently written a further letter to Mr Paxton requesting the information necessary to consider the application. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
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.