❓ A parliamentary question regarding the decision-making process and rationale behind the inclusion of a 'no-take' provision during the rock lobster mid-season closure, specifically concerning fin fish and the use of wet-line licenses. The Minister clarifies that no explicit 'no-take' decision was made, but the requirement for vessels to remain in port was part of the sustainability package.
AnsweredQoN 780Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The 2005-06 rock lobster management and fishing package generally agreed to by the industry did not include a total no-take on any species - fin fish included - during the rock lobster mid-season closure. (1) When was this decision made? (2) Was the commercial rock lobster industry consulted prior to the decision being announced? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(1) When was this decision made? (2) Was the commercial rock lobster industry consulted prior to the decision being announced? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(2) Was the commercial rock lobster industry consulted prior to the decision being announced? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(1) When was this decision made? (2) Was the commercial rock lobster industry consulted prior to the decision being announced? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(2) Was the commercial rock lobster industry consulted prior to the decision being announced? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(3) If not, why not? (4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(4) What was the basis and rationale for this decision? (5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(5) What legislative process is to be used for the restriction and use of wet-line licences attached to the rock lobster licence during the exclusion period? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
No explicit decision has been made to include a total no-take on any species during the rock lobster mid-season closure. However, if the honourable member is referring to the requirement for rock lobster vessels to remain in port for the duration of the new closures then - (1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(1) This requirement came about as a consequence of my giving approval to the sustainability package in its entirety on 12 July 2005 after receiving all relevant advice. (2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(2) This decision was an integral part of the time closure options that were first flagged with stakeholders in January 2005. The Department of Fisheries published the “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of Resources Sustainability Measures”. That paper presented an analysis of the management option industry had before it. This message was repeated in subsequent management papers that were sent to each and every licensee. These papers were “Management of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Proposed Resource Sustainability Management Package for the Northern Zones (A and B)” from May 2005, “Management of Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Advice to Stakeholders - Assessment of the Southern Zone Resource Sustainability Options” from May 2005 and “Recommendation Report to the Minister for Fisheries on Resource Sustainability Management Packages for northern (Zones A and B) and southern (Zone C) Regions of the West Coast Rock Lobster Limited Entry Fishery” from July 2005. (3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(3) Not applicable. (4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(4) As the management paper explained, the requirement to remain in port was essential to ensure compliance with the closure without placing additional costs on the industry. (5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
(5) Not applicable. I am happy to discuss and expand on these issues with Hon Bruce Donaldson or any other member. Part of these questions will be answered as a result of the wet-line review. As I said before, there is no explicit total no-take.
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.