❓ Hon Barbara Scott asks about the adequacy of public information regarding the ban on net fishing in Shark Bay and whether the government intends to compensate affected fishers. Hon Kim Chance acknowledges inadequate public notice but denies blanket compensation, open to reasonable cases.
AnsweredQoN 1228Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SHARK BAY, BAN ON NET FISHING
(1) Was information given to public and recreational fishers prior to the recent introduction of the ban on net fishing in the north west region of Shark Bay; and, if so, where was that information able to be accessed? (2) Does the Government intend to compensate people who purchased expensive nets and renewed their recreational fishing licences? Hon KIM CHANCE
(1) Was information given to public and recreational fishers prior to the recent introduction of the ban on net fishing in the north west region of Shark Bay; and, if so, where was that information able to be accessed? (2) Does the Government intend to compensate people who purchased expensive nets and renewed their recreational fishing licences? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
(2) Does the Government intend to compensate people who purchased expensive nets and renewed their recreational fishing licences? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
(1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately.
The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately.
(2) Does the Government intend to compensate people who purchased expensive nets and renewed their recreational fishing licences? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
I think I might have been speaking to the same person as Hon Barbara Scott has recently. (1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
(1) The question of the ban on haul net fishing needs to be considered in the context of a number of other issues. The netting of barramundi has been illegal for some time. In the heart of the Western Australian coast from Onslow to the Northern Territory border, set nets have been illegal since 1995. The use of haul nets has also been illegal for some time on the same part of coast from Cunningham Point, which is north of Broome not far from One Arm Point, to the Northern Territory border. The change relates to the coast from Onslow to Cunningham Point and includes the town of Broome. This change was introduced simultaneously with the barramundi accord, which was put together as a result of an agreement between the recreational fishing advisory committees in the Kimberley area, the commercial fishery and the Department of Fisheries. The media announcement on the accord contained the entire notice on the haul net ban, which is described more accurately as an extension of the haul net ban, to that part of the coast. I see the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s question, which is why I said we have been speaking to the same person. One problem has occurred: although in making the announcement the Department of Fisheries included announcements on the haul net ban, it was generally not noticed by the public, nor picked up by the media. Perhaps we should have done something about that. I concede that people were probably not adequately advised. I dispute, however, that people were not adequately consulted, because the consultation process on the barramundi accord was extensive. Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately. (2) This part of the member’s question - whether we will compensate people because they did not have adequate notice - is the most difficult to answer. The short answer is no; however, as always, I will listen to any reasonable case.
Other issues have arisen, which were brought to my attention recently in Broome and which relate to indigenous traditional fishing carried out by people whom it is difficult to describe as either recreational or commercial fishers; that is, people within a community such as One Arm Point or Beagle Bay who carry out fishing activities on behalf of the community. Technically, that is commercial fishing activity, not recreational fishing; nevertheless, it is a traditional fishing system in which five or six members of the community carry out the bulk of the fishing for their people and to supply people further inland who do not eat meat during traditional grieving periods. Arrangements have been made by coastal communities to supply fish to those people during their grieving periods. We hope to finalise that issue through the indigenous strategy, which is advanced but not complete. The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately.
The second part of the question relates to the use of haul nets for fish other than barramundi, specifically salmon and probably mullet, which is why I had to separate the question. I will have another look at that issue. When I signed off on the barramundi accord I thought I was dealing only with barramundi. The issue of other species has arisen separately.
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.