❓ A parliamentary question from Hon Darren West to the Minister for Fisheries regarding the Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, focusing on latent effort, management plans, and fairness of entitlement reductions. The Minister's answers address these concerns, denying knowledge of falsified returns and asserting fairness considerations.
AnsweredQoN 279Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FISHERIES — SOUTHERN ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY
279. Hon DARREN WEST to the Minister for
Fisheries:
(1) Who created
the excessive latent effort in the south coast crustacean fishery and why was
it left to industry to remove this latent effort?
(2) Was a voluntary
adjustment scheme created to buy back latent effort in the southern rock
lobster fishery; and, if not, why not?
(3) Was the
minister aware that the new management plan for the south coast crustacean
fishery, authorised by him, is based on alleged falsified returns that are
still the subject of an inquiry?
(4) Has the minister
obtained legal advice about the legality of applying catch history
retrospectively to authorisations that had never imposed minimum catch or
effort requirements; and, if yes, what was this advice?
(5) Has the
minister conducted an assessment of the fairness, or otherwise, of reducing the
fishing entitlement of commercial fishers in these fisheries without
compensation in circumstances when the reduction was due to no fault of their
own?
279. Hon DARREN WEST to the Minister for
Fisheries:
(1) Who created
the excessive latent effort in the south coast crustacean fishery and why was
it left to industry to remove this latent effort?
(2) Was a voluntary
adjustment scheme created to buy back latent effort in the southern rock
lobster fishery; and, if not, why not?
(3) Was the
minister aware that the new management plan for the south coast crustacean
fishery, authorised by him, is based on alleged falsified returns that are
still the subject of an inquiry?
(4) Has the minister
obtained legal advice about the legality of applying catch history
retrospectively to authorisations that had never imposed minimum catch or
effort requirements; and, if yes, what was this advice?
(5) Has the
minister conducted an assessment of the fairness, or otherwise, of reducing the
fishing entitlement of commercial fishers in these fisheries without
compensation in circumstances when the reduction was due to no fault of their
own?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1) The levels of
access in zones 1 and 3 of the fishery have not changed. The levels of access
in what are now zones 2 and 4 of the fishery developed over time as is normal
with the emerging understanding of fishery resources. As the understanding was
reached that the levels of access in this part of the fishery were too high, it
became necessary to reduce levels of access and this was done in a way that
reflected fishers' engagement in and dependence on the resource in
those areas.
(2) No. A
voluntary adjustment scheme was not created as all fishers that hold a fishing
boat licence with condition 105 or a rock lobster pot regulation licence have
retained access to the new south coast crustacean fishery.
(3) No. If the
member has evidence of fraudulent catch returns, he should provide that to the
Department of Fisheries.
(4) No.
(5) I took into
account matters of fairness, including points made by an independent access and
allocation panel when making a determination of access and entitlement.
some notice of the question.
(1) The levels of
access in zones 1 and 3 of the fishery have not changed. The levels of access
in what are now zones 2 and 4 of the fishery developed over time as is normal
with the emerging understanding of fishery resources. As the understanding was
reached that the levels of access in this part of the fishery were too high, it
became necessary to reduce levels of access and this was done in a way that
reflected fishers' engagement in and dependence on the resource in
those areas.
(2) No. A
voluntary adjustment scheme was not created as all fishers that hold a fishing
boat licence with condition 105 or a rock lobster pot regulation licence have
retained access to the new south coast crustacean fishery.
(3) No. If the
member has evidence of fraudulent catch returns, he should provide that to the
Department of Fisheries.
(4) No.
(5) I took into
account matters of fairness, including points made by an independent access and
allocation panel when making a determination of access and entitlement.
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.