❓ Hon Frank Hough raises concerns about a potential loophole in fish travelling quotas, specifically regarding large fish catches exceeding fillet limits. Minister Kim Chance acknowledges the potential inequity but defends the rule's purpose in accommodating anglers targeting large pelagic species.
AnsweredQoN 322Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the travelling quotas for fish. The quota while travelling is 20 kilograms of fish fillets or 10 kilograms of fish fillets and two days catch. A person might have 10 kilograms of fish fillets and two days catch, and that catch might include four jewfish weighing around 30 kilograms. That would not be equitable with the fillet quota of 20 kilograms. Is that a loophole that dishonest people could use? The PRESIDENT: I call the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on what sounded suspiciously like a dorothy dixer. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
The PRESIDENT: I call the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on what sounded suspiciously like a dorothy dixer. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
The PRESIDENT: I call the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on what sounded suspiciously like a dorothy dixer. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
I assure you, Mr President, that it is not. Nonetheless, I thank Hon Frank Hough for the question. The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
The reason for providing the choice between observing the limit in fillet form or in whole fish form relates to what the member implied; that is, the possibility that large fish might be caught. A two-day bag limit containing 40 kilograms of whole Spanish mackerel, for example, would, if filleted, far exceed the fillet limit. That is why there is an allowance for fishermen to keep fish whole, which they can then take home and fillet. It probably is inequitable. Almost all rules are inequitable when they are analysed in fine detail. However, it would have been unfair to the fishermen who were targeting large fish, including some of the big pelagic species, to apply the same rules for fillets as would be applied to someone fishing for King George whiting, for example.
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.