❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the sinking of boats as dive and fishing wrecks, focusing on exclusion zones, diver safety, and the potential use of a submarine as a wreck. The response clarifies exclusion zone policy, acknowledges safety concerns, and defers the submarine decision.
AnsweredQoN 2170Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) How many boats or other large objects have been sunk in Western Australian waters as dive wrecks?
(2) How many boats or other large objects have been sunk in Western Australian waters as fishing wrecks (fish attracting devices or FADs)?
(3) For dive wrecks, why is the Fisheries Department supporting a fishing exclusion zone around the wrecks of only 50 metres and not the 200 or 500 metre exclusion zone being requested by diving organisations and individuals?
(4) Is the department concerned that fishers on fishing boats moored 50 metres from a dive wreck can easily cast their baited hook or lure over the wreck, thereby posing a danger to divers?
(5) Is there any evidence to suggest that dive or FAD wrecks attract pelagic fish that might make these wrecks attractive to fishers for pelagic as opposed to benthic fish?
(6) Is the department aware of several divers on the HMAS Swan at Dunsborough having been injured by fishing hooks caught up in the wreck’s marine growth or equipment?
(7) Is there a submarine docked at the Stirling Naval base waiting a decision on its fate, with dive wreck or FAD wreck being two options for its use?
(8) What is the currently favoured use for this submarine and when will a decision about its fate be made?
(2) How many boats or other large objects have been sunk in Western Australian waters as fishing wrecks (fish attracting devices or FADs)?
(3) For dive wrecks, why is the Fisheries Department supporting a fishing exclusion zone around the wrecks of only 50 metres and not the 200 or 500 metre exclusion zone being requested by diving organisations and individuals?
(4) Is the department concerned that fishers on fishing boats moored 50 metres from a dive wreck can easily cast their baited hook or lure over the wreck, thereby posing a danger to divers?
(5) Is there any evidence to suggest that dive or FAD wrecks attract pelagic fish that might make these wrecks attractive to fishers for pelagic as opposed to benthic fish?
(6) Is the department aware of several divers on the HMAS Swan at Dunsborough having been injured by fishing hooks caught up in the wreck’s marine growth or equipment?
(7) Is there a submarine docked at the Stirling Naval base waiting a decision on its fate, with dive wreck or FAD wreck being two options for its use?
(8) What is the currently favoured use for this submarine and when will a decision about its fate be made?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 October 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Response time
8 days
(2) The Department of Fisheries has advised that to the best of the Department’s knowledge, in Western Australia only 2 structures have been placed on the sea floor, specifically for the purpose of acting as a site for fishing. These are the “Seahorse”, a 15 metre vessel scuttled by the Carnarvon Artificial Reef Committee in February 1995 and an artificial reef constructed from tyres and deployed near Dunsborough in Geographe Bay by the Busselton Shire Council in conjunction with the South West Development Authority in the late 1980’s. (3) It is not the case that the Department of Fisheries, as a matter of policy, supports 50 metre exclusion zones around dive wrecks. The Department considers exclusion zones on a case by case basis, on the strength of the submissions presented to it by the community and relevant authorities, and provides advice to the Minister for Fisheries accordingly. Currently there are six wreck dive sites in the State that are closed to fishing under section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (see attached table). All dive sites, with the exception of the Esperance Jetty site have exclusion zones of 200 metres or more. The areas are closed in order to avoid conflict between divers and fishers and to allow enhanced opportunities for the observation of marine life. (4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(3) It is not the case that the Department of Fisheries, as a matter of policy, supports 50 metre exclusion zones around dive wrecks. The Department considers exclusion zones on a case by case basis, on the strength of the submissions presented to it by the community and relevant authorities, and provides advice to the Minister for Fisheries accordingly. Currently there are six wreck dive sites in the State that are closed to fishing under section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (see attached table). All dive sites, with the exception of the Esperance Jetty site have exclusion zones of 200 metres or more. The areas are closed in order to avoid conflict between divers and fishers and to allow enhanced opportunities for the observation of marine life. (4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
Currently there are six wreck dive sites in the State that are closed to fishing under section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (see attached table). All dive sites, with the exception of the Esperance Jetty site have exclusion zones of 200 metres or more. The areas are closed in order to avoid conflict between divers and fishers and to allow enhanced opportunities for the observation of marine life. (4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(3) It is not the case that the Department of Fisheries, as a matter of policy, supports 50 metre exclusion zones around dive wrecks. The Department considers exclusion zones on a case by case basis, on the strength of the submissions presented to it by the community and relevant authorities, and provides advice to the Minister for Fisheries accordingly. Currently there are six wreck dive sites in the State that are closed to fishing under section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (see attached table). All dive sites, with the exception of the Esperance Jetty site have exclusion zones of 200 metres or more. The areas are closed in order to avoid conflict between divers and fishers and to allow enhanced opportunities for the observation of marine life. (4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
Currently there are six wreck dive sites in the State that are closed to fishing under section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (see attached table). All dive sites, with the exception of the Esperance Jetty site have exclusion zones of 200 metres or more. The areas are closed in order to avoid conflict between divers and fishers and to allow enhanced opportunities for the observation of marine life. (4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(4) Yes, in some cases this is a concern, and is one of the main reasons that the fishing exclusion zones around most dive wrecks have been set a distance greater than 50 metres in order to separate divers from fishers. (5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(5) Yes, it is clear that some wrecks, particularly those with structure rising up into the water column, or to the surface, act as a focus for schooling pelagic fish or provide an opportunity for pelagic fish to forage. (6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(6) Although the Department does not have first hand evidence that this has occurred, Fisheries Department staff and Voluntary Fisheries Liaison Officers are aware of a number of reported incidents. A recent newspaper article in the Busselton – Margaret Times (2 October 2003) highlighted concerns about illegal fishing on the Swan wreck site. (7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
(7) & (8) This is an issue of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the State and therefore does not fall within my Portfolio.
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.