Notice of Motion – Fisheries (Abalone) Amendment Rules 2019 disallowance

Notice of Motion 

I (Ms Webb) give Notice that tomorrow I shall move:

That the following parts of Statutory Rules 2019, No. 63, Fisheries (Abalone) Amendment Rules 2019 dated 23 September 2019 made under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 and laid upon the Table of the Council on 19 November 2019, namely,

• Section 9, Rule 18 amended (Quantity of abalone), paragraphs (a) and (c); and
• Section 10, Rule 18A inserted (18A Quantity of abalone in eastern region)

be disallowed as provided by Section 47 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1931.

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I rise to speak to this disallowance motion.  It will come as no surprise to anyone in this House I am a passionate supporter of the community’s right to participate in decision‑making and in the political process.

When rising to speak to this disallowance motion in my name, I wish to state at the outset while I am sure I share with everyone in this place a concern we ensure a viable abalone population, or populations in biodiversity terms, by no means am I an expert in abalone population management, nor am I an expert in the dynamics of the abalone fishery and the industry that surrounds it.  For full disclosure, I cannot even claim to be a recreational fisher, I do not own a rod or a net.

However, we have heard from others who are these things in briefings today.  I do not question their expertise and considerable personal experience in these areas.  People who are involved in these areas are clearly very passionate and committed people from the recreational fishers side, people involved in the department and people in research areas.  I commend them all for that and thank them for sharing that expertise and experience with us.

My lack of experience aside, I do claim some expertise in good governance and in due process, as many others here do.  That is the real issue I am speaking on today, in drawing parliament’s attention through this disallowance motion to the question of whether good governance and due process were consistently applied through the development of the Fisheries (Abalone) Amendment Rules 2019.  The area I would like to speak about relates to the development, particularly the consultation process around these rules, and the perception many stakeholders clearly have that this process was lacking and there was not an opportunity to participate in it fully and genuinely.

To provide some context, here is a quick snapshot of Tasmania’s abalone population and fishery.  The abalone fishery consists of three sectors, the commercial sector, the recreational sector and the Aboriginal cultural sector.  In 2019, there were 11 378 registered recreational abalone licence holders in Tasmania, a sizeable number we will all agree.  The Tasmanian wild harvest abalone fishery which is the world’s largest, currently produces approximately 25 per cent of the total annual global production of wild‑caught abalone.  What a wonderful, privileged position we are in.

In 2017, the gross value of production of the fishery was estimated to be approximately $70 million from a total allowable catch of 1561 tonnes.  The abalone fishery also provides financial returns to the community in the form of a resource rent, a levy that is covered by contractual arrangements contained in the Abalone Deeds of Agreement.  The deeds involve fees that return to the state, on average, approximately $7 million a year.  About 95 per cent of the Tasmanian abalone catch is exported from Australia to a range of destinations in Asia, including China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan, with live abalone the main export product.

Additional to biodiversity considerations, the abalone fishery is clearly a valuable industry, financially, culturally, recreationally and environmentally.  It is relevant, when we are talking about some matters relating to this issue, to mention the animal itself.  Abalone are gastropod molluscs.  In a more common language, they are marine snails and they can live upwards of 50 years of age, something I was quite astonished to discover.

They become sexually mature between five and eight years old and it is their reproductive methods that make them vulnerable to overfishing.  Abalone are broadcast spawners.  That is, they release their eggs and sperm into the water where fertilisation then occurs.  After fertilisation, the larvae settle to the sea floor with very limited dispersal through the water.  This means that if an area is overfished, replacement by breeding fails and stocks collapse.  It is a very local vulnerability.

Ms Rattray – It is interesting they only travel up to about 100 metres.

Ms WEBB – Indeed.  You can see why that makes them very vulnerable.  If they are overfished in a very local area, it is then very difficult for the population to then re‑establish in that space because there are just not enough left there for breeding.

In fact, there are many instances worldwide where abalone fisheries have been overfished and then it is difficult to replenish and replace the stock.  Clearly, in that regard I understand and appreciate, as we have all heard about during briefings today, the efforts being made to address the challenges we have in our coastal areas to ensure we have a viable abalone population and it continues to be able to provide the value it does to our state, not just financially but also culturally, recreationally and environmentally.

The focus of this disallowance motion is on the apparent governance and due process issues, which resulted in the rules being developed and then brought to this place.

In 2019 DPIPWE undertook a review of the Tasmanian Abalone Fisheries Management Plan as required under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995.  The primary aim of the 2019 review was to:

address risks of localised depletion and improve fish handling practices and address compliance risks in the non‑commercial fisher (recreational fishery and Aboriginal person engaging in an Aboriginal activity). 

 Some issues such as compliance and handling also apply to the commercial fishery.

In consultation with the ministers, the Recreational Fishery Advisory Committee propels about the rule changes were released for public comment on 28 June 2019 as draft amendments to the management plan.  The only reported preliminary public engagement done by the department was in conjunction with recreational fisheries forums in Burnie and Smithton in March 2019 and with attendees at Agfest in May 2019.

The key rule change proposals put forward included the following –

• Reducing the bag limit from 10 to five, the possession limit from 20 to 10 and introducing a boat limit of 15 abalone.
• Changing the possession limit for non-fishes from five to two.
• Allowing a fishing license holder or an Aboriginal person engaged in an aboriginal activity to shuck one abalone a day on a boat.
• Deeming any abalone in the possession of a child under 10 to be possessed by the supervising adult.
• Defining a measuring device and tools for taking abalone.
• Prohibiting the taking of abalone at night.
• Administrative and minor amendments, including commercial fisher operational matters, defining several area definitions and designated ports.

Those were the matters sought to be enacted and then were being consulted on.  Through its involvement with the Recreational Fishery Advisory Committee and as far back as August 2017, the key representative body for recreational fishers, TARFish, was aware an abalone fisheries review was being considered.  Apparently, what was being proposed by the department at that time was a formal review of catch limits and the introduction of a boat limit, with the outcome of halving the bag and possession limits for the recreational abalone sector.

This gave rise to concerns from TARFish and others that the reviews outcome had in fact been decided before it had even commenced, certainly before consultation commenced.  While the Government argues it did consult with all key stakeholders, there is a difference we would all recognise and probably have observed in various circumstances.  A difference between advising, consulting and crucially, involving people in decision making.  Affected stakeholders in this decision-making process felt neither involved, nor particularly well consulted but merely felt advised, as many of us here would understand.

It is really important in successfully bringing forward, but then implementing and having accepted a policy, that you bring people along with you.  We all know the importance of taking those who are affected by an issue along with you during that process, because in that way even though all stakeholders may not get what it is they want from a process, or the outcomes they are seeking.  It would certainly be rare that everyone did.  If they have played a meaningful role, if they have been involved and meaningfully consulted and felt they have been listened to, we would find they are more likely to acknowledge and accept the outcome – even if it has not delivered all the matters they felt it possibly should have.

Genuine consultation is when all affected stakeholders can contribute to examining the issues, look at various options to address those issues and collaboratively develop solutions.  By all accounts, it appears this was not the experience of important stakeholders involved in this process.  I have been advised that DPIPWE did not formally request advice from TARFish – the organisation representing recreational fishers – on any of the proposed amendments before they were released into the public domain on 28 June 2019.

This was despite TARFish requesting details on the status of the review on numerous occasions.  If this is the case, it is understandable that stakeholders such as TARFish – which is recognised by the Government as the peak body for recreational marine fishers in Tasmania – is now raising concerns about process.  During the public comment period for consultation on these rules, we have been given to understand that 635 written submissions received and 90 per cent of those submissions, or thereabouts, were from people with an interest in recreational fishing.

These are people who like to be engaged and want to be involved.  Submissions were also received from peak bodies including TARFish; the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing Inc; the Tasmania Abalone Council; the Tasmanian Conservation Trust; the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Communities Alliance; the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre; and the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania.  We have a summary document from the Government about the results of that consultation.  My understanding from that, and from discussing it with those involved, is that the main themes that were raised in submissions to the consultation and summarised in the DPIPWE document include the following:

• The recreational catch is relatively low compared to the commercial sector.
• The recreational restrictions will not lead to sustainability improvements.
• Commercial take should be reduced.
• Additional enforcement should be undertaken, rather than further restriction on the recreational sector.
• The social and community benefit of recreational fisheries needs to be more highly valued and considered when decision making is occurring.

That is my understanding of the thrust of much of the feedback received through that consultation process.

In other words, a high proportion of all the submissions indicated that the recreational fishery was not necessarily a significant part of the problem or the solution, and therefore the catch reductions proposed were unwarranted.  There was a lot of disquiet.  In response, DPIPWE made changes to only two of its recommendations.  It recommended that the bag limit be reduced from 10 to five, with a boat limit of 25 abalone in the eastern region only.  These were then incorporated into the resulting Fisheries Abalone Amendment Rules 2019 and all the other recommendations remained, though some have had minor amendments.

The Government asked for and received submissions from stakeholders.  It takes time and effort to make submissions, particularly for those who are solely doing it because it is meaningful to them as part of their recreational activities.  It is not part of their paid work or core business or matters that are central to their life; it is something they are passionate about in their recreational activity. 

Although the Government asked for and received submissions from those stakeholders, about 600 of them presented matters that many felt were not acknowledged or given attention.   Rightly or wrongly, many of those involved in providing submissions felt marginalised and that for them that the process was a sham.  As I said earlier, they felt that the decision had been made well before consultation occurred and the consultation was more in line with a direction or an advisement, rather than an invitation.  These stakeholders argue that a review should first identify issues, then collect information and data, punch the numbers, consult with stakeholders, look to other jurisdictions and engage people in discussion on appropriate solutions based on that evidence. 

Mr President, on the face of it, I hear what they say on this matter and I believe they have a point.  In their eyes, the Government once again missed the opportunity to engage with those who are going to be intimately affected with the rule change.  They felt that the Government missed the opportunity to work with the community to understand all the issues in the sector and collaborate on the best way forward. 

Right now, that means we have recreational fishers that have a view, across a range of fisheries, that they are now on the receiving end of decision‑making that effectively denies them fair and reasonable access to a relatively small percentage of the total catch available in our state.  In addition to feeling inadequately consulted, these stakeholders hold further grave concerns that the new rules disproportionately shift the weight of the response to local abalone population depletion on to recreational fishers, in stark contrast to the commercial fishers. 

For example, I have been informed that recreational fishers take about 1.6 per cent of the total annual abalone catch and up to five per cent locally, mostly from the east coast of Tasmania.  In contrast, commercial fisheries take 98.5 per cent with a 10-tonne commercial catch limit.  I am also given to understand that commercial abalone diving becomes uneconomical below a catch rate of 50 kilograms per hour, meaning that when abalone levels get low, commercial fishers move on, leaving recreational fishers with the impacted localised depleted zones. 

As we know, localised depletion is a particular concern for this fish on the east coast.  A recent IMAS report suggests that lower recreational catch rates in recent years are evidence that even more reductions are necessary.  Yet, the concerns raised by the stakeholders is that those who are already taking a smaller catch and not-for-profit are the ones targeted as the apparent means to address the local depletion impacts.  When attempts were made to raise that disparity in the consultation process that I discussed earlier, those concerns were felt to have been falling on deaf ears and were not paid due attention. 

It is not my intention here, nor is it the role of the debate on this motion, to ask members to cast judgment on the rigour or the independence of the science and the research undertaken around this matter.  Nor are we casting judgment on the relative proportion of catch between commercial and recreational fishers.  That is not what this disallowance motion is about.  What we have before us are affected stakeholder representatives, that have been impacted by a policy decision that they believe was arrived at in an inappropriate process that shut out their input to a meaningful degree. 

Why the disallowance motion, Mr President?  It would be useful for me to recap what happens when regulations of this sort are made, when rules of this sort are made.  It involves our Chamber, but also involves some other elements of parliamentary process.  Parliament frequently enacts legislation containing provisions which empower the executive government or other specified bodies or office holders to make regulations or other forms of instruments which, provided they are properly made, have the effect of law. 

In Tasmania, we refer to this form of law as subordinate legislation.  Subordinate legislation is, essentially, law made by the executive government – by ministers and other executive office holders – without parliamentary enactment.  The Joint Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation. chaired by the member for McIntyre, and of which the member for Murchison and I are also members, then has a key role to play in the oversight of regulation‑making power. 

That committee is established under the Subordinate Legislation Act and its functions are set out in section 8 of that act.  Without exhaustively reading them in, those functions are to examine the provisions of every regulation that is part of subordinate legislation that is made, and at times call for more information, to hold inquiries, to do whatever is necessary to properly scrutinise that subordinate legislation which, once that committee has endorsed it, then comes to the other place and this place, to receive the assent of parliament. 

These rules came to the Subordinate Legislation Committee and arrived at that committee just as COVID-19 hit our state around March last year.  I believe, potentially, in a different set of circumstances an inquiry may have been held in relation to these rules and regulations.

Ms FORREST – Point of order, Mr President.  I am concerned we are going to verge into deliberative parts of Subordinate Legislation Committee meetings.  I would suggest that is inappropriate, according to our standing orders.

Ms WEBB – That is not what is going to happen.  This is a very passing mention I am making of this.  As I just mentioned, in a difference context, that may have occurred.  COVID‑19 was hitting, there were many factors at play.  As that did not and the rules then came to this place to be laid on the table here in parliament, I am now utilising the further opportunity we have in this Chamber for closer examination of these specific rules in question, doing that through bringing the disallowance motion.  That is covered by our Acts Interpretation Act.

Mr PRESIDENT – There is no point of order on what you are referring to, but please take note of the comments from the member for Murchison.

Ms Rattray – Longstanding member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, former chair.

Ms WEBB – Yes.  I fully understand that and was very mindful in the comments I made.  We have arrived at the disallowance motion I brought for consideration in this place.  I have brought that on because it was brought to my attention by constituents and members of the community, the issues they felt regarding these rules and regulations and requested there be an opportunity – if there was one available – for that to be further examined.  This disallowance motion is in the effort of allowing that examination to occur.

What does it do?  This disallowance motion fairly discretely seeks to disallow two elements of the Fisheries (Abalone) Amendment Rules 2019, the rules that deal with recreational catch and possession limits and effectively, reduce the recreational catch and possession limits in the eastern region by 50 per cent.  Those two parts are part 2, section 9, rule 18 amended (quality of abalone), (a) possession limit for non‑licenced person reduced from five to two abalone, and (c) possession limit for licenced recreational persons reduced from 20 to 10 abalone.

The second is part 2, section 10, rule 18A inserted, quality of abalone in eastern region (for recreational licenced divers), (1) a person must not take more than five abalone from the eastern region in any one day, unless the person is the holder of a fishing licence (abalone dive), and, (2) the person in charge of a vessel that is in the eastern region must not have more than 25 abalone on board that vessel at any one time, unless (a) the vessel is being used by the holder of a fishing licence (abalone dive) to take abalone for commercial purposes, or, (b) the person has a receipt relating to the purchase of the abalone from a fish merchant with the abalone to which the receipt relates.

In seeking the disallowance on those two specific parts of these rules the remainder of the 2019 amendments would continue to be implemented without change, should this disallowance motion be supported.  It is only those two parts this disallowance applies to.  My understanding is if the disallowance is successful, the effect is the matters related to in those two parts revert to what they were before.  Essentially, we go back to a clean slate moment.  It was my understanding, from the people who have raised concerns with me and sought this sort of examination and remedy through the parliament is they would like to see the process revisited.  It is not they are necessarily wanting to go back to those previous rules and be the case permanently, they want to revisit the process for any changes that may be then brought about.  Basically, a redo of consultation and of the development of the matters relating to those two parts of the rules.

Mr Valentine – Is that something we could put in the motion that occurs or not?

Ms WEBB – I do not think we can direct that through this motion.  I do not believe it would be necessary, because what I would assume the case is, should this disallowance be successful and those two parts of the rules were disallowed then therefore, revert on those matters to the previous arrangements, I would imagine the department would then be very interested to redo and refresh a process to arrive at a new outcome.

We have heard in the briefing today from the department their view that would be an unfortunate delay that could be lengthy.  I think they mentioned two years could be taken to arrive at a new outcome on these matters to be then put into rules and regulations.

I am not sure of the veracity of that length of time to be taken.  I would assume these are very discrete matters to be consulted on and with the motivation of knowing a lacking process is not going to cut the mustard, you would think the department would be able to expedite an effective, genuine and well‑regarded process to redo and arrive at an outcome people may still not be –

Mrs Hiscutt – Can the member give an opinion on why you need to do the disallowance to force a consultation?  Why would your notice need to be wrapped around requesting or asking or making the Government consult?  Why does it have to include a disallowance?

Ms WEBB – I have absolutely no power either as a member in this place or as a private citizen to have the Government do anything I instruct them to do.  I can request, I could suggest, I could do any of those things.  None of those things will necessarily have no effect on what the Government might decide to do on this matter.  The stakeholders who approached me about this and who wished to have this examined through a formal mechanism of a disallowance, clearly felt the same way too, that any straightforward request or inquiry to the Government on this was not going to bear fruit delivering a process they would then regard to be appropriate, comprehensive and genuine.  Literally, the only way to require the Government to redo its process about these particular matters in these rules is this disallowance motion, which if successful will do that.  I will send them back to the drawing board to revisit these matters, revisit the process and then arrive at a result.  It may be the result arrived at through that may not be very dissimilar to what is now in these rules.  That may occur, but what we all know in this place and what the community know more broadly, is that process matters when it comes to how we do governance, policy, decision making and how we ensure there is community respect for, buy-in and support for the decisions made.  This is particular when it impacts on things people are passionate about, are important to them and they value highly.  The disallowance motion is focused in that way to be the only way we could actually formally require a redo of this process.

I will just find my spot, Mr President, because I wandered off track a bit there.  Consistently open and transparent consultation processes give the Government a social licence.  It is as simple as that.  That is the crux of what I am putting forward here.

What has been brought to us, raised by a number of stakeholders, some of them representative organisations for many thousands of Tasmanians, is a concern that open and transparent consultation is not what has occurred and the simple request is that it is done, undertaken anew and people are allowed to be heard, to have their say, to be involved in decisions about an area of our recreational life in this state people value very highly and are very committed to.

There were many other matters brought up in briefings and some members in their contributions may well like to touch on them.  We were provided with some comprehensive information from the representative group, TARFish, including a set of notes and a timeline which I would like to seek leave to table.

May I seek leave to table those two documents?

Leave granted.

 Ms WEBB – I am not going to read those documents in or make too much reference of them.  I want to stay fairly squarely and briefly in my opening remarks, really touching into what this disallowance motion is about.  It is not about questioning science.  It is not about questioning relative merits or the ways relative parts of this industry are treated between commercial and recreation.  It is not even necessarily about the content of those rules I am seeking to disallow through the motion.

It is about insisting on a process that is open and transparent with genuine consultation that allows people to be involved in decision-making.  It is the kind of area where you could easily say:  ‘Let’s just overlook it and put it aside and say, oh, well’, particularly if you are not personally involved, as I am not personally involved.  The thing that is also important to consider here is when patterns of behavior develop, particularly from a government where consultation is under-done or not done as genuinely or as transparently as it should be, that kind of pattern becomes disturbing.  We do not want that kind of pattern to develop or become ingrained in any government of this state.

It does not hurt governments and departments to be reminded sometimes if they have not done something as well as they should, they should probably go back, do it again and genuinely involve the people who need to be involved which is what this motion is about.

I am going to leave my remarks at that.  I will be very interested to hear other members’ contributions and respond to those in the summing up.

Thank you, Mr President.

---

Closing Remarks

Ms WEBB – I thank all the members for their contributions on the motion and thoughtful comments that have been made.  I will briefly respond to some of the matters that have come up and touch on some extra thoughts about those. 

I find it interesting, in the first instance, to have it put to us – and it was put to us in the briefing and then also put by the member for Windermere in his contribution that this has been in place for two years or thereabouts and has had no complaints.  If there is a whole sector, a whole swathe of the rec sector, that has felt they have not been listened to or heard in the process that led us to this point, it is probably hardly surprising that they may not see any value or worthwhile outcome from coming forward to make a complaint. 

That does not surprise me, that complaints have not been made if your experience has been that you were not listened to in the first instance.  I also wonder should such complaints have been made over the last two years, what would have occurred in response to them?  Would they actually have had a material effect or been put through a process that actually then led to an outcome that is different to now or a decision that would be different to where we were? 

Having commented that there have been no complaints, I wonder what the Government and the department have done to actively seek feedback in the last two years that we have been in the situation under these regulations and under these particular rules we are talking about today?  What active feedback has been sought?  We did not hear that reported to us directly in the various government contributions. 

I cannot assume that means there has not been any feedback sought; there may well have been so I am not making that assumption, but I wonder.  I am left really not paying too much attention to the fact that we have not heard any complaints.

Mr Duigan – Members may remember a super trawler proposed for Tasmanian waters.  The recreational fishing sector stood up loud and clear on that occasion.  That was an issue.  This is not an issue. 

Ms WEBB – We are not talking about super trawlers here today but we will keep talking about the motion.  So here we are.  We actually have had people impacted by this change, take some action in response to their sense of dissatisfaction and their upset at what is in these regulations that relates to them.

They have taken an action by making contact with parliamentarians – myself and others included – and seeing this disallowance motion brought to bear.  We have to recognise that actually action has been taken by people in the rec sector who are directly impacted.

Mr Valentine – And their association.  Their representative.

Ms WEBB – Indeed, their representative associations at the forefront of that.

To pick up a few other matters that were raised by Government members in their contributions.

The Leader’s contribution took great pains to go through a lot of matters relating to the content of these rules and regulations, and the science about them.  As I said in my first contribution, that is absolutely nothing to do with this disallowance motion per se, at its core.  It is not about contesting the science.  It is not about contesting that side of things.  It is about process.

It is also not about the history.  A detailed history of how limits have changed over time, is not relevant to this question of a disallowance motion before us.  It is not about comparisons with other jurisdictions.  In fact, it is quite meaningless to make comparisons with other jurisdictions if you are not, in the first instance, going to actually do that in a way that is scientifically and statistically relevant.

I mentioned in my first contribution that I believe Tasmania has 25 per cent of the global catch of abalone.  We are a large fishery.  Unless we actually understand, for example, how South Australia compares to us in terms of size of fishery, then bag limit comparisons are meaningless.  Because bag limits are going to be related to our fishery.  South Australia’s bag limits are going to be related to their fishery.

If you would like to make those comparisons with jurisdictions, do so on a basis that stands up to examination so we can understand the comparison.

The Government has said that they listened, compromised and feel they have the balance right.  After the Leader’s contribution and hearing that statement, as part of that contribution, my response was, well that is interesting to make that assertion.  I have not heard the Government say or give any indication that they could see and understand and acknowledge that concerns had been raised, that things might not actually have been undertaken in the best way they might have been able to do them.  It is not something I heard from the Government.

When the member for Prosser got up to make a contribution, we got closer to that.  We got closer to an acknowledgement of that, with the member for Prosser’s contribution saying that the Government will take learnings from this.

I was pleased to hear that, after we had gone away and had our lunch break, and had another contribution from the Government.  I was pleased to hear that.  I do not think it is enough but at least it is a movement towards acknowledging.

While I may have spent more time in this summing up contribution talking about what I would expect as a commitment from the Government on this, we have made some movement already with them being prepared to take learnings from this.

It is also interesting to have the Government, through the Leader’s contribution, make a very categorical statement saying that people were consulted – quite an insistent declaration.  Clearly, we have heard from representative bodies for a whole swathe of the recreational sector that people did not feel they were consulted.

We have to acknowledge right there.  If that is being asserted from that side, you cannot on the other side of the equation say, yes, they were consulted.  The evidence is right there before us.

The member for Murchison made many points that I think were of common agreement that we all have an interest in a successful fishery and that consultation is key, particularly, and only, when it is effective and meaningful.

As many people said, we will not get 100 per cent agreement all the time.  That is not the point.  That is not the outcome you are looking for.  The outcome you are looking for is a process.  This means that when you arrive at a position to which not everyone will agree, that everyone feels that they participated, that they were heard and that they were able to have a role in coming to that decision.  That is the point.

This very much is not about pitching people against each other.  It is difficult when there is a sense of that in any issue.  It can become very difficult, because then it becomes about people’s competing interests and competing outcomes.

I thank the member for Mersey for going through some more detail in his contribution, about things we had heard during briefings from TARFish and the CEO, Jane Gallichan.  They are pertinent, because when we are presented with the idea, and this certainly came up in contributions, that should this disallowance be supported what we revert to is not a void, as the member for Murchison talked about; we revert to what it was before for the previous rules.

Ms Forrest – I did not say it was a void.

Ms WEBB – Leaves a void.

Ms Forrest – A void if the level they have decided on is sustainable or not.  That is the point.  You allow a much greater catch in a sensitive area …

Ms WEBB – Yes.  It goes back to the previous arrangement; it is not a void.  We have a clear rule that then applies immediately, and then what comes into play is the process to look at and decide the new rules.  The suggestion that might take two years seems quite bizarre.  The department, I am sure, with sufficient motivation …

Ms Forrest – It will if they consult with everyone.

Mr Duigan – We have to have consultation.

Ms WEBB – Is that right?  Fancy that, you would have to do it properly this time.  What a shame.  Perhaps, you could have learnt from last time and sufficient motivation may be there to do it effectively and promptly.

It is interesting to put time pressure into the decision on this.  On the other side of it, in my understanding from the briefings we received earlier and from what I can gather, you had other clear recommendations made by RecFAC and AbFAC.  They also recommended the introduction of things like size limit changes to protect spawning biomass which protects localised depletions – clear recommendations from those same groups.

Have they been progressed?

Presumably, those recommendations were made at the time this was being developed, between 2017 and 2019.  Here we are, in 2021.  Have we progressed the recommendations from those advisory groups when around the same time, the contemplation of these limits was being made?  Have we progressed them to actually fast-track the protection of this localised depletion?  My understanding is – no, not effectively to take effect with that protection.  Why are we under pressure with these particular limits on recreational fishers to say no, we cannot take a small amount – more time to look at this again, together, when we are now two to four years down the track from specific recommendations on other ways to protect that fishery?

If we are going to ignore those ways to protect the fishery, why are we under pressure, with what is probably a modest amount of time to progress this way to protect the fishery?

We should not need to have competing ideas about how this fishery is protected.  We should progress them all; but it is how we progress them that is important.  You cannot cherry-pick and say we have to rush through this one, or not take our time or follow due process for this one, while you are simply ignoring another valid option that has been recommended to you through the same channels.

I do not know if we ever clarified the data matter that the member for McIntyre raised, about what the potential catch would be on the east coast.  It is fairly simple, without bringing numbers into it.  The disallowance motion reverts us to the previous rules.  What would likely happen then is whatever the catch had been under those previous rules is the one we would revert to.

I do not know what the change has been in the time since this has been in place, 2019.

Did we immediately halve it?  Is that what the data has shown?

Perhaps, if we did, we have dropped down and then potentially for a short period of time while the process is undertaken, we come back up to the previous rule.  It is then up to the Government to be motivated and effective in undertaking that process.

Ms Rattray – The figures that were given this morning were the 2020 catch.  That was my understanding.

Ms WEBB – I will leave it for others to clarify the specifics of that. 

Ms Forrest – That is the point, isn’t it?  Through you, Mr President, there are 11 tonnes recreational catch and there were only 14 tonnes in the commercial catch.

Ms WEBB – This question was not about the comparison between them.

Mr Duigan – No, but now we have the capacity to double the recreational catch.

Ms WEBB – The recreational catch prior to these new rules had been 22 000 had it, on the east coast?  No.  I am getting a shake of the head from over there.  If you are going to say that this disallowance risks putting that catch back up to 22 000, let us clarify that is what it was before.  I am not having any clarification from the Leader.  

Ms Forrest – I would not think you would not be able to catch that many anyway.  It will not be there.

Ms WEBB – I seek this clarification because we do have to be careful when we throw around numbers and assertions about what things may or may not be.

Mrs Hiscutt – Through you, Mr President, prior to that it was 11 tonne but it has the potential to go back up.

Ms WEBB – Let us be clear.  Prior to these rules, which I am looking to disallow, that relate to the catch limit, the bag limit for recreational fishers, the catch was 11 tonnes in the area that we are talking about.  What these rules do was potentially halve that, bring that right down.  I am moving a disallowance to then bring it back up to, at most, 11 000 for a period of time until a process has been undertaken for new rules to be established.  Let us not get too excited and throw around 22 000. 

Mr Duigan – We have no idea what it will be.  No idea.

Ms WEBB – If we revert to the previous rules, we would best expect it will reflect what it was in those rules.  Why would we expect different behaviour to what it was before when those rules were in place?  I am not going to speculate further on that.  I do not think we need to use hyperbole in speculating something different to what was clearly in place before and supported by the data. 

I thank the members who have indicated support.  We have made a clear expression of concern from the recreational fishing sector and the peak bodies and representative groups from that sector.  I hope this is a clear message to the Government; but more than that, I hope it is a clear message that they have heard, and that will then impact on future plans about how process is engaged with in this space. 

I believe there is a lot of goodwill in this sector to see things done well and to collaboratively work together.  I consider there is a shared sense of the value of the fishery on all levels – not just economically, but also culturally, recreationally and environmentally.  Regardless of whether this disallowance is carried, it would be such a shame to see processes then undertaken that did not capitalise on the goodwill and instead delivered us to a similar situation as this somewhere down the track, with large swathes of important stakeholders feeling excluded from shared decision making.  I hope that this is not just a clear message either way; I hope it is a clearly heard message.

Mr PRESIDENT – The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Council divided –
AYES  7	NOES  5
Ms Armitage	Mr Duigan
Mr Gaffney (Teller)	Ms Forrest
Ms Lovell	Mrs Hiscutt
Dr Seidel	Ms Howlett
Mr Valentine	Ms Rattray (Teller)
Ms Webb
Mr Willie

 

Motion agreed to.