Proposed Amendments to the Fish Resources Management Act 1994

Rae Burrows
Executive Officer
Management Review Committee
Department of Fisheries
Locked Bag 39
CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850


Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed amendments to the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA 1994) as outlined in Fisheries Management Paper 208 (FMP208).

General Comments

Recfishwest supports many of the proposed changes to the FRMA 1994 and has restricted comments to omissions that it believes exist in the proposals and to issues with which it does not agree.

Recfishwest believes that the FRMA 1994 needs to be kept as flexible as possible. For example, the Department of Fisheries (Department) is currently reviewing its recreational fishing consultative structures. This review may well recommend changes to the current structure, and any proposed changes should be reflected in the amendments to the FRMA 1994 or those areas concerning the consultative structures should be sufficiently broad to encompass the possible outcomes of the review.

Recfishwest believes that cross authorisations of the marine sea safety between the Department and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) should be outlined in the FRMA 1994 and should include the Swan and Canning Rivers and all regional areas of Western Australia.

The responsibilities between the Department and Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) are not reflected in the FRMA 1994 in terms of cross authorisation.

Penalties for environment damage should provide for ten times the value for the damage as applies for other fish related matters.


Specific Comments on Proposed Amendments

(Reference 1)
b) To ensure the impact of fishing activities on aquatic fauna and their habitats is minimised.

Recfishwest is concerned that the possible interpretation of "minimised" could be that all fishing activities should cease. We believe that other objectives specified in the FRMA provide adequate protection for the environment and ensure the sustainable use of the resource. The new proposed object is not necessary and is open to an interpretation which is contrary to the very nature of fishing. Recfishwest believes that the intention of the sentence could be reflected in more generic terms, for example " to minimise the impact on non-target fauna and marine habitat".

k) To promote the conservation of fish and the aquatic environment to the wider community through the provision of advisory, extension and education services.

Recfishwest believes that this proposed secondary object is unnecessary, see comments for Reference 6.

(Reference 6)
This proposed amendment appears to contradict with Reference 1 (k). Recfishwest believes that education and extension are key functions, but functions that could be externally sourced.

(Reference 7)
Recfishwest believes the proposed change could be more precisely qualified by reference to the Conflict of Interest Guidelines; Identifying and managing conflicts of interest in the Western Australian public sector.

(Reference 9)
The possible schedule of committees should be included in the Regulations not the Act and take into account the outcomes of the recreational fishing consultative structure review.

(Reference 10)
The Minister for Fisheries should consult with all possibly relevant stakeholders not just 'industry'.

(Reference 11)
Recfishwest believes that the entire Section (S45) must be rewritten to reflect proper flexibility. It should address commercial, recreational and customary classes of fish to reflect Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) and different management regimes that may occur for the respective sectors.

(Reference 14)
Recfishwest has major concerns with this proposal. Provision should be made for specific methods of identification for undersize aquaculture fish. The main issue is for undersize fish. This may open up a loophole for possession of undersize fish.

(Reference 16)
Part 2 must include a provision to allow for one person to "own up". It may also require consideration of the circumstances, if a Fisheries Officer is not able to identify an offender then the responsibility should refer back to the skipper of the boat. As per Section 202 & 202a of the FRMA 1994 where the master of a boat on which, or by the use of which, the offence was committed is taken to have committed the same offence.

(Reference 18)
Recfishwest believes that the actual wording of this new section will be critical. The Executive Director should set an appropriate harvest level that is sustainable; the Minister should then approve the shares.

(Reference 19)
Recfishwest believes that it is possible under some circumstances that an interim managed fishery provision should be permitted for recreational fisheries, for example Lake Kununurra.

(Reference 20)
We believe there should be a provision for objection in the form of a cancelled licence provision.

Recfishwest believes a case could be made to allow a second tier licence whereby a research assistant may apply for a variation of an authorisation.

Recfishwest believes that some part of the associated entitlements of a Recreational Fishing Licence should be transferable (in particular tags), but not the licence itself.

(Reference 18, 19, 20 & 21)
Currently the government policy states that the Executive Director of Fisheries sets "the sustainable harvest level". This could lead to the impression that it must be the maximum sustainable harvest level. There are an infinite number of sustainable harvest levels (and also of unsustainable ones). This is an important issue and should be set right to avoid future problems with conservation. The Minister has advised the Integrated Fisheries Allocation Advisory Committee (IFAAC) that he does not want IFAAC to recommend a specific "non-catch" allocation; it has been inferred that the non-catch allocation (to look at and to support the ecosystem) will be allowed for in the Executive Director's setting of a sustainable harvest level. Obviously this is not just a simple scientific calculation. Not only conservationists but recreational fishers and in some cases commercial fishers have an interest in the target stock level and in sometimes setting it above the minimum sustainable level. The Act should provide for a process for setting a sustainable harvest level (which could be different for the one species in different areas).

In addition, IFM will require a range of new financial arrangements to enable inter-sectoral transfer of entitlements to catch fish. Individuals who are natural persons or corporate bodies currently hold the commercial rights and can trade on their own behalf. A new corporate body could be formed to hold rights on behalf of the recreational sector and trade in those rights. Alternately the Government could hold this entitlement on behalf of recreational fishers but in either case a set of Trustees will be required to make the commercial decisions on behalf of the recreational sector. With appropriate ministerial approvals the new corporate body will have to have access to a fund and presumably broad powers will be needed for the Minister to approve sources of these funds.

(Reference 24)
Recfishwest believes that issues surrounding by-catch and by-product are complex. Species-based authorisations are an issue when by product is "allowed". Recfishwest believes that by definition "by-product" provides a loophole for licensees of a managed fishery to profit from commercially valuable "non-target" fish. It is questionable whether these species are not targeted themselves e.g. large catches of squid by the prawn trawl and fish trawl managed fisheries.

(Reference 25)
This section should also include certain types of gear that are prohibited (eg. firearms).

(Reference 31)
We believe that a formal committee should consider applications for new fisheries whether by permit or any other authorisation. Assessment should not be left to the Executive Director only.

(Reference 35)
Recfishwest does not consider the failure to lodge returns as a minor matter. The allocation of future rights will be based on catch history. Regarding errors or omissions, the failure to submit a "return" is not a minor matter and there should be a provision that any return not submitted on time does not count as "history".

(Reference 38)
We strongly believe that paying for over-quota retrospectively is an entirely inadequate penalty. (See New Zealand legislation). Recfishwest believes that the penalty should involve double the market value paid to the FRDF or the market value plus a debit to the following year's quota. A provision should also be included for loss of quota for repeat offences.

(Part 8 Aquaculture)
Recfishwest is concerned about the lack of provisions in relation to the aquarium fish trade. We believe there are inadequacies in relation to translocation of aquarium fish and aquaculture translocation. More adequate regulation of aquarium fish trade is required, in particular, live fish importing. We believe there could be a separate category for 'undesirable' fish for species such as goldfish and redfin perch.

(Reference 40)
With regard to the collection of broodstock and spat, Recfishwest believes that it should have the standing of an affected person to comment on the issue of an aquaculture licence. Collection of broodstock from accessible, public waters is a highly contentious issue.

(Reference 41)
Given the granting of an aquaculture licence could impact on recreational fishing, Recfishwest are of the view that they should have the right to object to the granting of an aquaculture licence. If a licence is granted there needs to be ongoing monitoring. The changes should include specific 'interaction with existing practices'. Notification should also be required if aquaculture sites are being moved.

(Reference 44)
The granting of an aquaculture lease may significantly impact on the quality of recreational fishing in a given area, without necessarily affecting other fish or the aquatic environment. The degree to which an aquaculture lease impacts on recreational fishing must be considered in the granting of that lease.

Dot point 2 regarding "better interests" should be in both interests of the community and affected persons. Regarding dot point 4, we believe that "or activities" should be added, not just fish and the environment.

We also have concerns regarding who owns the fish, as there may also be wild stock within the leased area. There needs to be careful clarification of this proposal.

The creation of a system of secured tenure arrangements for this industry is a concern for all other marine users including recreational fishers. Aquaculture leases have been allowed to increase partly on the basis that they do not preclude other users. Current trends are moving towards giving the lease holders more control and a new lease system could increase the impact of this.
If a more secure system is introduced it should be balanced by giving wider rights to object. These should include:

• The lease is against the public interest.
• There is risk of environmental damage.
• There is excessive inconvenience to navigation or recreational or commercial fishing.
• The lease significantly impacts on the quality of the recreational fishing experience in the area.

The new lease provisions should also insist on relinquishing existing lease areas to compensate for any new leases unless there is a significant and demonstrable growth in the industry.

(Reference 50)
Recfishwest strongly believes there should be significant controls on aquarium fish.
Refer comments re: aquarium fish - to include a category of undesirable fish. The undesirable fish category needs to cover issues dealing with:

• Translocation
• Sale
• Holding of stock
• Release (into the wild)
• Breeding

Issues related to disease are very important. Notification of disease may need to be strengthened with possible linkage to Stock Diseases Act.

(Reference 52)
We believe that the proposed change must include aquarium fish for consistency between the recreational fishing sector, aquaculture and the aquarium trade.

(Reference 53)
Proscribed costs need to be levied against person holding the fish.

(Reference 59)
The licence should not only be suspended after two years or more as approved by the Minister. Recfishwest believes it should be cancelled after two years via a "show-cause" clause.

(Reference 60)
Recfishwest strongly disagrees with this proposal. A late fee penalty should be provided for and we believe that the penalty needs to be high if this proposal is included.

(Reference 62)
Recfishwest does not favour this proposal. Licences should not exist without entitlement except on a short (30 - 90 days) term basis- if temporary ok. There are considerable administration costs associated with the proposal which must be fully recovered.

(Reference 66)
Commercial fishers should be able to hold a recreational licence.

(Reference 67)
The right of appeal of affected persons must also be included.

(Reference 68)
The definition of an "affected person" needs to be clearly stated as should the consultation protocols for granting of aquaculture licences.
Changes are needed to the existing Part 4 of the FRMA 1994 regarding objections to decisions concerning authorisations. These changes should provide mechanisms for a wider group of interested persons to;

• Be notified of proposed authorisations
• Be given the opportunity to object
• Be given the opportunity of appearing before the Tribunal

Such groups should include appropriate incorporated bodies representing

• Commercial fishers
• Recreational fishers
• Marine conservation
• Customary fishing

(Reference 70)
Recfishwest supports this amendment and believes it should apply to anyone regardless of whether the offence relates to commercial or recreational fishing.

(Reference 71)
Firearms should not be permitted to be carried on boats for any fishing purpose unless the firearm is of the "captive bolt" type.

(Reference 113)
Recfishwest strongly agrees with these proposed changes to S254, but we would like to see the proposal broadened to consider the maintenance of fish passage where there are identifiable ecological, social, cultural and economic values of fish species. The changes should include the following provisions;

• Any structural modifications to an existing dam or weir will require provision of fish passage
• Any development of a dam, weir or barrier on a waterway needs to provide for fish passage

Recfishwest believes there are omissions related to recreational fishing access in the FRMA 1994, in light of increasing interference by local government restricting recreational fishing access. We will continue to liaise with the Ministerial Review Committee on this issue.

Please do not hesitate to contact our office on 9246 3366 should further information or clarification be required.

Yours sincerely,



Frank Prokop
Executive Director

24th July 2006


CC Mr Doug Bathgate, Chair, RFAC



This page last updated on 26 July 2006.