Fisheries Amendment Bill
Posted by Administrator (admin) on Aug 27 2008
2008 >>

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (3.56 pm):

I also support the bill. The amendments proposed in the bill are consistent with the overarching objective of the Fisheries Act 1994, which is to protect the long-term sustainability of Queensland’s fisheries. The bill essentially provides certainty for traditional fishing activities by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Traditional fishing can only be for personal and communal needs and cannot be of a commercial nature. To this end, the bill limits fishers to apparatus that does not permit a commercial-size catch of fish or the commercial sale of fish.

The amendment also introduces greater certainty by clarifying that section 14 of the act, which enables Indigenous Queenslanders to fish in a traditional way, operates as a defence provision. All
doubt is therefore removed as to what burden of proof applies in a prosecution under the act where traditional fishing practices are relied upon by the defendant. The bill also enables the extension of the application of some of the closed waters already prescribed under regulation to traditional fishing. These closed waters are vulnerable areas where all fishing activity is prohibited to prevent overfishing where fish spawn or aggregate as juveniles.

The bill proposes that traditional fishing activity will not be allowed in 14 of these closed waters and that this will
be done through a regulation. The act currently provides for fisheries management plans to be established. However, there are
practical difficulties in getting a statewide agreement with Indigenous people to finalise such a management plan. A more practical way to regulate these matters is to put them in a regulation. This will ensure consistency and certainty across the state. The bill therefore proposes to remove the reference to management plans and replace it with a power to deal with these matters by regulation.

The bill also makes amendments to address a practical issue regarding consultation when a regulation change is proposed. The current legislation requires the department to obtain the agreement
of all relevant parties before the change can proceed. This is impractical and the possibility of achieving statewide agreement on a change is remote, particularly when considering the diverse Indigenous groups across the state and their needs. However, it needs to be noted that this amendment does not mean that Indigenous groups will not be consulted on future changes that are proposed to occur under regulations. Appropriate consultation with people affected by any future proposed restriction will continue to occur. I commend the bill to the House.

Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 2:24 AM