Hi Ian,
FOI Requests
Thanks for that update on the regulations. While on the topic of FOI requests, I just had a look at the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and found the following section -
..it seems to me that the "independent advice" document would be worthwhile seeking through FOI. It would have probably been prepared by the VCEC (Vic Competition and Efficiency Commission) - www.vcec.vic.gov.au
Compliance with 28 day consultation requirement
In response to your comments about the failure to meet the 28 day requirement, I quote section 11 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 below which is relevant -
Here are my comments:
1) The notice MUST go in the gazette and a newspaper circulating thoughtout Victoria (e.g. The Age, Herald Sun etc) - optionally they can put the notice in smaller newspapers but that is optional only.
2) The public must be given notice of the 28 days submission period. If, the time when submissions closed was 7 December 2005 then there should have been a notice in the newspaper and gazette (at least) 28 days prior to this. If not, then the Act has not been complied with. What are the consquences of such as breach you might ask? Well, the Act is silent on this matter. Your best bet is to have a chat with SARC (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/default.htm) and see what they say on the matter. They are the ones who deal with this type of problem the most I would imagine.
Is the 60 day period legal?
Regarding whether the 60 days is legal or not under the new regulations I quote the wording in reg 506 -
This means the fishery is completely closed unless fisheries are nice enough to give recreationals some access. They are not in any way obliged to open the fishery to recreationals for even 1 day if they do not want to.
Victorian Guide to Regulation
You might be interested to read the Victorian Guide to Regulations which was made to assist people implementing the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. It is available on the VCEC website mentioned above. Unfortunately it does not elaborate on the 28 day issue. It was updated recently.
Failure to put up inshore reef closures as an option in the RIS
I note your comment about the failure to include an alternative in the RIS relating to a more limited closure of just the inner reef areas (rather than the whole central coastline and all of Port Phillip Bay). It may have been that it would not have been a practical option because of enforcement difficulties in determining what is an "inner reef" and what is not. Would you define them by water depth? Or distance from shore? Or a combination? Even something simple like the "no abalone in less than 2 metres rule" was found to be unworkable and unenforceable. So a "no abs on inshore reefs" rule would possibly be even more problematic. I do not think that you can argue the RIS was invalid on this ground alone. Of course there are other valid alternatives mentioned in the RIS. For example, the option of licensing abalone fisherman separately from normal recreational fisherman was a viable option in my opinion. It would have allowed greater control of the fishery without any requirement to reduce catch limits.
=============================
All the best Ian and please keep the updates coming. It is great that someone is really standing up to Fisheries and their second class management approach. It is my view that Fisheries Managers should be voted in by fisherman and it should be mandatory that they have an interest in fishing. New Zealand South Island Fish and Game have an election model and it works very well. (http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/)
While on the topic of fisheries changes, (going slightly off topic) I think one good change would be if fisheries sent out a reminder notice a month before my fishing licence expires so that I can renew the licence on time. I got caught a couple of weeks ago by Fisheries (quite embarassing for me since I always mean to have a licence) without a valid licence. It had expired a month before. In any case I was lucky to get a slap on the wrist and bought a new licence that same day. However it was an honest mistake on my part and it seems unfair on people to expect them to remember these things without any reminder notices being sent. This is the only "fee" I have to pay each year where no notice is sent. It seems to be a pretty primitive system that is now behind the times. I understand that this might add some administrative cost but fisheries would probably obtain more revenue anyway because forgetful people like me would renew their licence sooner and so effectively give fisheries more money each year.
Cheers, Glen
FOI Requests
Thanks for that update on the regulations. While on the topic of FOI requests, I just had a look at the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and found the following section -
Quote:10(3) The responsible Minister must ensure that independent advice as to the adequacy of the regulatory impact statement and of the assessment included in the regulatory impact statement is obtained and considered in accordance with the guidelines.
..it seems to me that the "independent advice" document would be worthwhile seeking through FOI. It would have probably been prepared by the VCEC (Vic Competition and Efficiency Commission) - www.vcec.vic.gov.au
Compliance with 28 day consultation requirement
In response to your comments about the failure to meet the 28 day requirement, I quote section 11 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 below which is relevant -
Quote:11. Comments and submissions
(1) If a regulatory impact statement has been prepared, the responsible Minister must ensure that a notice in accordance with sub-section (2) is
published inââ¬â
a ) the Government Gazette; and
b ) a daily newspaper circulating generally throughout Victoria; and
c ) if the responsible Minister considers it appropriate, in such trade, professional or public interest publications as the responsible Minister determines.
(2) A notice mustââ¬â
a ) state the reason for, and the objectives of, the proposed statutory rule;
b ) summarise the results of the regulatory impact statement;
c ) specify where a copy of the regulatory impact statement and of the proposed
statutory rule can be obtained;
d ) invite public comments or submissions within such time (being not less than 28 days from the publication of the notice) as is specified in the notice.
(3) The responsible Minister mustââ¬â
a ) ensure that all comments and submissions are considered before the statutory rule is made; and
b ) ensure that a copy of all comments and submissions is given to the Scrutiny
Committee as soon as practicable after the statutory rule is made.
Here are my comments:
1) The notice MUST go in the gazette and a newspaper circulating thoughtout Victoria (e.g. The Age, Herald Sun etc) - optionally they can put the notice in smaller newspapers but that is optional only.
2) The public must be given notice of the 28 days submission period. If, the time when submissions closed was 7 December 2005 then there should have been a notice in the newspaper and gazette (at least) 28 days prior to this. If not, then the Act has not been complied with. What are the consquences of such as breach you might ask? Well, the Act is silent on this matter. Your best bet is to have a chat with SARC (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/default.htm) and see what they say on the matter. They are the ones who deal with this type of problem the most I would imagine.
Is the 60 day period legal?
Regarding whether the 60 days is legal or not under the new regulations I quote the wording in reg 506 -
Quote:The whole year, excluding any period specified by a fisheries
notice under section 152 of the Act
This means the fishery is completely closed unless fisheries are nice enough to give recreationals some access. They are not in any way obliged to open the fishery to recreationals for even 1 day if they do not want to.
Victorian Guide to Regulation
You might be interested to read the Victorian Guide to Regulations which was made to assist people implementing the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. It is available on the VCEC website mentioned above. Unfortunately it does not elaborate on the 28 day issue. It was updated recently.
Failure to put up inshore reef closures as an option in the RIS
I note your comment about the failure to include an alternative in the RIS relating to a more limited closure of just the inner reef areas (rather than the whole central coastline and all of Port Phillip Bay). It may have been that it would not have been a practical option because of enforcement difficulties in determining what is an "inner reef" and what is not. Would you define them by water depth? Or distance from shore? Or a combination? Even something simple like the "no abalone in less than 2 metres rule" was found to be unworkable and unenforceable. So a "no abs on inshore reefs" rule would possibly be even more problematic. I do not think that you can argue the RIS was invalid on this ground alone. Of course there are other valid alternatives mentioned in the RIS. For example, the option of licensing abalone fisherman separately from normal recreational fisherman was a viable option in my opinion. It would have allowed greater control of the fishery without any requirement to reduce catch limits.
=============================
All the best Ian and please keep the updates coming. It is great that someone is really standing up to Fisheries and their second class management approach. It is my view that Fisheries Managers should be voted in by fisherman and it should be mandatory that they have an interest in fishing. New Zealand South Island Fish and Game have an election model and it works very well. (http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/)
While on the topic of fisheries changes, (going slightly off topic) I think one good change would be if fisheries sent out a reminder notice a month before my fishing licence expires so that I can renew the licence on time. I got caught a couple of weeks ago by Fisheries (quite embarassing for me since I always mean to have a licence) without a valid licence. It had expired a month before. In any case I was lucky to get a slap on the wrist and bought a new licence that same day. However it was an honest mistake on my part and it seems unfair on people to expect them to remember these things without any reminder notices being sent. This is the only "fee" I have to pay each year where no notice is sent. It seems to be a pretty primitive system that is now behind the times. I understand that this might add some administrative cost but fisheries would probably obtain more revenue anyway because forgetful people like me would renew their licence sooner and so effectively give fisheries more money each year.
Cheers, Glen