Proposed changes to rock lobster industry could destroy small fishers and communities

Tasmanian Labor

Proposed changes to the rules and policies of the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishery have the potential to destroy regional communities and a Tasmanian way of life.

The proposed change to expand the 60-pot rule would decimate smaller fishers who have passed this tradition down through family generations.

The government's rule change proposes to increase the area where the maximum number of 60 pots can be used and carried by a commercial vessel to include the North East and the North West where currently commercial vessels can only carry 50 pots.

The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishery makes a major contribution to the Tasmanian economy, with many of these fishers small business operators.

Many of these smaller fishers, who have fished alongside their fathers, uncles and grandfathers for generations will be impacted by this.

This will be detrimental to smaller operators, forcing them off the water, as well as impacting local businesses who rely on the income generated by these fishers.

The timing of the proposed changes was poorly considered given that the review of the Living Marine Resources Management Act and Harvest Strategy had not yet been completed.

How can we implement a rule of this magnitude when the overarching governing instrument has not been created? It is like putting the cart before the horse and does not prepare our world-renowned fishery for the future.

I have brought this issue to the attention to the Minister for Primary Industries and Water Jo Palmer a number of times through questions in both the Upper and Lower Houses.

Minister Palmer has said that she supports regional fishers but she is yet to answer direct questions on this rule change and must immediately intervene.

Janie Finlay MP

Shadow Minister for Primary Industries

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.