On the 21st of February 2024, the Minister for Agriculture and Western NSW – Tara Moriarty, announced that a 12-month trial ban would be placed upon the harvest of the Blue Groper fish species in NSW. While a total ban had already been applied to commercial fishing operations and the spearfishing community, it would now be extended temporarily to include recreational anglers and the use of line fishing equipment. Indigenous Australians have been granted an exemption to this ban – due to their Native title rights which allow them to engage in cultural fishing practices.

These new rules began on the 1st of March, 2024.

What prompted this trial ban?

According to the Minister, this trial ban was imposed following community outrage over two separate incidents that involved the illegal harvest of Blue Groper with spearfishing equipment. While common sense would argue that a fitting punishment would be to fine the individuals involved and engage them in further legal proceedings, it seems as though the honourable Minister thought that a collective punishment for the entire recreational fishing community would be a more fitting response. To make matters worse, the recreational fishing community’s right to engage in a formal consultation over this proposed rule change was denied before implementation.

How will the success of this trial be measured?

To determine the effectiveness of a trial, two things need to be established. First of all, a benchmark needs to be set which outlines the overall aim of the trial. In terms of fishing, this usually consists of population growth in a selected species, greater compliance among the recreational fishing community for size and bag limits, or a reduced amount of fish caught by way of illegal fishing methods. Prior to this trial being implemented, the latter example would have referred to the number of instances in which a Blue Groper was illegally harvested with spearfishing equipment. The second requirement is for raw data to be collected before the trial commences and after it has been completed. Using the examples above, this would include fish stock assessments and compliance data from the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Fisheries Unit.

During a budget estimates committee meeting, Mark Banasiak from the Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers Party asked the Minister (Tara Moriarty) if benchmarks had been established for the trial and if the appropriate data had been collected. As is typical of most politicians, the Minister was unable to provide a direct and adequate response to the question. When further prompted on this question, She informed the committee that the 12-month trial ban was based upon “community sentiment”. This was direct confirmation that the new rules were based solely on emotion and not scientific analysis.

Following this verbal exchange, the same question was posed to the Director General of the NSW DPI – Mr. Sean Sloan. He confirmed Mark Banasiak’s suspicion that a stock assessment had not been performed by the NSW DPI. Further questioning revealed the latest fishing survey conducted by the NSW DPI had indicated that approximately 387 Blue Groper had been caught within a nominated 12-month survey period (2021 – 2022) and of these fish, only an estimated 164 fish were retained. This information demonstrated that the Blue Groper was not a key target species in NSW and that recreational anglers have a low impact on the sustainability of the species.

Given this species is not under threat by recreational anglers and that no benchmarks have been set, nor any data collected, it begs the question – How will the success of this trial be measured? Quite simply, it cannot. The only valid conclusion I can draw is that this ban will become a permanent fixture in 12 months. I believe the Minister is just using the term ‘trial’ to reduce the public scrutiny against herself by creating the illusion that it may be overturned at a later date.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries advisory campaign

As part of the 12-month trial ban, the NSW DPI has made a commitment to “undertake educational activities with the broader fishing community”. Unfortunately, no further information has been released on this commitment beyond that of “social media reminders”. This response is underwhelming, to say the least…

What is the punishment for taking a Blue Groper during this 12-month trial period?

Under the new rules, any person who is found to have taken a Blue Groper in NSW by any method may face a $500 penalty infringement notice. Compliance officers may also pursue legal proceedings against the perpetrator which could result in an additional court-imposed fine of $22,000, or imprisonment for up to 6 months (or any combination of the previously mentioned punishments). A second or subsequent offence may result in a $44,000 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months.

Under the old rules, the maximum penalty for spearing a blue groper was a fine of up to $11,000. If the standard size and bag limits were not adhered to, an additional fine of up to $22,000 and/or six months imprisonment could also be applied to a perpetrator on their first offence.

While these new harsher punishments are a welcomed means to deter those who would consider breaking the rules, I cannot understand why the events that led to this trial ban only resulted in fines of $500 and $800 respectively. The same can be said about other instances of non-compliance involving excessive bag limits and undersized fish. Perhaps if a heftier fine was issued on each occasion, we would see the number of compliance issues drastically reduced. In my opinion, this is an area better deserving of the Minister’s attention, as opposed to the creation of an outright ban. 

Given the circumstances surrounding this ban, along with the subsequent arrogance that was demonstrated while being questioned on this matter, many in our community are questioning the true intent behind this ban. Is the Minister simply trying to make a name for herself in the world of politics? Or does she hold contempt for the very people that she was chosen to support and represent? In my opinion, both of these are fair assertions. Yet, no matter what her intentions may be, I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that she is no longer a suitable candidate to maintain this political portfolio, or perhaps any portfolio at all.

In terms of whether this ban will be implemented on a permanent basis or not, that will mostly depend on you. If you are proactive in fighting this ban, we (as a community) can create enough momentum to have it overturned. If you choose to do nothing, it will be another nail in the coffin of recreational hunting and fishing activities. The choice is yours…