WHILE work has progressed to develop a NSW cultural fishing regulation, a Sydney-based solicitor argues it does not need regulating at all.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The regulation has been in the making since 2009 when an amendment to the Fisheries Management Act promoting cultural fishing access passed through the NSW parliament.
Solicitor Kathryn Ridge and barrister Tony McAvoy defend cultural fishing cases in courts across the state.
As recognition of cultural fishing was already enshrined in the Act, Ms Ridge said regulating it was unnecessary.
“This is the greatest injustice,” Ms Ridge said.
“Both sides of parliament passed an amendment to the Act to recognise cultural fishing rights that said, ‘subject to any regulations’.
“It doesn’t say, ‘you have to wait until they draft regulations’.”
Ms Ridge said there was no evidence that Aboriginal fishing in accordance with law and custom caused any problems in NSW waters.
She said governments should not regulate unless there was a problem.
“There’s a hell of a lot of effort going into regulating something that is not demonstrated to be a problem,” Ms Ridge said.
“As a taxpayer I’m a bit annoyed about that as well.”
Ms Ridge said, regardless, Commonwealth native title law, which recognises the continuing native title rights of Aboriginal people to country, prevailed over state laws.
A nation-wide agreement, the National Indigenous Fishing Principles, was also endorsed by NSW in 2008.
Ms Ridge said, given fishing was such a large industry in NSW, the focus was “not on the true relationship with the resource”.
“This idea there are cultural owners of the resource is inconsistent with the idea that Fisheries controls everything, and that is challenging to them at a very fundamental level,” she said.
“(A recent High Court decision says) if there’s a native title right recognised, it’s artificial to split between non-commercial and commercial access.
“If you own it, you own it; what you then choose to do with it is your business.
“Some people, I think, are threatened about what it might mean for their department or agency.”
It is a sentiment echoed by Wally Stewart, of Narooma, who said Fisheries was focused on the bigger recreational industry.
He said the draft regulation had been years in the making, but legal precedent dictated it was not needed.
“We’ve already got a right; we don’t need it,” Mr Stewart said.
“All of a sudden, they’re trying to be good and work with us, but they’re still trying to put regulations on us.
“(They) don’t have to; we’ve proven that – it’s already been won in the High Court.”
