Fisheries (General and Fees) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2017 (TAS)

The Tasmanian Fisheries (General and Fees) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2017 was challenged by various applicants in the Federal Court, arguing that it was inconsistent with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority Act 1991 (Cth). The applicants claimed the regulations imposed a royalty on the harvesting of King Island kelp, which they argued was inconsistent with the Commonwealth's exclusive power to legislate with respect to fisheries outside territorial waters. The applicants sought various declarations and injunctions against the regulations.

The central legal issue was whether the Tasmanian regulations were inconsistent with the Commonwealth's exclusive power over fisheries outside territorial waters. The applicants argued that the regulations imposed a royalty on the harvesting of King Island kelp, which they claimed was a Commonwealth matter. The respondents, representing the Tasmanian government, argued that the regulations related to the management of fisheries within Tasmanian waters, which was within the State's constitutional power.

The Court held that the regulations were valid as they related to the management of fisheries within Tasmanian waters. The Court found that the regulations imposed royalties on the harvesting of King Island kelp, but that did not make the regulations inconsistent with the Commonwealth's exclusive power. The regulations were within the scope of Tasmania's power to manage fisheries within its waters. The Court dismissed the applicants' claims.

The Court declared that the Fisheries (General and Fees) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2017 were valid and did not conflict with any Commonwealth laws. The applicants' claims for declarations, injunctions and damages were dismissed with costs.