I suppose what the panel was referring to there was the fact that there is no legislation in place, such that when a certain set of circumstances arises the minister must act in a particular way. Unlike the Species at Risk Act, for example, which is highly prescriptive, the Fisheries Act is highly discretionary. Whenever the minister faces a decision—a quota decision, where to put an MPA, and so on—it's ultimately up to the minister himself or herself. Often this is not even something ministers would actually like to have to deal with on a daily basis, but they do.
There is legislation. A good example is in the United States, where for overfishing and things of that nature, there are legislative requirements to set targets that must be followed by government. That kind of underpins what the Australia biodiversity and conservation legislation has as well. Norway is also attempting to achieve this. New Zealand has made steps.
Again, to underscore what I said earlier, not only might some form of legislative reform or revision, or perhaps a new piece of legislation, assist the current committee's activities and the minister's attempt to come up with a credible national conservation plan, but I think some attention to the discretion afforded to some ministers is something that's worth examining as well.