The information that you're providing us, though, indicates that there were options that were still available for this year. Your opening remarks indicated how the fishery is conducted—targeting males. In terms of conservation, this is not like a groundfish species or a pelagic species. It follows a different pattern. The consequences of harvesting this particular species are different from what you would experience with a groundfish or a pelagic species. I think that's the gist of what you're explaining when you say you target mature males in the fishery.
With that said, what you're also explaining to us is that you clearly had further options this year. The disconnect, Mr. Bevan, I think, to the industry on the ground and to the department's current decision in 2010 is the 63% cut. There's a fiduciary responsibility of the minister to protect the stock, to protect the species, and to protect the fishery. In my knowledge of this industry, and particularly of the southern gulf, I can't ever recall a time when the quota increased or the fishable biomass increased by 63% in one year. It seems like a very, very high number for an increase or for a decrease, and that's the disconnect.
Could you explain for the benefit of fishers that you had no choice? Could you explain for the benefit of the industry, through us, that basically because you did not take decisions in the last few years, that's why this occurred? Would that be a correct statement to make?