The instrument works through three interlocking statutory concepts, all drawn from its text: (1) the statutory power to amend the list of exempt native specimens, exercised under s 303DC(1)(a) of the EPBC Act; (2) the content and conditions of the exemption as placed into the list under s 303DB of the EPBC Act; and (3) the dependency of the exemption on an approved wildlife trade operation declaration under s 303FN of the EPBC Act. Each of these appears in the instrument and structures its effect.

Amendment power and legislative form: The delegate acts "pursuant to subsection 303DC(1)(a) of the EPBC Act" to alter the list established under section 303DB. The instrument is, by its own text, a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003 and accordingly is subject to the form and commencement rules that apply to such instruments; it commences the day after registration.

Scope definition and location: The new list entry in Schedule 2 ties the spatial and regulatory scope of the exemption to the management regime under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, by using the phrase "Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and Development Zones, as defined in the management regime in force under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994". That language anchors the exemption to a state-managed definition of the fishery and its development zones rather than to bespoke descriptions within the instrument itself.

Conditions and exclusions: The exemption in Schedule 2 is conditional. Notation requires (a) that the specimen (or source fish/invertebrate) was "taken lawfully" and (b) that the specimens "are covered by the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under section 303FN of the EPBC Act in relation to the fishery". The Schedule also creates exclusion categories by reference to other EPBC Act lists and definitions,specifically s 209, s 248, s 303BC and s 303CA,so that taxa on those lists are expressly not covered by the exemption.

Incorporation of state and territory legislation: The instrument expressly incorporates "All state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 ... as in force at the time this instrument commences". That textual choice fixes the relevant versions of any referred state/territory instruments to the moment of commencement.

Temporal effect: The instrument deletes an earlier, simpler list entry (Schedule 1) and replaces it with the more detailed Schedule 2 entry. The replacement takes effect from the commencement date specified (the day after registration). The instrument is dated 10 January 2020.

Together, these concepts determine who can rely on the exemption and under what circumstances, by tying exemption status to spatial definitions under state fisheries law, to the lawfulness of taking, and to the administrative state of being covered by an approved wildlife trade operation declaration under s 303FN of the EPBC Act, while expressly excluding several EPBC-listed taxon categories.

The instrument primarily affects persons and entities involved in the taking, handling, or trade of fish and invertebrates that originate from the Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and the associated Development Zones as defined in the management regime under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. The categories of affected actors and stakeholders that follow are directly inferable from the instrument’s text.

Fishers and fishing operators: Commercial operators using purse seine gear within the specified managed fishery and development zones will be the principal private parties affected. Those operators, and any persons who possess specimens or products derived from the catch, must assess whether specimens qualify as "exempt native specimens" under the amended list entry. Reliance on the exemption requires that the specimen was "taken lawfully" and that the specimens "are covered by the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under section 303FN of the EPBC Act in relation to the fishery", so fishers will need to ensure compliance with those conditions to benefit from the exemption.

Operators of wildlife trade operations: The notation makes the exemption contingent on coverage by a declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under s 303FN. Entities that seek or hold such declarations (or who wish to trade specimens without EPBC permitting) are directly affected, because the existence and scope of the declaration will determine whether their specimens can rely on the exemption.

Processors, exporters and dealers: Any downstream processors, exporters, dealers, or traders who handle specimens derived from that fishery must be aware of whether specimens are within the exemption. If specimens are exempt, certain EPBC Act controls may not apply to trade in those specimens; if not, EPBC regulatory requirements may still attach. The instrument’s exclusions (see next paragraph) mean that dealing with taxa listed under specified EPBC lists will not be covered by the exemption.

Regulators and administrators: Commonwealth officials administering the EPBC Act will use the amended list when determining whether EPBC permits, approvals or wildlife trade operation declarations are required for particular specimens. State fisheries managers under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 are also implicated because the instrument ties the spatial scope to the management regime under that Act; the instrument also incorporates state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 as at commencement.

Persons handling excluded taxa: The instrument expressly excludes specimens that "belong to taxa listed under section 209" (Australia’s List of Migratory Species), "section 248" (Australia’s List of Marine Species), "eligible listed threatened species, as defined under section 303BC", and "taxa listed under section 303CA" (Australia’s CITES List). Anyone dealing with those taxa in or from the fishery or development zones cannot rely on the exemption created by this instrument; they remain subject to the EPBC Act provisions that apply to those lists.

Legal representatives and compliance advisers: Lawyers, accountants and compliance professionals advising fishery operators, exporters and wildlife trade operation applicants will need to incorporate the amended list into risk assessments and compliance checklists. They will also need to confirm whether a fishery is covered by an approved wildlife trade operation declaration under s 303FN, and whether the specimen falls within any of the explicit exclusions.

Parliamentary and oversight actors: Because the instrument is expressed to be a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003, parliamentary and oversight mechanisms that apply to legislative instruments under that Act will be engaged. The instrument’s commencement and filing details will therefore be relevant to advisers monitoring instrument registers and disallowance periods.

In short, the instrument directly affects the operational and administrative choices of fishers and associated traders in the Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and its development zones, requires coordination with wildlife trade operation declaration processes, and draws in state fisheries legislation both as a definitional anchor and as an incorporated source of law at the time of commencement.

The instrument sets out, by amendment of the exempt specimens list, the conditions under which particular specimens will be treated as "exempt native specimens" for the purposes of the EPBC Act list. Those conditions translate into concrete duties for affected parties and a corresponding legal right to rely on the exemption when the conditions are met.

Primary duties

• Duty to ensure lawful taking: The Schedule 2 notation requires that "the specimen, or the fish or invertebrate from which it is derived, was taken lawfully". That imposes an obligation on the person seeking to rely on the exemption to verify and retain evidence that the taking complied with applicable laws. The instrument itself does not prescribe what counts as lawful taking; it states the factual predicate. The legal determination of "lawful" will therefore depend on the relevant fisheries, environmental and other laws that regulate taking in the fishery and development zones.

• Duty to be covered by a declared approved wildlife trade operation (WTO): The notation conditions the exemption on the specimens "are covered by the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under section 303FN of the EPBC Act in relation to the fishery". That creates an administrative duty: the operator or person dealing in the specimens must ensure the fishery is the subject of a WTO declaration under s 303FN and that the specimens fall within the scope of that declaration. Coverage by such a declaration is therefore a prerequisite to claiming the exemption.

• Duty to verify taxon exclusions: Schedule 2 lists explicit exclusions by reference to EPBC Act lists and definitions (s 209, s 248, s 303BC, s 303CA). Persons must check that a particular specimen does not belong to any of those excluded categories before assuming the exemption applies.

• Duty to account for incorporated state/territory law: The instrument declares that "All state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 to the instrument is incorporated as in force at the time this instrument commences". If Schedule 2 refers to state or territory laws (for example, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for definitions), persons must ensure they have regard to the version in force at commencement.

Rights created or clarified

• Right to treat qualifying specimens as exempt native specimens: When the two notation conditions are satisfied and the specimen is not excluded by reference to the listed EPBC categories, the specimen is entered into the list of exempt native specimens by the instrument. An affected person then has the legal right to treat those specimens as exempt, subject to the underlying EPBC Act consequences of a specimen being on the exempt list (those consequences are not detailed in the instrument itself, which only amends the list).

• Right to rely on state definitions: The instrument anchors spatial scope to definitions contained in the management regime under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, so users have the right to use those state-defined boundaries and terms when determining whether a specimen originates within the covered fishery or development zones.

Delegation and administrative decision-making

• Delegate action to amend list: The instrument is made by the Minister’s delegate (Dane Roberts), exercising power under s 303DC(1)(a). That records the administrative right of a delegate to amend the list, and therefore the right of administrators to use delegated instruments to change exemptions under the EPBC Act framework.

Limitations and exclusions

• No application to certain listed taxa: The instrument expressly denies the exemption to specimens that fall within the four EPBC-defined categories listed in Schedule 2. This limits the rights created by the exemption and imposes the duty on operators to identify excluded species.

Recordkeeping and evidentiary duties (implied by text)

• The notation creates an implied need to demonstrate lawful taking and WTO coverage. While the instrument does not set out recordkeeping standards, the conditions it imposes will require operators to retain records or documentation that show compliance with state fisheries law and confirmation of WTO declaration coverage under s 303FN.

In short, the instrument conditions the right to treat certain fishery specimens as exempt on lawful taking, WTO declaration coverage, and absence from specified EPBC lists, and places on the operator factual and administrative duties to verify those conditions.

The instrument itself does not create new criminal offences or administrative sanctions; it operates as an amendment to the list of exempt native specimens under the EPBC Act. The text of the instrument is limited to deletion and inclusion of list entries, notation of conditions for exemption, and statements about commencement and incorporation. The instrument therefore modifies which specimens are treated as exempt for the purposes of the EPBC Act regime; corresponding enforcement and penalty consequences arise only through the EPBC Act’s broader provisions and any other relevant statutory regimes, which are not restated in this instrument.

What the instrument says about enforcement-adjacent matters

• Legislative form and commencement: The instrument is stated to be a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003 and commences the day after registration. As a legislative instrument, it will be published and become part of the Commonwealth subordinate instrument register, drawing the usual administrative and parliamentary oversight mechanisms applicable to legislative instruments under the Legislation Act. The instrument itself does not specify disallowance or review mechanisms; those processes stem from the Legislation Act and are not restated here.

• Condition-based access to exemption: By conditioning the exemption on lawful taking and WTO declaration coverage under s 303FN, the instrument creates factual gates. Failure to meet those gates will mean a specimen is not exempt, and hence the relevant EPBC requirements (permits, approvals, or prohibitions) may apply. The instrument does not itself identify the EPBC Act consequences or the sanctions that follow from failing to meet those requirements; such consequences remain governed by the EPBC Act and other applicable laws.

• Incorporated state/territory law: The instrument incorporates state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 as in force at commencement. Enforcement of state fisheries rules determining "lawful taking" is handled under relevant state legislation and administrative regimes, not by this instrument.

Practical enforcement implications derived from the instrument

• Administrative verification: Regulatory officers administering the EPBC Act will need to verify whether specimens fall within the amended list entry, whether they were taken lawfully (as that term is understood under relevant law), and whether the WTO declaration covers the specimens. Those verifications can trigger investigations and enforcement activity under the EPBC Act if non-compliance is suspected, but those enforcement powers and penalties are not included in the instrument text.

• False reliance risks: If an operator claims an exemption for a specimen while it was not lawfully taken, or was not covered by an approved WTO declaration, that operator would not be able to rely on the list entry; any EPBC Act enforcement consequences for non-compliance with the substantive Act could then be pursued. The instrument does not itself create a penalty for false claims; it creates the factual condition that separates exempt from non-exempt specimens.

• Overlap with other regimes: For specimens excluded by reference to s 209, s 248, s 303BC, or s 303CA, enforcement continues under the EPBC Act provisions applicable to those lists and any associated international obligations (for example, CITES-related controls under s 303CA), but the instrument is not the source of those enforcement regimes; it only clarifies that such taxa are not covered by this exemption.

In summary, the instrument alters the reach of the exemption list and creates conditions that must be met to fall within it, but enforcement and penalties for non-compliance are governed by the EPBC Act and other statutes and are not specified within the instrument itself. The instrument’s role is therefore to define scope and factual gates that will determine whether enforcement provisions elsewhere apply.

The instrument explicitly references and interacts with several other statutory instruments and EPBC Act provisions. Its operation depends on, and is constrained by, definitions and administrative mechanisms that exist outside the text of the instrument. The interactions explicit in the instrument are as follows.

Interaction with the EPBC Act (internaI cross-references)

• Power and list framework: The instrument is made under subsection 303DC(1)(a) and amends the list established under section 303DB of the EPBC Act. Those cross-references mean the instrument is an element of the EPBC Act’s broader statutory architecture for exempt native specimens; it changes the content of the relevant list that the Act relies upon.

• Dependence on WTO declaration under s 303FN: The Schedule 2 notation conditions the exemption on specimens being "covered by the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under section 303FN of the EPBC Act in relation to the fishery". That links the exemption to the administrative process and decision under s 303FN, meaning that the instrument and any claim of exemption necessarily reference actions and determinations under that separate EPBC Act provision.

• Exclusions by reference to EPBC lists and definitions: Schedule 2 excludes specimens belonging to taxa listed under section 209 (Australia’s List of Migratory Species), section 248 (Australia’s List of Marine Species), eligible listed threatened species as defined under section 303BC, and taxa listed under section 303CA (Australia’s CITES List). This creates a direct dependency: the instrument’s scope is constrained by the content of those other EPBC Act lists and definitions. The composition of those lists and definitions is determined under separate parts of the EPBC Act and may change independently; the instrument’s exclusions therefore operate in relation to whichever taxa those sections encompass at any given time.

Interaction with state fisheries law

• Fish Resources Management Act 1994: The instrument ties the geographic and management boundary for the exemption to "the management regime in force under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994". That means the instrument relies on state-defined terms and management arrangements to define where the exemption applies. It does not reproduce those definitions but instead relies on the state law’s management regime for the fishery and its development zones.

• Incorporation of state and territory legislation: The instrument states that "All state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 to the instrument is incorporated as in force at the time this instrument commences." That fixes the versions of any referred state or territory legislation at the time of commencement. The result is that the instrument uses, as a definitional and regulatory anchor, the state/territory legal instruments in existence at commencement.

Interaction with the Legislation Act 2003

• Legislative instrument form: The instrument is declared to be a legislative instrument for purposes of the Legislation Act 2003. That means it will be recorded, published and handled according to the procedural and administrative rules that apply to legislative instruments under that Act (for example, registration and any parliamentary oversight or disallowance processes that the Legislation Act creates). The instrument thus becomes part of the subordinate legislation landscape governed by the Legislation Act.

Boundaries and operational interactions

• Administrative coordination: The instrument creates a requirement that an approved WTO declaration under s 303FN exists in relation to the fishery for the exemption to apply. That necessarily requires coordination between Commonwealth administrators issuing WTO declarations and the state agencies administering the fishery under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (which define the management regime and development zones).

• Dynamic lists and fixed incorporation: Because the instrument excludes taxa by reference to certain EPBC Act lists and fixes state-law references "as in force at the time this instrument commences", the instrument sets up a mixture of dynamic and fixed interactions: some references under the EPBC Act (like the lists referenced) may change over time under the Commonwealth statute; the state legislation material referred to in Schedule 2 is fixed to its version at commencement, unless the instrument itself is later amended.

Matters not altered by the instrument

• The instrument does not amend the substantive provisions of the EPBC Act that set out offences, penalties, or procedural requirements for permits and approvals. It amends only the exempt native specimens list and the conditions for particular entries on that list. The enforcement and compliance consequences for failure to meet EPBC Act requirements remain governed by the other provisions of the EPBC Act and by state law where relevant.

In short, the instrument’s legal effect is achieved by cross-referencing and aligning Commonwealth exemption-list mechanics with a state fishery management regime and the approved wildlife trade operation declaration mechanism under the EPBC Act, while explicitly excluding certain EPBC-listed taxa from the exemption. It therefore operates at the intersection of Commonwealth environmental regulation and state fisheries regulation, and relies on administrative decisions under s 303FN for operational effect.

The instrument itself records a single, self-contained amendment event and provides the textual deletion and insertion that constitute the change. Its amendment history, as available in the instrument text, is limited to the following particulars.

Single amending instrument and date: The instrument is dated 10 January 2020 and is signed by Dane Roberts as Delegate of the Minister for the Environment. It states that the delegate acts pursuant to subsection 303DC(1)(a) of the EPBC Act to amend the list of exempt native specimens established under section 303DB of the EPBC Act.

Deletion and insertion: The amendment operates by deleting the prior list entry shown in Schedule 1 and inserting the new list entry shown in Schedule 2. Schedule 1 reproduces the deleted item exactly as it stood prior to being removed; Schedule 2 reproduces the new item with its revised scope, exclusions and notations. The instrument does not record any earlier amendment dates or prior versions beyond the entry it deletes in Schedule 1.

Commencement statement: The instrument expressly states that it "commences the day after it is registered." It also declares itself to be a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003, which determines the procedural requirements for registration. The instrument does not state the registration date on its face beyond the commencement formula; it is dated 10 January 2020 and takes effect the day after registration.

Incorporation clause and timing: The instrument contains an incorporation clause stating that "All state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 to the instrument is incorporated as in force at the time this instrument commences." That clause fixes the relevant versions of any referenced state/territory laws to the moment of commencement; this is an express temporal limitation on the incorporated material.

No textual amendments to other provisions: The instrument does not purport to amend the EPBC Act text itself beyond changes to the list established under s 303DB via the delegate’s power in s 303DC(1)(a). It does not amend s 303DC, s 303DB or s 303FN textually, nor does it modify any other Commonwealth statute within its text.

No recorded successive amendments: The instrument contains no schedules, notes or marginal annotations that record further amendments, revocations, or replacements. As provided in the instrument, the precise amendment consists solely of the Schedule 1 deletion and Schedule 2 insertion described.

Administrative provenance: The instrument records that it is made by the Minister’s delegate, demonstrating that the power under s 303DC(1)(a) can be exercised by delegation. The instrument does not provide information about prior administrative steps (for example, consultation, internal advice, or decision records) beyond the delegate’s signature and date.

Practical implication for amendment history tracking: To reconstruct the comprehensive amendment history of the exempt native specimens list, one would need to consult the register of legislative instruments (per the Legislation Act 2003) and the EPBC Act implementation records, but such records are not included in this instrument text. What is recorded here is a single amendment event effectuated by deletion of one entry and insertion of another, taking effect as a legislative instrument the day after registration, dated 10 January 2020.

The instrument’s text does not record any litigation, legal challenges or judicial determinations related to this particular instrument. It is a statutory amending instrument executed by the Minister’s delegate under powers in the EPBC Act and is framed as an administrative, not adjudicative, act.

What the instrument states and what it omits with respect to litigation:

• No litigation references or case law: The instrument contains no references to court decisions, tribunal rulings, or prior litigation involving the Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery exemption or the exempt native specimens list. The text provides only the amendment and its operative clauses.

• No expression of legal uncertainty: The instrument sets out the deletion and insertion in categorical terms and does not register any ongoing legal disputes or appeals in respect of the action it records.

• Implication for potential legal challenge: Because the instrument amends a subordinate legislative list under powers conferred by the EPBC Act and is made as a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003, potential legal challenge avenues,if any,would be those applicable to Commonwealth legislative instruments and administrative decisions. The instrument itself does not describe or limit any such remedies.

• Administrative context: The instrument was made by a delegate of the Minister. The presence of a delegate’s signature indicates the exercise of a statutory power rather than a judicial decision; whether any administrative decisions that underpin the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under s 303FN or fisheries management definitions would have independent litigation histories is not shown in this instrument.

Because the instrument contains no litigation history entries, readers seeking to determine whether this instrument has been the subject of legal proceedings, or whether related administrative decisions (for example, a WTO declaration under s 303FN) have been litigated, will need to consult external litigation databases, court records, tribunal decisions, or administrative law records. Those sources are outside the scope of the instrument’s text and are not referenced in it.

The instrument introduces several practical pitfalls and compliance traps whose existence follows directly from its textual choices. The following points set out potential "gotchas" that arise from the instrument itself and the mechanisms it uses.

1. Exclusion categories are defined by reference, not by example. Schedule 2 excludes specimens that "belong to taxa listed under section 209", "section 248", "eligible listed threatened species, as defined under section 303BC", and "taxa listed under section 303CA". The instrument does not list species names. Practitioners therefore must check the current contents of each of those EPBC list provisions to determine whether a given specimen is excluded; assuming a species is not excluded without checking the lists is risky, because the instrument’s exclusions are categorical.

2. The exemption hinges on lawfulness of taking, but "lawful" is not defined here. Schedule 2 requires that "the specimen, or the fish or invertebrate from which it is derived, was taken lawfully." The instrument does not define what constitutes lawful taking. Determination of lawfulness requires reference to state fisheries law (such as the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and its management regime), any applicable marine park or conservation area rules, and relevant Commonwealth laws. Operators must therefore secure and maintain documentary evidence showing compliance with those regimes, as the instrument itself provides no safe harbour or list of accepted proofs.

3. Approved wildlife trade operation (WTO) declaration is a gating requirement. The notation makes WTO coverage under s 303FN a precondition. If the fishery is not the subject of an approved WTO declaration, or if a declaration does not cover particular specimens, the exemption is not available. Operators who assume the exemption applies without confirming WTO coverage risk losing the exemption status for their specimens.

4. Spatial scope tied to state management regime can cause boundary ambiguity. The instrument ties the fishery and "Development Zones" to "the management regime in force under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994". Persons must consult that regime to identify exactly which areas and zones are covered; the instrument does not reproduce maps or coordinates. Changes to the state management regime after the instrument’s commencement are not automatically incorporated by this instrument, because it incorporates state and territory legislation "as in force at the time this instrument commences." Users must therefore ensure they rely on the management regime version that was in force at the instrument’s commencement.

5. Incorporation of state/territory legislation fixed at commencement. The instrument incorporates "state and territory legislation referred to in Schedule 2 ... as in force at the time this instrument commences". That means later amendments to those state/territory laws may not change what was incorporated by this instrument. Parties should not assume that a change in state law after the instrument’s commencement automatically alters the operation of this exemption; the instrument fixes incorporated material to the time of commencement.

6. Administrative dependency creates sequencing risks. The exemption requires coverage by an approved WTO declaration under s 303FN. That declaration is a separate administrative act. If operators proceed on the basis of an intended declaration that has not yet been granted, they will not be in compliance with the instrument’s condition should enforcement scrutiny arise.

7. Downstream reliance risk (chain of custody). Processors, exporters or dealers who accept specimens from the fishery must ensure their supply chain documentation confirms lawful taking and WTO declaration coverage. Reliance on supplier statements without documentary backup could expose downstream actors to compliance risk if specimens are challenged as not exempt.

8. No penalties set out in the instrument itself. Because the instrument does not specify enforcement mechanisms or penalties, some parties may mistakenly assume that the instrument is merely advisory. That is incorrect: it changes the list of exempt specimens, and therefore determines whether EPBC Act controls apply. The instrument does not tell parties what sanctions attach for non-compliance; those are found elsewhere in law.

9. Delegate action, not ministerial declaration, may matter for review. The instrument is made by a delegate under s 303DC(1)(a). Any questions about the validity of the instrument that hinge on delegation powers or the process followed in making the amendment would need to be assessed by reference to delegation instruments and administrative law principles, none of which are described in the instrument itself.

10. Potential mismatch between fishery naming conventions. The deleted entry (Schedule 1) refers to "Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery", while the inserted entry (Schedule 2) refers to "Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and Development Zones". Practitioners should not assume the two textual forms are identical in scope; they must consult the state management regime (and the incorporated state legislation at commencement) to determine whether the new wording alters the spatial or operational boundaries.

Each of these "gotchas" follows from the text of the instrument and the way it relies on external lists, administrative declarations and state fisheries definitions. The instrument does not resolve these issues itself; it creates dependencies that operators and advisers must manage.

Compliance under this instrument means ensuring that specimens derived from the Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and Development Zones meet the conditions in Schedule 2 and are not excluded by the listed EPBC categories. The following practical checklist sets out the concrete steps and documentation points that arise from the instrument’s text.

1. Confirm spatial provenance

• Consult the management regime under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 to identify the geographic boundaries of the "Western Australian West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and Development Zones" as they stood "in force" at the time this instrument commenced. The instrument ties the exemption to that state-defined regime; do not use informal or colloquial area descriptions.

• Maintain records that show capture location (for example, vessel logbooks, GPS tracks, trip records) that can be correlated to the state-defined fishery/development zone boundaries in force at the instrument’s commencement.

2. Verify lawful taking

• Determine which state and Commonwealth laws govern the lawful taking of fish and invertebrates in the relevant zone (the instrument requires specimens were "taken lawfully" but does not define that term). Seek and retain documentation demonstrating compliance, such as licences, permits, fishing effort logs, quota records, vessel compliance certificates, or other state-authorised permissions.

• Keep contemporaneous records of any fisheries management measures in effect at the time of capture (gear restrictions, closures, bycatch rules), and evidence that those measures were complied with.

3. Ensure WTO declaration coverage under s 303FN

• Confirm whether an "approved wildlife trade operation" declaration under section 303FN of the EPBC Act exists in relation to the fishery. The Schedule 2 notation requires that specimens are "covered by the declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation under section 303FN ... in relation to the fishery."

• Retain documentary proof of the declaration and its effective dates, and a clear mapping showing that the specimens in question fall within the declared WTO’s scope.

• Where fishermen or operators rely on a WTO declaration, ensure that the declaration’s terms (species covered, activities covered, temporal coverage) encompass the actual specimens and activities undertaken.

4. Screen for excluded taxa

• Check whether any specimen is a taxon listed under EPBC Act s 209 (Australia’s List of Migratory Species), s 248 (Australia’s List of Marine Species), eligible listed threatened species as defined under s 303BC, or taxa listed under s 303CA (Australia’s CITES List). The Schedule 2 entry expressly excludes specimens that belong to these categories.

• Maintain species identification records and, where necessary, expert identifications or laboratory confirmations that support the exclusion/inclusion determination.

5. Recordkeeping and evidentiary preparation

• Create and retain a compliance pack for each trip or consignment that includes: capture location records, licensing and permit documentation, proof of WTO declaration coverage under s 303FN, species identifications, chain of custody records, and any communications with regulators.

• Ensure records are dated and stored in a manner that will allow regulators to verify that the specimen satisfied the instrument’s conditions at the relevant time.

6. Monitor legal and administrative status

• As the instrument incorporates state/territory legislation "as in force at the time this instrument commences," be aware that later amendments to state law may not change the incorporated content in the instrument. For operational clarity, maintain a copy of the state management regime version that was in force at the instrument’s commencement.

• Monitor the status of the WTO declaration under s 303FN. If the declaration is revoked, suspended, or varied, specimens will no longer be covered for the period during which WTO coverage does not exist.

7. Downstream compliance and due diligence

• If you are a processor, exporter or buyer, require suppliers to provide the compliance pack described above and include contractual warranties and indemnities about lawful taking and WTO declaration coverage.

• Preserve chain of custody documentation that links processed/packaged products to the original catch records and WTO declaration coverage.

8. Engage advisers where needed

• Consider obtaining formal legal or fisheries compliance advice if there is any doubt about whether a specimen is excluded by the EPBC lists referenced in Schedule 2, whether the taking was "lawful" under all relevant regimes, or whether WTO declaration coverage applies to particular specimens.

9. Administrative sequencing

• Do not assume that an intended or pending WTO declaration is sufficient; ensure the declaration is in force at the relevant time. If relying on an imminent administrative action, secure written confirmation of effective dates from the issuing authority.

10. Prepare for inspection and verification

• Expect that regulators may request evidence that specimens meet the instrument’s conditions. Have records readily available and ensure personnel understand which documents are required to demonstrate compliance.

By following these steps,confirming spatial provenance, verifying lawful taking, ensuring WTO declaration coverage, screening for excluded taxa, and retaining robust records,operators and downstream actors will be positioned to demonstrate that specimens meet the Schedule 2 conditions and hence qualify as exempt native specimens under the amended list. The instrument itself does not specify procedural forms or evidentiary standards; compliance therefore requires conservative and document-heavy practices to bridge that gap.