Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Overcatch and Undercatch) Determination (No.2) 2024

The instrument operates through a small set of interlocking concepts, each of which is either defined in the Management Plan or supplied by this instrument for the purposes of specific Management Plan clauses. The principal concepts present in the instrument are:

• Determined percentage (overcatch), determined pursuant to s 4.5 of the Management Plan. The instrument sets this as 10% for each quota species listed for the 2025, 2026 and 2027 fishing seasons (s 6 tables). The term "determined percentage" as used here is a figure that the Management Plan requires be established for overcatch obligations; the instrument supplies the numerical value to be applied for those seasons.

• Determined percentage (undercatch), determined pursuant to s 4.6 of the Management Plan. The instrument sets this as 10% for each quota species for each of the three fishing seasons (s 6 tables). The Management Plan uses a determined undercatch percentage for its undercatch rules, and this instrument provides the specific percentage.

• Determined weight (s 4.5). For the operation of s 4.5 of the Management Plan the instrument sets a determined weight of 2,000 Kg for each listed quota species in each season (s 6 tables). The Management Plan therefore will be applied using both a percentage and an absolute weight threshold supplied here.

• Quota species and fishing season. These are pre-existing concepts defined in s 1.3 of the Management Plan and referenced in this instrument (s 4). The instrument applies the percentages/weights on a quota‑species basis and on the fishing season basis specified (s 6).

• Total allowable commercial catch (TACC). The instrument repeatedly notes that the TACC for each quota species in each fishing season is fixed by a separate determination (the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Fishing Season and Total Allowable Commercial Catch) Determination (No.2) 2024), so the percentages/weights in this instrument are to be applied in conjunction with that separate TACC determination (s 6 notes).

Structurally, the instrument is a numerical implementation tool rather than a substantive amendment to the Management Plan or the Act. It fills the Management Plan's requirement that certain percentages and a weight be "determined" for the purposes of applying the overcatch and undercatch obligations. It is limited in temporal scope to three named fishing seasons and is explicitly time‑bound (s 5).

Because the instrument does not reproduce the operative text of s 4.5 and s 4.6 of the Management Plan, practitioners must read the Management Plan to determine the precise legal effect of a particular percentage or weight (s 4 notes). The instrument therefore operates as a parameter‑setting device, and its practical legal effect flows only through the Management Plan provisions that it references (s 3, s 6).

The instrument operates within the regulatory architecture of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. The immediate legal effect of the instrument is on those to whom the overcatch and undercatch obligations in the Management Plan apply, namely persons and entities subject to the Management Plan and holding quota for the listed quota species. The instrument itself does not recite a list of addressees, but the references it makes indicate the following categories of affected parties.

• Quota holders in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. Because the instrument determines percentages and a weight that are applied under the Management Plan to "quota species" and to the TACC, holders of quota for Albacore Tuna, Bigeye Tuna, Yellowfin Tuna, Striped Marlin and Broadbill Swordfish for the relevant fishing season will see these numerical parameters inform the calculation of any overcatch or undercatch obligations (s 6; s 4 notes referencing the Management Plan).

• Commercial fishers and vessel operators. Those who catch quota species commercially in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery will be operationally affected because the determined percentages and weight affect how the Management Plan treats catches above or below allocated amounts for each quota species in the 2025-2027 seasons (s 6).

• Persons trading or managing quota. Because the instrument expressly links its figures to TACC set by a separate determination, persons engaged in quota trading, quota management, or catch planning will need to take the 10% over/undercatch percentages and 2,000 Kg weight into account when forecasting catch, trading quotas, or structuring business operations across the relevant seasons (s 6 notes).

• Fisheries managers and regulators. The instrument is made pursuant to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and certain Management Plan sections (s 3). Regulators who must enforce or administer the Management Plan will use the numerical parameters in this instrument when applying s 4.5 and s 4.6 to operator behaviour and catch accounting.

• Downstream processors and buyers. While not legal addressees of the instrument, processors and purchasers of catch may experience operational effects, because the instrument may influence the legal status of landed catch, reporting requirements, or reconciliation of quota balances under the Management Plan.

Who bears the economic cost is not stated in the instrument itself, but the instrument’s mechanics concentrate the numerical rules on quota species and on TACC, hence the parties whose business depends directly on quota (quota holders and fishers) will be the primary actors required to adapt. The instrument does not identify any administrative cost borne by the regulator or state, and it does not create direct new fees or charges within its text (s 6, s 3).

The instrument’s temporal limitation to the 2025-2027 fishing seasons means affected parties must track the instrument’s lifespan, because obligations calculated under these percentages and weight apply only for those seasons and will cease to apply beyond 31 December 2027 unless superseded (s 5).

The instrument itself does not create textual duties expressed in operative verbs such as "must" or "shall"; rather, it supplies the numerical figures that are to be applied under the Management Plan clauses titled "Obligations relating to overcatch" (s 4.5) and "Obligations relating to undercatch" (s 4.6). The Management Plan contains the operative duties and rights, and this instrument sets the parameters used to calculate obligations under those provisions (s 3, s 6). Accordingly practitioners should read this instrument as a parameter determiner which gives content to duties and rights set out elsewhere.

Key duties (as they derive from the Management Plan and are given numeric content by this instrument)

• Obligations relating to overcatch (Management Plan s 4.5). The instrument provides a determined percentage of 10% and a determined weight of 2,000 Kg for each quota species for the given seasons (s 6). The specific duties imposed on quota holders or fishers when an overcatch event occurs are contained in the Management Plan, but the amount by which an overcatch is calculated or the threshold that triggers an obligation will use the 10%/2,000 Kg figures supplied here.

• Obligations relating to undercatch (Management Plan s 4.6). The instrument provides a determined undercatch percentage of 10% for each quota species for the relevant seasons (s 6). The Management Plan's rules on undercatch , for example, any carryover, reconciliation, or reporting obligations , will use the 10% figure as the numeric parameter.

Key rights (as they follow from the Management Plan and are made operable here)

• The right to have overcatch and undercatch assessed according to the set percentages and weight. Because the Management Plan requires a determination to specify the percentages and weight, parties have the right to predict how overcatch and undercatch will be measured for the named seasons, using the figures set out in this instrument (s 6).

• The right to reference the separate TACC determination when reconciling catch. The instrument expressly notes that TACC is determined by a separate instrument for each fishing season (s 6 notes), which means quota holders have an entitlement , in practice, a need , to consult the TACC Determination to know the baseline from which the percentages and weight will be applied.

Practical implications for duties and rights

• The instrument fixes the numerical inputs for duties in advance for three seasons, reducing ex post uncertainty about what percentage or weight will apply for those years. The duty arising under s 4.5 and s 4.6 of the Management Plan is not altered here, but the magnitude and form of the duty when triggered is defined by this instrument's numbers (s 3, s 6).

• Because the instrument does not itself specify reporting, inspection or enforcement mechanisms, those procedural duties remain located in the Act and the Management Plan. The instrument therefore operates as a substantive input to those existing administrative duties (s 3, s 4).

• The instrument’s termination date creates a temporal limit on the rights and duties whose numeric content it supplies, meaning that parties’ expectations and planning must account for the need for fresh determinations after 2027 if those obligations are to continue with the same parameters (s 5).

In every instance, the instrument should be read alongside the Management Plan sections it references to determine the full scope of duties and rights, because it provides only numerical values rather than the legal tests or procedural steps that operate when overcatch or undercatch events occur (s 4 notes; s 6).

The instrument does not itself set penalties or enforcement mechanisms. It serves to determine specific numerical parameters for management provisions contained in the Management Plan, which means enforcement and any penalties for non‑compliance are to be sought in the Act and the Management Plan rather than in this instrument (s 3, s 4). The instrument therefore leaves the legal means of enforcement and the scale of sanctions out of its text.

Implications arising from that silence

• Enforcement framework. Because the instrument is made pursuant to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and Management Plan sections (s 3), any enforcement powers, infringement notices, prosecutions, or administrative sanctions that may flow from overcatch or undercatch outcomes will be sourced in the Act and the Management Plan. Practitioners must consult those instruments to understand penalty amounts, available defences, and enforcement steps.

• Monitoring and evidence. This instrument sets numbers that will be applied by regulators when assessing whether an overcatch or undercatch threshold has been exceeded or applied. Consequently, the quality of monitoring, catch recording and reconciliation practices will determine whether enforcement action is feasible. The instrument does not specify monitoring frequencies, record retention periods, or auditing procedures; those will exist elsewhere in the regulatory scheme (s 4 notes; s 3).

• Discretion and administrative decision‑making. The instrument is made under delegated statutory authority (s 3), which implies administrative discretion in setting these parameters rather than relying on judicial determinations. The instrument itself does not specify appeal rights or review mechanisms; those will be provided in the Act or the Management Plan. Practitioners should therefore identify review avenues within the primary instruments referenced by s 3 if they wish to challenge an enforcement decision.

• Practical enforcement consequences. Because the instrument fixes a 10% over/undercatch and a 2,000 Kg weight for the seasons covered (s 6), enforcement officers will use those figures in catch reconciliation. For example, if the Management Plan applies a deduction or levy when overcatch exceeds the determined percentage or weight, enforcement actions or administrative adjustments would be calculated with these numeric inputs. The instrument does not specify whether an overcatch of up to 10% is permitted without sanction, or whether the 10% is a threshold that triggers specific duties. That substantive interpretation must be drawn from s 4.5 and s 4.6 of the Management Plan.

• Lack of new criminalisation in this instrument. There is nothing in this instrument that creates a new offence, or amends penalty scales, or establishes a new enforcement agency. All enforcement follows the existing legal framework referenced in s 3.

In short, the instrument determines measurement parameters, but it knowingly delegates the questions of penalties, enforcement mechanism, and procedural protections to the wider statutory framework under which it was made. Practitioners should therefore consult the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Management Plan for concrete enforcement provisions.

This instrument is explicitly made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and under particular sections of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010 (s 3). The instrument therefore exists as part of a hierarchical regulatory structure, and it interacts with other legal instruments in the following ways:

• Management Plan dependency. The instrument derives its legal work by supplying the numerical values required by the Management Plan for s 4.5 and s 4.6. The instrument cannot operate alone; s 6 expressly ties the determined percentages and weight to those Management Plan provisions. Thus the instrument is subordinate and operational to the Management Plan rather than substitutive or novel.

• TACC Determination linkage. For each fishing season table the instrument notes that the TACC for each quota species is determined by the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Fishing Season and Total Allowable Commercial Catch) Determination (No.2) 2024 (s 6 notes). That cross‑reference means that the legal baseline against which the 10% and 2,000 Kg figures will be applied is set in a separate instrument. Practically, the two determinations must be read together so that the percentage and weight can be applied to the appropriate TACC figure.

• Statutory authority and delegation. The instrument is made pursuant to paragraph 17(6)(aa) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and under specific Management Plan sections (s 3). This indicates that the Act contains a power to make subordinate instruments and that the Management Plan contemplates certain determinations being made under its own sections 3.2, 4.5, and 4.6. The instrument therefore fits within a delegated rule‑making framework established by the Act.

• No amendment of the Act or Management Plan. The instrument does not purport to amend either the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010. It simply exercises a delegated power to set numeric parameters required by the Plan (s 3, s 6).

• Temporal coordination. Because the instrument is time‑limited through its cessation clause to 31 December 2027 (s 5), its interaction with the Act and the Management Plan is bounded for the seasons 2025, 2026 and 2027. Any subsequent seasons will require a fresh determination or different instrument if the Management Plan continues to require annual or periodic determinations.

• Administrative interdependence. The instrument’s operation depends on other administrative acts, notably the separate TACC determination identified in the notes to each seasonal table (s 6 notes). Any discrepancy, revocation, or variation in the TACC determination would affect how the percentages and weights in this instrument translate into legal and operational effects.

• No stated conflicts or overrides. The instrument does not identify any conflict, inconsistency, or override with other laws. Given its basis in statutory authority (s 3), it should be read as an exercise of power consistent with the Act and the Management Plan, not as an instrument that disapplies other laws.

Practitioners therefore must read this instrument in conjunction with the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010 (particularly s 1.3, 3.2, 4.5 and 4.6), and the separate TACC determination referenced in each seasonal table in s 6. Only that combined reading will reveal the instrument’s full legal effect.

The instrument is titled the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Overcatch and Undercatch) Determination (No.2) 2024 and is presented with a discrete set of operative provisions that determine percentages and weights for the 2025, 2026 and 2027 fishing seasons (s 1, s 6). The text of the instrument as provided does not include any express historical record of prior amendments to this instrument itself, nor does it include a schedule of revisions or an amending history.

What the instrument does record relevant to its lifecycle

• Single‑instrument status and numbering. The "(No.2) 2024" suffix indicates that this is at least the second determination of its type made in 2024, but the instrument text does not provide the contents or history of any earlier 2024 determination, nor does it state whether this instrument revokes, replaces, or supplements any prior instrument. The instrument’s own text is silent on that point. The only instruments referenced explicitly are the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010, and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Fishing Season and Total Allowable Commercial Catch) Determination (No.2) 2024 (s 3, s 4, s 6 notes).

• Temporal limit. The instrument contains an express cessation clause, stating it ceases on 31 December 2027 unless revoked earlier (s 5). That clause establishes an expiration date rather than an amendment history, but it is material to understanding when the instrument will lapse unless replaced.

• No transitional or retrospective provisions. The instrument does not provide transitional arrangements, savings clauses, or retrospective effect statements. It applies its determinations to the fishing seasons commencing on 1 January 2025, 1 January 2026 and 1 January 2027 respectively (s 6). There is no language in the instrument suggesting retrospective application outside those seasons.

• Cross‑reference to other determinations. By expressly linking the operation of its percentages/weights to the TACC determinations made in a different instrument (s 6 notes), the instrument embeds itself within an administrative sequence. Any amendment history relevant to practical application may therefore also be found in subsequent amendments or revocations of the TACC determination, but this instrument’s text does not record such amendments itself.

What practitioners should take from the instrument’s silence on amendment history

• Check external records. Because there is no internal amendment history recorded, interested parties should examine the legislative instruments register or similar administrative records to determine whether earlier or subsequent determinations exist that amend, replace or revoke this instrument, and to clarify whether this instrument supersedes a previous determination numbered differently.

• Plan for post‑2027 arrangements. The cessation clause (s 5) means that unless another determination is made to cover seasons after 2027, there will be no operative numbers supplied by this instrument beyond that date. Parties should anticipate that a new determination will be necessary to maintain continuity of the numeric parameters after the instrument ceases.

In summary, the instrument itself contains no internal amendment history. It is a standalone parameter‑setting instrument with an explicit expiration date and with cross‑references to other instruments whose amendment histories should be checked for a full understanding of the regulatory sequence.

The instrument as provided contains no references to litigation, court decisions, tribunal determinations, or judicial interpretations. It does not cite any cases and does not narrate any litigation that might have given rise to its making. The absence of litigation references in the instrument has three immediate implications for practitioners:

• No precedent recorded. There is no judicial material embedded in the instrument that would inform statutory interpretation of the figures set out in s 6. Any interpretive disputes about how the 10% percentages or the 2,000 Kg weight are to be applied under Management Plan s 4.5 or s 4.6 would therefore need to be resolved by reference to the Management Plan and the Act, and, if litigated, by courts or tribunals whose decisions are not recorded in this instrument.

• Prospective, not remedial. The instrument appears to be prospective in nature, fixing parameters for future fishing seasons. There is no indication of court orders, agreed undertakings, or litigation settlements that require or shape the content of the instrument.

• Potential for dispute exists but is not evidenced here. Because the instrument implements numeric thresholds that affect quota accounting, disputes could arise in practice about how those thresholds are applied. However, the instrument does not document any historical disputes or legal challenges.

What practitioners should do if litigation is a concern

• Consult judicial and administrative records. The instrument should be read alongside any relevant decisions interpreting the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010, but nothing in this instrument provides that material. Practitioners seeking precedent or guidance on contentious points should search for case law relating to overcatch and undercatch rules under the Act and the Management Plan, and examine any tribunal decisions addressing similar parameter determinations.

• Prepare for administrative review. Given that the instrument exercises administrative power under paragraph 17(6)(aa) of the Act and under Management Plan sections (s 3), affected parties should be alert to available review mechanisms under administrative law for any adverse decisions that apply the instrument’s numbers to particular factual circumstances. The instrument itself does not specify those review routes.

In short, the instrument contains no litigation history and no case citations. Any litigation history relevant to the interpretation or application of these figures will be found in decisions concerning the underlying Act or the Management Plan, not in this instrument’s text.

The instrument is concise and technical, but its brevity creates a number of practical "gotchas" that practitioners and operators should note when applying it in real‑world settings.

1. Numerical uniformity across species and seasons

• The instrument applies an identical determined percentage for overcatch and undercatch (10% each) and an identical determined weight (2,000 Kg) to each quota species across the three fishing seasons covered (s 6). That uniformity reduces complexity but can produce perverse alignment if a particular species has a TACC that is materially lower or higher than others. Because the instrument does not adjust percentages by species biomass, fishing method, or stock status, operators must check the TACC for each species to see how a flat 10% and a fixed 2,000 Kg interact with actual TACC figures (s 6 notes refer to the separate TACC determination).

2. Dependence on an external TACC determination

• Each table includes a note that the TACC for each quota species is determined in a separate instrument, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Fishing Season and Total Allowable Commercial Catch) Determination (No.2) 2024 (s 6 notes). The instrument’s numeric parameters are meaningless without referencing that TACC. Failing to consult the TACC Determination will leave operators unable to calculate the absolute catch thresholds or reconciliations governed by the Management Plan.

3. Instrument does not define operative legal consequences

• The instrument supplies only numbers. It does not say whether an overcatch up to 10% is permitted without penalty, whether catch in excess of 10% triggers immediate administrative adjustment, or whether the 2,000 Kg is an alternative threshold or a cap. The legal consequences of reaching or exceeding these numbers are contained in the Management Plan’s s 4.5 and s 4.6, which are not reproduced here (s 4 notes; s 6). Practitioners must therefore avoid assuming how the thresholds operate without reading the Management Plan.

4. Temporal limit and potential discontinuity

• The instrument ceases on 31 December 2027 unless revoked earlier (s 5). If no further determination is made to cover subsequent seasons, there will be a gap in the parameterisation of s 4.5 and s 4.6. Operators who plan multi‑year operations should ensure continuity by tracking whether a follow‑on instrument is made.

5. Potential mismatch between percentage and absolute weight

• The instrument supplies both a percentage and an absolute weight for overcatch (s 6). Depending on a species’ TACC, the 10% of TACC may be greater or less than 2,000 Kg. The instrument does not state how to reconcile the two figures if they diverge. Practitioners must therefore refer to s 4.5 of the Management Plan to determine whether the percentage or the weight prevails, or whether the lesser or greater of the two is chosen. The lack of explicit reconciliation language creates a practical pitfall for catch planners.

6. Species list consistency

• The set of quota species is the same across seasons, though the 2026 table lists Striped Marlin after Yellowfin Tuna whereas other tables include Broadbill Swordfish in a different order; substantive inclusion is the same (s 6 tables). The instrument does not indicate whether other quota species exist in the fishery beyond those five. If operators hold quota in other species, they must confirm whether those species fall outside the scope of this determination.

7. Definitions not restated

• The instrument notes that several key expressions are defined in s 1.3 of the Management Plan, including "fishing season", "Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery", "total allowable commercial catch" and "quota species" (s 4). Because these definitions are not restated, misunderstanding of terms could arise if parties use divergent definitions. Always check the Management Plan definitions.

8. No direct link to enforcement outcomes in this instrument

• Because the instrument does not mention penalties, anyone expecting to find fine amounts or demerit procedures here will be disappointed. Enforcement consequences will be found in the Act and the Management Plan, not in this determination (s 3).

9. Administrative timing and publication risk

• The instrument applies to named fishing seasons that commence on 1 January of each year (s 6). Operators must confirm the exact dates and whether the TACC Determination was published and accessible well in advance of the fishing season. Any delay in publication of the TACC Determination could create operational uncertainty because the percentages here must be applied against those TACC figures.

10. Expectation of regulatory review

• Because this instrument is a deterministic parameter setting, it is plausible that the regulator may revise the numbers in future determinations based on scientific, economic or compliance considerations. The instrument’s expiration clause underscores that numbers in this instrument are not permanent policy. Operators should avoid treating these figures as fixed indefinitely.

Each of these "gotchas" derives from the instrument’s design: concise numeric determinations tied to broader, external provisions. Practitioners should therefore treat the instrument as a technical input requiring cross‑reference to the Management Plan and the TACC determination.

Compliance with this instrument requires a process that links the numbers fixed here to the operational and legal duties contained in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The instrument itself supplies only the numeric parameters, so compliance steps will necessarily require consultation of the Management Plan sections cited and the separate TACC Determination. The following practical compliance checklist is grounded in the instrument’s content and the cross‑references it makes (s 3, s 4, s 6).

1. Read the instrument and note its temporal scope

• Confirm that the instrument applies to the fishing seasons commencing 1 January 2025, 1 January 2026 and 1 January 2027 respectively, and that it ceases on 31 December 2027 unless revoked earlier (s 5, s 6). Ensure operational planning accounts for those dates.

2. Obtain and read the TACC Determination

• The instrument specifically notes that TACC for each quota species for each season is determined in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Fishing Season and Total Allowable Commercial Catch) Determination (No.2) 2024 (s 6 notes). Obtain that determination before calculating thresholds. Without the TACC figures, the 10% percentage cannot be translated into absolute catch allowances.

3. Consult the Management Plan (section 1.3, 3.2, 4.5 and 4.6)

• The instrument notes that key terms are defined in s 1.3 of the Management Plan and that the figures supplied are for the application of s 4.5 and s 4.6 (s 4, s 6). Read s 1.3 for definitions of "fishing season", "quota species", "TACC" and related terms. Read s 4.5 and s 4.6 to understand how the determined percentage and determined weight are applied in practice, for reporting, reconciliation, penalties, or administrative adjustments.

4. Compute per‑species thresholds and reconciliation rules

• Using the TACC for each quota species, calculate 10% of TACC and compare that figure to the determined weight of 2,000 Kg supplied by this instrument (s 6). Determine, by reference to s 4.5 of the Management Plan, whether the percentage or the weight is the operative comparator, or whether the Management Plan prescribes particular reconciliation rules when both percentage and absolute weight are specified.

5. Update operational catch planning and record‑keeping

• Ensure vessel masters, catch supervisors and corporate catch accounting systems are updated to monitor catch against the per‑species thresholds for overcatch and undercatch. Because the instrument determines both overcatch and undercatch percentages, plan for recording both exceeded and unutilised quota amounts, and for any reporting duties triggered under the Management Plan (s 6; s 4 notes).

6. Align quota trading and commercial contracts

• If your business model relies on quota trading, contract lengths, or forward sales, incorporate the 10% over/undercatch parameters and the 2,000 Kg figure into modelling of possible adjustments, reconciliation liabilities, or allowable margin. Because the instrument ties the percentages to TACC determined elsewhere, ensure commercial terms reflect exposure to administrative adjustments that may flow from overcatch/undercatch reconciliations (s 6 notes).

7. Check for enforcement and review procedures

• Because the instrument does not set penalties (s 3), identify the applicable penalty and review provisions in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Management Plan. Establish procedures for internal review or administrative appeal in the event an enforcement action is taken that relies on the percentages or weight set by this instrument.

8. Communicate with regulators and stakeholders

• If any aspect of how the percentage or weight is to be applied is unclear from s 4.5/4.6 of the Management Plan, seek clarification from the administering authority. Maintain records of requests for clarification and any written responses, as those will be relevant evidence in any later reconciliation or dispute.

9. Prepare for the instrument’s expiry

• Note s 5 requires the instrument to cease on 31 December 2027 unless revoked earlier. Plan for the possibility that a new determination will be issued for subsequent seasons, and build flexibility into catch planning and commercial arrangements in case numeric parameters change.

10. Maintain audit trails

• Given that the instrument supplies numbers used in catch reconciliation, ensure that all catch records, landing receipts, logbooks, electronic reporting entries, and quota transfers are properly timestamped, preserved, and reconciled. These records will be necessary to demonstrate compliance with overcatch and undercatch obligations as defined by the Management Plan using this instrument’s parameters.

Execution of these compliance steps requires cross‑reference to the Management Plan and the TACC Determination identified in the instrument. The instrument itself is a narrow parameter setter (s 6); practical compliance therefore depends on integrating the numbers it supplies with procedural and legal obligations contained in the Management Plan and the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (s 3, s 4).