Mr. Francis O'Donnell:

It was a small defect and, through the Chair, it is legally privileged. I am not trying to avoid answering the Deputy's question. It is just because we had to stand some cases down. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice anything in relation to our agency. However, it is being resolved now and I am quite confident it is fine.

As for there being one freshwater agency, this goes back to what I said earlier.

When representatives of an environmental agency, like ourselves or the NPWS, are on the ground, it does not make sense to me that one of my officers operating in a catchment area who detects a fishery, water quality or habitat destruction offence would not also be able to prosecute it. In those cases, we would have to call out the wildlife service. Equally, if the wildlife service detects a poaching incident while on duty, we would have to be called out for the same reason.

We must have a conversation about the delegation and sharing of functions and powers. It is a very simple process. A Minister can delegate authority to any authorised officer. The intention should be the protection of wildlife in general, including the protection of water quality and fish. This would be a little like the model of the department of fish and game in the US, which is not a bad one. It would allow us to act in real time. When one of my officers would be writing up a statement on an incident of habitat destruction in that context, there would be no reason for him or her not to also be taking a prosecution against the same individuals for damaging a freshwater pearl mussel population. It would be good value and good for wildlife. I thank the committee.