Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We do appreciate the fact that some recreational fishers who were convicted during this period will potentially not now have a criminal conviction. However, during the briefing that we received on this, the department told us about the approach that was being taken to enforcement at the time. They reminded those of us who were there that there was a strong focus and emphasis on education and that warnings were the primary approach. They told us that when it was first introduced there was an informal amnesty and that the introduction of the approach was phased in. Of the people that were prosecuted, a lot of them had been previously warned. The prosecution approach was only taken when there appeared to be clear knowledge, culpability and/or admission. There were also over-the-bag limits and undersized fish. I am sure that there were people who genuinely did not know that they were in the wrong place. However, I think there is a little reinventing of history going on here. It appears that everybody did not know what they were doing when they were actually fishing. We have heard the story of the tinny, the grandfather and the grandchild and, as I said, I am sure that there were a number of cases like that. I am also sure that a lot of the people that were caught actually did know what they were doing. It is also a fact that fishing contrary to a zoning plan still has the potential for a criminal conviction.

We do note that the amendment limits the spent convictions to those with convictions which occurred to a monetary penalty of less than $5,000. However, we still do not support this amendment. We believe it is inappropriate to set a precedent for deeming criminal convictions as spent when the convictions were in line with the law at the time. There is a legislative scheme for spent convictions in the Crimes Act; one that we are concerned should not be undermined. We are also concerned that while the latest version of the amendment—we do recognise there was a series of amendments here—limits the spent convictions to those with a penalty of less than $5,000, there is still the possibility of persons who did, willingly and knowingly, breach the law receiving a spent conviction. Such a threshold would also take in convictions for commercial fishing related offences. The department’s submission to the Senate inquiry indicated there were 23 convictions for commercial fishing related offences in that period and that a variety of fines had been awarded for commercial related offences, ranging from $1,500 to $40,000. We are particularly concerned that those commercial fishing related offences would be caught up in this. Those commercial fishers should have known full well that they were breaching the law.

We have often debated fishing related offences in this chamber. The last response from the government on this issue was that provisions are in place whereby those who have been caught up in this unknowingly could put a good argument to have their convictions dealt with. It is an unfortunate situation, and I do feel for those people who were caught up in this area, who now have a criminal conviction but who could potentially no longer have one. I remind the chamber that it remains a criminal conviction in some circumstances and that we do not believe that this is an appropriate way to deal with this unfortunate circumstance. We support the approach that the government outlined earlier to this place whereby people who have these convictions can take steps to have their conviction spent. We are concerned with the precedent that this amendment would set.