Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL 2011
1566 COUNCIL Tuesday, 31 May 2011
In this chamber we have expedited it to be dealt with
today rather than it taking the normal length of time.
However, as I said, it is not a controversial bill, and
why it is worth supporting has been clearly outlined in
the minister’s second-reading speech and in
Mr Helper’s reply. On this side of the house we will
certainly not be opposing the bill, and I wish it a
speedier passage than the eight weeks it has taken to get
here from the Assembly.
Mr RAMSAY (Western Victoria) — It is with great
pleasure that I rise to speak to the Fisheries Amendment
Bill 2011. I do so with some amazement because the
lead speaker for the Labor opposition was not even in
the chamber when called, which allowed the Greens’
Mr Barber to be able to speak for a considerable
amount of time — in fact perhaps a little shorter than
the normal time, but 45 minutes at least, which I
thought was an extraordinary free kick.
After reading the Legislative Assembly Daily Hansard
of Tuesday, 24 May, I can report that without exception
all the Labor opposition speakers in the Assembly
supported this bill. In fact the lead speaker for the
opposition, the member for Ripon, Mr Helper, said, ‘the
opposition is not opposing this bill’. What do we find?
We find the opposition voted against the bill and a
division had to be called, so I am a little unclear about
exactly what the Labor opposition is standing for in
relation to this bill.
This bill makes changes to the Fisheries Act 1995 that
will strengthen and align penalties for breaches of the
act. The bill provides a new firmness on fisheries crime
and gives a robust and improved set of penalties. In my
region of western Victoria we have some of the most
beautiful coastlines in the world as well as many inland
lakes and rivers that provide a plethora of recreational
fishing opportunities. I commend the Premier for
investing $4 million into restocking programs across
the state. In fact 700 000 people engage in recreational
fishing — which generates in excess of $2 billion to the
economy — of which my family is a very active
participant.
The bill’s sole purpose is to protect and provide a viable
and sustainable fishing sector in Victoria that will
protect our exports and domestic markets. The seafood
industry has embraced the government regulator on
quality assurance, PrimeSafe, and so too should the
recreational fishing industry. Members of this house
embrace this bill, which strengthens the work done by
Fisheries Victoria with more robust penalty and
compliance, all in the name of good sense and
sustainability.
The act now provides for automatic forfeiture of
prohibited fishing equipment, and the amended act will
include fish and noxious aquatic species. It also
provides that if an owner of a thing seized under the act
fails to apply for its return after receiving a disposal
notice, that thing is condemned as forfeited to the
Crown. Under the act a court can make an order to
prohibit a person from carrying out fishing activities or
fishing.
These provisions are preventive in nature, but it has to
be firstly established that the offence is of a serious
nature and that the person is likely to commit further
offences against the act if such an order is made. To
overcome this there is a new penalty provision that
allows the court to issue an order to revoke recreational
fishing privileges for up to 12 months. The bill also
creates a penalty provision for a court to order a person
to carry out restorative or enhancement activity as a
penalty, which is in line with the Environment
Protection Act 1970.
I support clause 7 of the bill, which increases the
penalty for obstructing an authorised officer from
50 penalty units or 3 months imprisonment to
120 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment, which
provides a greater priority for the wellbeing of the
officers, whereas the current act provides greater safety
for the fish. This imbalance needs to be corrected.
The bill, as well as increasing penalties for obstructing
officers, also makes it an offence for a person to
produce to fisheries officers or others exercising or
performing a function or duty under the act a document
that the person knows to be false or misleading. It is
appropriate that the Department of Primary Industries
has reviewed the operation of the Fisheries Act 1995
and recognised the need for improvements and has
consequently through the minister put to this house the
Fisheries Amendment Bill 2011. I look forward to a
bipartisan approach in this place and commend the bill
to the house.
Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) —
Victorians take very seriously acts of violence or
destruction of proof of illegal activities. The Fisheries
Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to further protect our
Victorian fisheries officers in the performance of their
duties. Because the present penalties are paltry and
outdated there is clearly no disincentive to poachers to
desist from their activities. In strengthening the current
Fisheries Act 1995, the bill contains provisions to make
assaulting an officer and/or destroying equipment used
in the commissioning of a crime a more appropriate
deterrent. These amendments apply a more realistic
penalty which will be applied in situations that are