Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am not a member of this committee but used to be at one stage. Fortuitously, I am in the chamber dealing with the next report. In response to Senator Ray’s comments about the fisheries bill and his seeking some advice as to why the strict liability offences were included, I refer Senator Ray to and remind him of the chase of the Viarsa. That incident occurred when the Australian patrol vessel the Southern Supporter came across the Viarsa in Australian territory and then proceeded to chase it all the way across three oceans through 30-metre seas and ice floes and apprehended it, with the assistance of the South African Navy and the British fisheries vessel out of the Falklands, not far from Montevideo, where the Viarsa was running to.

We brought the vessel back to Australia and then a couple of years of legal procedures transpired. The jury were hung in the first instance and were discharged, and the second jury trial went for quite a number of weeks. There were a lot of returns for directions by the judge, and there appeared to be one juror holding out but eventually all of the jurors found that the offences were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard of proof required.

I only relate this to say that it is very difficult in these types of areas to pinpoint on a map exactly where a vessel was and what its intention was. Obviously, the Commonwealth and the DPP thought they had sufficient evidence for the jury to convict—hence the two trials—but in the end result the jury were not convinced. I, of course, was not on the jury. But it was very difficult to prove the point and to get the conviction. As it turned out, we were able to forfeit the boat and the fuel and the patagonian toothfish on board, but that was under another element of the same act.

So it was following those instances and a couple of others like it—where the difficulty in pinpointing particular locations in a vast ocean away from the normal support you would get to do that sort of pinpointing was evident—that instructions were given to the department to try and come up with some way that we could get convictions for people who quite clearly were, although it could not be proved to the jury, fishing illegally in Australian waters.

As a former lawyer, I understand Senator Ray’s hesitation about strict liability offences. They are offences that should only ever be legislated for in extreme circumstances. But I think this instance is one where those strict liability offences are very appropriate. No doubt, when the bill comes before the chamber, these matters will be gone into at greater length. But I thought it might be helpful to advise the chamber, at least in that instance and the instance of the fisheries amendment bill, of the background to why those strict liability offences have been included.

Question agreed to.