Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I will try to keep it as short as I can. The government does not support this motion. Senator Fielding is correct that on 14 December 2006 it became possible to issue infringement notices in relation to certain recreational fishing offences in the marine park. However, the issuing of an infringement notice is discretionary. It remains the case that fishing in areas of the marine park closed to fishing is a criminal offence. Illegal fishers can still be prosecuted or issued with a warning.

Since the introduction of the infringement notice scheme in July 2004, when the current zoning plan took effect, 116 recreational fishers have been convicted of fishing illegally in the marine park. The overwhelming majority of people caught illegally fishing, around 400, have been let off with a warning. Prosecution was then and is now only pursued in appropriate circumstances—there are a range of circumstances that could involve that eventuality. The 116 people convicted were ordered by the court to pay a variety of penalties depending on the circumstances of the case. Some penalties that have been issued were as low as $200. The majority of people received a penalty of less than $1,100, which is the current infringement notice penalty.

The introduction of the infringement notice scheme was designed to increase flexibility in enforcement. The offence has not been downgraded; an additional enforcement option has been established. The introduction of new enforcement mechanisms such as the infringement notice scheme is quite common as the government seeks innovative, flexible and efficient ways of securing compliance with the law. This often results in particular forms of offences being enforced through different means before and after regulatory reforms. This is consistent with a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that persons committing an offence should be dealt with in accordance with the law that exists at the time the offence is committed.

This circumstance is not unique to regulation of the Great Barrier Reef and the government is not aware of any examples of similar reforms in other areas that involve the revisiting of past enforcement action. It is open to people to apply to the Attorney-General for a pardon. The decision rests with the Attorney-General and I understand pardons have only been granted in limited circumstances. I understand Senator Macdonald has also been assisting people who wish to apply for a pardon including by providing a standard form letter. I am told that to date only five people have applied. I also note that under the spent convictions scheme established by the Crimes Act 1914 convictions are spent—that is, they cannot be used as a basis for discrimination—after a period of 10 years provided a person has not re-offended in the interim. I thank the Senate.