Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the comparison of these two issues what is clearly spelt out first and foremost is that, in relation to people who go fishing, definition 9 in subsection 3(1) was completely onerous. It has now been agreed to by the government. They obviously believe that their own legislation in the first instance was onerous; otherwise they would not be changing it. I am glad to see that. But we are still left in the position where ‘engaging in any activity’, including searching for fish using fish apparatus or using aggregating devices that are associated with attempting to take fish, leaves us in a very grave position. With regard to the interpretation of ‘any activity whatsoever’, I do not know why you need to say ‘including’ because if it is any activity it is any activity—full stop. But, for the purpose of attempting to take fish, there is the question of attempting to take them with what prospect of success. Who is going to be the arbiter of that? I believe that good law is law that errs on the conservative side but this is erring to the expansive.

I hear Senator Siewert’s and the Greens’ position, but they have endorsed it in the belief of an expansive and overarching definition of an act. Once you believe in that concept, you cannot chop and change. You therefore have a position where in other legislation before this chamber you will allow the use of expansive descriptions in a law, one that not only talks about what you are doing but also talks about what you may be going to do according to the interpretation of a third party.

‘Engaging in any activity’ does not close that definition down—it does not say ‘in any activity’ and then have some sort of caveat that mitigates its connection to ‘attempting to take fish’. So any activity relating to attempting to take fish will become something that is once more revisited in papers up and down the coast. Certain people who enforce the law will be within their rights to use, if they wish, an expansive interpretation of ‘attempting to take fish’. What the opposition has done, in consultation with others, is to take this down to something that leaves no shadow of a doubt as to whether you had broken the law—that when you were caught, you were caught.

I also endorse the fact that if someone is going through a green zone with a line dragging off the back of the boat they are obviously in the process of fishing. But this goes way beyond activities that could be regarded as attempting to take fish. In that regard, ‘any activity’ might be just having a line rolled up in the boat while going across a green zone. It is a matter of interpretation whether you are in the process of attempting to take fish simply because you have a fishing rod in the boat.

It becomes onerous when we have government erring towards being big brother rather than working hand in hand with people on the coast. This is a resource that has got to be shared by all. It is a tourism resource, it is a fishing resource, it is a natural heritage resource and it is a recreational resource. It is not just exclusively something that you should only be able to be involved with if you are standing on the beach looking at it. I am a bit surprised that the Greens would adopt a position where they are endorsing laws that deal not only with what you do but also with what people might perceive you might be doing to do. That in due course will turn around and bite us.