❓ QoN addresses marron poaching in SW WA, impacting livelihoods. Minister acknowledges the issue, explains existing legislation limitations, and proposes amending the Criminal Code to address theft from non-commercial farms.
AnsweredQoN 1207Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MARRON, PENALTIES FOR THEFT 1207. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: In the south west there has been an increase in the amount of poaching of marron on private dams and marron farms. This has become a real problem, because it is threatening people’s livelihoods. In some instances, 30 or 40 kilograms of marron are being pinched at any one time. Given that the fines for this action are very low, will the minister increase the fines? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
MARRON, PENALTIES FOR THEFT
In the south west there has been an increase in the amount of poaching of marron on private dams and marron farms. This has become a real problem, because it is threatening people’s livelihoods. In some instances, 30 or 40 kilograms of marron are being pinched at any one time. Given that the fines for this action are very low, will the minister increase the fines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
MARRON, PENALTIES FOR THEFT
In the south west there has been an increase in the amount of poaching of marron on private dams and marron farms. This has become a real problem, because it is threatening people’s livelihoods. In some instances, 30 or 40 kilograms of marron are being pinched at any one time. Given that the fines for this action are very low, will the minister increase the fines? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
I thank the member for raising this extremely important issue. Yes, the Government has considered increasing the fines. The level of the fine is not, in itself, the biggest problem. If we go through the way in which the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 can be applied to reflect the commercial value of illegally caught fish of any kind, we will find that the fines and the ongoing penalty can be extremely high. I am sure the member is aware of some of the spectacularly high penalties that have been applied, particularly in the abalone industry. In one case, I recall a $750 000 penalty. The Fish Resources Management Act is not an Act with which we should trifle. Although they are being targeted, it is not with the commercial marron farmers that we are facing the biggest difficulty, although, in this area, the law is more certain about theft from a commercial marron farm than it is about theft from a private body of water that is not a commercial marron farm but that contains marron. The option available to police in this instance is prosecution for trespass. In other words, unless a number of animals from a commercial marron farm are taken, there is an argument about whether proof of theft is possible from private property on which a licensed commercial aquaculture venture exists. The only way to change this situation - this has been considered by government at some length - is not by amending the Fish Resources Management Act, but by amending the Criminal Code. The Government could amend section 370 of the Criminal Code so that it would apply the notion of theft to the taking of marron from a non-commercial farm. That would be a serious step to take, because whereas a person would have formerly committed a trespass by going onto a property to steal marron, he or she would now commit a criminal offence. An offence under the Criminal Code carries a criminal conviction, and, as a result, notwithstanding the fine or penalty, that person would carry a criminal conviction for the rest of his or her life. Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon Barry House interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Hon KIM CHANCE: The Criminal Code already refers to that. This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
This is an important matter that the Government is interested in following through, and it might be prepared to legislate quickly by inclusion of a section 370 amendment in the form of a Criminal Code omnibus Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government can achieve this.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.