❓ The Minister acknowledges the issue of marron and yabby theft, explains delays in legislative changes due to complexities in defining private vs. public waterways, and reaffirms the government's commitment to addressing the problem through an amendment to the Criminal Code.
AnsweredQoN 986Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The stealing of marron and yabbies from both commercial and recreational dams continues to be a concern to those involved in the farming of these crustaceans. Given the commitment by the Government to address this issue and ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of these offences, can the minister inform the House when the necessary legislative changes will occur to meet that commitment and send a clear signal to those committing these offences that they are stealing, not poaching? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I could not agree more with the honourable member. This matter has been the subject of almost constant discussion between me, members of the Opposition and members in the other House. The member for Collie, for example, has been continually dogging government generally. It is not simply a matter for the Minister for Fisheries, and rightly so. What has taken place has evolved over years. Treating the theft of aquaculture animals as good sport rather than stealing is inappropriate and needs to be addressed. Indeed the law applying generally to some of the wild stock fisheries is much harsher that that applying to animals owned by an individual, which must seem bizarre to an outsider. Even when public stock like abalone, which we assume is publicly owned, is taken legally, it can involve, under some circumstances, some very serious fines if it is not dealt with appropriately after being taken. As a consequence, the Government has proposed to make an amendment to the Criminal Code. Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I could not agree more with the honourable member. This matter has been the subject of almost constant discussion between me, members of the Opposition and members in the other House. The member for Collie, for example, has been continually dogging government generally. It is not simply a matter for the Minister for Fisheries, and rightly so. What has taken place has evolved over years. Treating the theft of aquaculture animals as good sport rather than stealing is inappropriate and needs to be addressed. Indeed the law applying generally to some of the wild stock fisheries is much harsher that that applying to animals owned by an individual, which must seem bizarre to an outsider. Even when public stock like abalone, which we assume is publicly owned, is taken legally, it can involve, under some circumstances, some very serious fines if it is not dealt with appropriately after being taken. As a consequence, the Government has proposed to make an amendment to the Criminal Code. Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
I could not agree more with the honourable member. This matter has been the subject of almost constant discussion between me, members of the Opposition and members in the other House. The member for Collie, for example, has been continually dogging government generally. It is not simply a matter for the Minister for Fisheries, and rightly so. What has taken place has evolved over years. Treating the theft of aquaculture animals as good sport rather than stealing is inappropriate and needs to be addressed. Indeed the law applying generally to some of the wild stock fisheries is much harsher that that applying to animals owned by an individual, which must seem bizarre to an outsider. Even when public stock like abalone, which we assume is publicly owned, is taken legally, it can involve, under some circumstances, some very serious fines if it is not dealt with appropriately after being taken. As a consequence, the Government has proposed to make an amendment to the Criminal Code. Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I could not agree more with the honourable member. This matter has been the subject of almost constant discussion between me, members of the Opposition and members in the other House. The member for Collie, for example, has been continually dogging government generally. It is not simply a matter for the Minister for Fisheries, and rightly so. What has taken place has evolved over years. Treating the theft of aquaculture animals as good sport rather than stealing is inappropriate and needs to be addressed. Indeed the law applying generally to some of the wild stock fisheries is much harsher that that applying to animals owned by an individual, which must seem bizarre to an outsider. Even when public stock like abalone, which we assume is publicly owned, is taken legally, it can involve, under some circumstances, some very serious fines if it is not dealt with appropriately after being taken. As a consequence, the Government has proposed to make an amendment to the Criminal Code. Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
I could not agree more with the honourable member. This matter has been the subject of almost constant discussion between me, members of the Opposition and members in the other House. The member for Collie, for example, has been continually dogging government generally. It is not simply a matter for the Minister for Fisheries, and rightly so. What has taken place has evolved over years. Treating the theft of aquaculture animals as good sport rather than stealing is inappropriate and needs to be addressed. Indeed the law applying generally to some of the wild stock fisheries is much harsher that that applying to animals owned by an individual, which must seem bizarre to an outsider. Even when public stock like abalone, which we assume is publicly owned, is taken legally, it can involve, under some circumstances, some very serious fines if it is not dealt with appropriately after being taken. As a consequence, the Government has proposed to make an amendment to the Criminal Code. Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon Peter Foss: That comes from my time. The cabinet approval goes back to my time. Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
Hon KIM CHANCE: In that case, the honourable member can confirm that it is an amendment to section 370 of the Criminal Code. The issue has been raised about why we have not dealt with it. It is proposed to include the amendment in an omnibus Bill that is still awaiting presentation. The principal difficulty in making the amendment from the fisheries law side is the question of the definition of where such animals are kept. It seems like a very simple issue, that animals kept in a dam or a constructed excavation should be subject to the law of theft. However, where a dam has been constructed on a waterway of a certain size that is deemed to be a public place, it involves an entirely different question in law. There are difficulties in framing the law because of the question of the damming of public waterways, even though the dam is clearly private property. The advice we have had so far from Crown Law has alerted us to those difficulties. We would like to resolve them before we legislate, because those dams are more likely to be subject to theft. Rather than commit to a legal position, and then start losing cases as they are prosecuted, which would make the whole exercise pointless, the Government would rather sort out that point of law. We are still working on it. I know it seems about as fast as treacle on a cold day, but we want to resolve it. The Government has not lost any of its commitment to introducing that change.
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.