Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 11 December 1973
Page: 2655

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania) - I regret that I have not been privy to the consultations that have taken place. Therefore, it may be that the matter already has been explained to

Senator Lauckewho is leading for the Opposition on this Bill. Perhaps the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) will bear with me. I point out that proposed section 13 (6) states:

Subject to section 1 3c, where a court convicts a person of an office against this section, the court may order the forfeiture of-

(a)   a boat, net, trap or equipment used in the commission of the offence;

(   b ) fish on board such a boat at the time of the offence; or

(c)   the proceeds of the sale of such fish.

Later in the Bill we find proposed section 13c. It is proposed to omit proposed section 13c and to substitute the new proposed section 13c which is contained in Senator Wriedt 's amendments. Proposed new section 13c is very similar to the language which I have just read from proposed new section 13 (6). Could the Minister explain to me the difference in application of proposed new section 13 and proposed new section 13c? As I understand them, both sections apply to an Australian boat or a foreign boat and they both give the court the discretionary right to order a forfeiture. Both sections give that right only upon conviction for an offence under either of the 2 sections mentioned, sections 13c (a) and 13c (b). I am in need of explanation from the Minister to find out why we are leaving out section 13 (6) and section 13c and introducing a new section very like both of them. If it is to incorporate in the one set of words what was previously a double barrelled proposition I can understand it. Does that section apply both to a foreign and an Australian boat? Does it apply only to the case of a conviction under one or other of those sections?

Suggest corrections