I believe that point [B] in the letter is mainly in regards to anchoring versus using moorings. Some areas have seagrass beds that need protecting and having yachts randomly dropping anchors everywhere is not helping. As more and more of our coastline is converted to National parks we will see more of this sort of pressure. Locally the BO will chase after cruisers that move about the river system but leaves them be when they pick up a mooring.
I suppose B O,s, like coppers, have to prove they're 'working'. The police always denied they had to have a set
number of 'pinches' a day, but a police friend some years ago complained to me that they had raised his number
of pinches. So what they said and what they did were two different things. I guess it explains why B O's can be
very 'officious', they have to be seen to be working. That of course does not exclude bad policy.
Select to expand quotenswsailor said..
Well I meet the Hon. Adam Marshall, Minister for Tourism & Major Events at breakfast this morning. He first did the political thing and made a speech about Tourism in the regional areas out- side Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. During question time I put to him brief details of Reg 17A. To put it mildly he was stunned! He at first thought the present Minster for RMS had done the deed but when it was explain that it was the previous Minster he was a lot more receptive [must be a story behind that somewhere!].
After the meeting I meet with Adam and fully explained the situation, especially the interpretation being put on Reg 17A by RMS staff. He expressed concern that this is effecting Regional Tourism and stated that he would take the matter to the NSW Cabinet. I urge him to have at least section (a) removed and a smaller definition of place in (b) included in the regulation. No timeline for this was indicated by Adam.
Now its crunch time for all of us. If you haven't contacted your local MP you need to do it now. Do it by phone, personal contact [best], or by email. The more MP's we can have telling their contacts in the Cabinet and Party rooms about this the better.Here is the guts of what you should put across.
Firstly part (a) of Reg 17A amounts to control of a citizen's right to free movement and use of private property. It is only being used to target cruising yachts whereas the Regulation applies to ALL VESSELS. It should be removed, this is non-negotiable.
Secondly part (b) of Reg 17A needs a definition of place added. It should not be Sydney Harbour or Pittwater/Hawkesbury River as the RMS staff are interpreting. It should be a place as defined by a name [eg Little Manley Bay, Sydney or Jerusalem Bay, Hawkesbury River] on a chart.The excuses that the RMS staff have given for this regulation are not reflected in that regulation and only appear to be "make up" to justify the regulation after the fact of passing it into law.
Make sure you take or send to your MP a copy of the regulation and the letters from McSweeney and Mitchell. I've added them here again for your convenience.
Hey thanks for that and the documents, my local member is having a meet the locals day next saturday the 14th and I have every intention of presenting him with both the printed docs above and my considered opinion of the rule and it's implications, will be interesting I am sure.
I am still waiting for the BIA office holders (all hail) to respond to the email sent to them last year, so far the only response has been a recognition that the email was received and would be forwarded to the relevant office holders.
Leads me to believe that they don't give a s***.
Maybe the lawyers here can comment on this thought.....
If I anchor a vessel for 90 days and then sell it, does the reg say that the new owner cannot anchored that vessel until the next year! 
While I wait for an opportunity to meet with my local member, I've sent a written submission out lining the major faults with the regulation, restrictions to citizens free movement, deterrent to tourism, the growing opposition to it as the boating community becomes aware of reg 17a and the fact that it's a poorly worded broad sweeping amendment that was unnessary as the existing regulation gave the authorities enough power to move lingerers on ( if they chose to ! )
thanks NSW sailor for putting up some relevant correspondents to add to our submissions
who else has acted so far ?
Just a thank-you note from me to NswSailor for spending time and effort to meet with the minister in respect of this poorly considered regulation.
At least we know how the Nationals in the Clarence feel about the issue, I didn't even get the run around just straight to the point !
A year to the day before the next election, I cant imagine even the most conservative red neck will be happy to vote for a party that's dictating how long you can travel around in your boat. There's lots of farmers in this electorate and most have a boat of some sort
The shooters and fishers gave the nats a hideing in orange last time around, because they forgot to listen to the people. Short memory ?
At least the honourable law maker for Clarence is forthright about of his priorities - tourist dollars from visiting vessels rather than the interests of recreational sailors living in the state.
When he says "anchoring for 28 days at one mooring" it does not appear he understands that we are all happy with that; that the real ISSUE is in fact how the regulation allows "one area" to include multiple anchorages.
Ok, here's the word!
I spoke to my MP today and she indicated that our MP from the Clarence will be educated in the coming weeks.
Apparently NP MPs get together before party meetings so all those MPs will be brought up to date by MP Williams.
In the meantime the Minister for Tourism is actively making enquiries.
I am now actively taking the line that Reg 17A (1) is a restriction on the movement of citizens of NSW, the Commonwealth and overseas visitors.
I am then saying this has to be cleared up before the elections next year or it will become a major issue.
I would suggest to you all that this is the line to take.
PS, I have asked MP Williams to enquire about the Bar Cams [that should read river cams as that is where they mainly look!]
so that they will be fixed on the bars and in some cases moved closer.
The Gulaptis fellow gotta have his nose rubbed into that mess his secretary managed to produce.
His arrogant impertinence is showing clearly, that he did not head the words:
"LEADERSHIP IS NOT ELEVATION TO POWER
BUT SUBMISSION TO DUTY"
Duty towards his electors not the fat cats of industry!
It's clearly going to impact tourism revenue to all coastal areas, but I think the Clarence will be the hardest hit of all, as a major waterway destination, boats from down Sth, Sydney & Melbourne, may not have a great deal left of their allocated 90 days, by the time they get to the Clarence!. And with considering the need to transit Sth again through NSW, after the winter holiday(to The Whitsundays), I can see the Clarence losing out.
Select to expand quoteBlueMoon said..
It's clearly going to impact tourism revenue to all coastal areas, but I think the Clarence will be the hardest hit of all, as a major waterway destination, boats from down Sth, Sydney & Melbourne, may not have a great deal left of their allocated 90 days, by the time they get to the Clarence!. And with considering the need to transit Sth again through NSW, after the winter holiday(to The Whitsundays), I can see the Clarence losing out.
Who is going to keep tabs on how many days these people have been at anchor? Agreed it's a dickhead regulation and will be impossible to enforce but it maybe used against individuals.
When there is an opportunity for revenue, who knows what measures they will come up with?.
I bet there's a whole lot of retired boating barristers lining up, waiting for the opportunity for a little side project
. I wouldn't want to be the first(?), over zealous Bso, to walk into court having to justify their actions, having enforced this on a cruiser(for want of a better term).
Select to expand quoteRamona said..BlueMoon said..
It's clearly going to impact tourism revenue to all coastal areas, but I think the Clarence will be the hardest hit of all, as a major waterway destination, boats from down Sth, Sydney & Melbourne, may not have a great deal left of their allocated 90 days, by the time they get to the Clarence!. And with considering the need to transit Sth again through NSW, after the winter holiday(to The Whitsundays), I can see the Clarence losing out.
Who is going to keep tabs on how many days these people have been at anchor? Agreed it's a dickhead regulation and will be impossible to enforce but it maybe used against individuals.
looking in to the future, it is not a wild imagining that all registered vessels may be required to have an active locating device on board at all times. this could also then be continually cross-referenced with satellite data.
A little bit of a mountain out of a molehill on this issue from few on here. The legislation might be a little bit of a big stick approach to the issue of preventing vagrant liveaboards or derelict vessels from permanently occupying the waterways. The legislation has given the authorities powers to move these people on.
However it will have absolutely no impact on the overnight or short stay temporary visitor status. Overnight anchorage provided it is for less than the full 24 hour midnight to midnight period is totally unrestricted by this legislation and the effect on a true livaboard cruiser will be non existent.
My feeling is that the members of parliament contacted are probably thinking " we have got a bunch of wacko jackos on our hands here. Citizens freedom of travel restricted!,, Adverse effects on tourism!,, man get em out of my office. Are these the same constituents who were complaining that PFD legislation was an infringement of personal liberty?"
IMO there will be no changes to or public outcry from these amendments.
Ramona, the local RMS officer will log you on his computer, will not even have to talk to you. Steve when in Jervios Bay was approach about his 90 day limit I believe.
Sorry frant, you haven't read correctly what's going on mate, alright to comment from Vic but we have to live with it.
Alright today I meet with MP Williams again and I was informed that as its a regulation the relevant Minister can wipe it out. Adam Marshall, Minister for Tourism is definitely on the case and while no time line was promised I sensed that they are going as fast as possible. I put it to Williams again that 17A(2) has to go and a place should be defined as a "named bay, river or inlet on a chart" for 17A(1). Any comments?
I think we have to give a bit here [for RMS's ego] and by leaving the "28 days in one place' till we see how they police that later and come back and try to remove it and the "permission required" clause to leave your mooring for more than 28 days.
A comment from Facebok:
Section 109 & 117 of Australias Constitution seem to be relevant here . Sec 17A is unconstitutional & should be removed immediately.
109 Inconsistency of laws:
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
117 Rights of residents in States:
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
I will email MP Williams tonight with these constitution findings.
Select to expand quotenswsailor said..
I put it to Williams again that 17A(2) has to go and a place should be defined as a "named bay, river or inlet on a chart" for 17A(1). Any comments?
.
Nswsailor, your suggestion to focus on the 90 day state limit, and also on getting the 28 day anchored stay restricted to smaller geographic areas is sensible and I agree 100% with the approach. Achieving those two outcomes will be a game changer.
In respect of opinions that RMS officers would hopefully use their discretion in applying the regulations so as not to impact the "good guys", I believe those opinions are flawed. If an officer becomes aware, or is made aware by a third party, of a sailor contravening the regs, he is "obliged" to take the same, consistent punitive action in all cases. If he did not treat all citizens equally, it would be corruption.
Just an update:
Today through my local MP, Leslie Williams, I have arrange for a motion to be put to the National Party Conference at Cowra in early June.
The motion asks, in essence, that the Reg 17A be removed.
Other lines of getting 17A removed are continuing.
Quite disturbing to read the letter in May Afloat magazine regarding a Tassie cruiser who was enjoying Sydney Harbour after having trouble with his gearbox and was approached by a "patrol boat " who told him that they were approaching the 28 day limit and would be subject to stiff penalties. They also told them of the 60 day limit for all of NSW. It's happening already. So much for assurances that this would not affect the "good guys ". Time to get really active about this issue.
And just to throw confusion into the saga, I spoke recently to a cruiser in Sydney [from out of state] who was also approached with the usual story.
He rang RMS headquarters and was told ...
"No worries, are you cruising?" he answered yes, "Then if you have a log book to prove that, no problems!"
Mind you when the RMS officer returned he did not want to believe it, but eventually sloped off.
As they can't get their story correct this Reg has gotta go.
Select to expand quoteMoocher said..
There's a yacht, looks like a Roberts 45, floating around Sydney Harbour with 9 kids and one on the way! Been on anchor for at least a year now, I'm sure any of you that use the harbour would've seen it, there's stuff all over it, looks quite unsightly. Although they move around a fair bit you'd have to wonder why they haven't been moved on since they're well over 90 days.
Meet him the other day, seems like a nice bloke. He is looking for a 60' yacht.
Oh, and it's 11 kids!
