Unfortunately gentlemen this not about courtesy moorings nor Sands does it apply just to us it applies to ALL VESSELS whether you are a yacht, a fishing dinghy or an overseas yacht!
Some have stated they agree with the 28 day in one place, but it must mean one place and not a whole harbour!
The 90 PA days is just ridiculous and cannot be reset by leaving the state.

Yes, of course - nswsailor is quite right - it is not about courtesy moorings neither it is about keeping law and order.
It must have a hidden agenda behind it, like most laws. It is going to be applied if someone in power decides so, to satisfy someone's whim or viciousness.

I can't see any reason why a retired boat owner - who has a residence on dry land - could not use his boat for 360 or any number of days a year sailing or boating from place to place, anchoring, and enjoying his well earned retirement on the water.

Isn't this new law encroaching on our human rights, on our freedom of movement?

Who is to tell me to use a Marina instead of anchoring when my idea of having a boat is that, that l could get away from Marinas, from humanity in general, it's rules and regulations, laws and obnoxious habits as much as l can?

Queensland did similar to this about fifteen years ago . I was in Cairns at the time and we counted thirty three mainly oldies who were forced off their boats. Most applied for free public housing but there was none available. Some moved in with friends but most started living on the streets or in vans or buses. So the end result was that content ,happy,people ie boaties, became part of the homeless street dwellers who visually pollute the neat, orderly, suburbs where the rest of society get to share their misery and see them in their trendy streets. Is that what the lawmakers really intended. No, but that is the reality. In Qld it is illegal to live on a boat on a mooring. That means that accommodation has to be sourced for every family unit forced off a boat . Housing is already critical in major cities and the government is adding to the shortage by denying us of our heritage, we came here in boats and some of us want to live in boats. Just remember lawmakers that you are driving happy boaties towards an uncomfortable existance with no hope. Cheers Bottman

Its item (b) that really has me concerned as this speaks of lobbing by the BIA in getting more customers, pity that they charge to much and are not in every bay [which is a blessing!]

As I said before I'm meeting the The Hon Adam Marshall Minister for Tourism and Major Events and Assistant Minister for Skills and my local MP Friday 9th March for breakfast so I'll be giving him a wake up call as well.

How many of you Welshmen have contacted your local MP? We all have to do this to get some traction to get this Reg removed.

The bit that worries me in Angus Mitchells letter is ("amongst other things"), that he says before going to point a), b) & c), so do we know what "amongst other things" means, or is that at the whim of the local BSO's.
Because most people could provide proof of satisfying points a, b & c, so as they become mute,
holding tank -check,
holder of a mooring permit in a registered mooring field -check,
Having a seaworthy vessel, in a good state of repair, that isn't an eye sore -check

Having satisfied the Executive Directors of NSW Maritime concerns, I cant see any reason why I cant anchor where and when I like if complying with all other navigational regulations, where I anchor.
cheers

And all the "reasons" Mitchell gives are really opinion as they do not appear in the reasons for the regulation. The only one that does is

"too restrict the time a vessel can be at anchor in NSW waters during a calendar year"

They are drawing a loooong booow

I personally think there needs to be legislation like this to give some power to the Boating officers. It will not effect the genuine cruisers. In Greenwell Point we have live aboards and cruisers that stop over for a few days and they rarely cause any trouble.
Recently however we had the ex navy 40' steely that was sold on eBay on one of the Coastal Patrols courtesy moorings for 6 months! The new owner had a mooring installed nearby but refused to leave the courtesy mooring. When he did eventually motor the 50 metres to his mooring the Coastal Patrol had the two courtesy moorings removed. The courtesy moorings are there mainly for yachts waiting to use the slips and visiting yachts passing through. No one minded if boats were on the moorings a week or so but it takes one individual to screw it up for everyone.
I believe the MSB is going to replace these moorings with their courtesy moorings and they will have the power to move on the trouble makers.

Look everybody is saying the right thing, but this is a badly written law.
I can see the 28 day rule but it has to have some leeway for those cruising and the place rule needs better definition.
As far as the 90 day rule, well that's not on if they are going to chase only yachts and no-one else,
and remember they have already warn yachts they are over their 90 day limit.
Surely as we have to ask the 'teacher' to leave our moorings for more than 28 days
they can take that as permission to cruise NSW for 365 days?
If we leave our moorings for less than 28 days at a time its really only the 90 day rule we have to change.

As far as out of state and overseas vessels, well could that be restraint of trade under commonwealth laws?

woko said..
Or at least a deterrent to tourism.

That's what wrong also but I have that Minister in my sights tomorrow morning.

I've just heard from my MP's office and they told me the RMS have contacted me by phone, were stunned when I said no,
so there maybe a bit more s**t coming down the hill!

LooseChange said..
"To prevent vessel owners from circumventing the need to utilise commercial marinas or regulated mooring fields."

With that statement he is actively pushing you into the clutches of the money boys, by circumventing the horrendous fees that are charged by marina operators yachties are actively depriving the marinas of monies that they think they should be entitled to.

I could understand Mitchell's argument if NSW maritime had built the marinas, but as they are private enterprise companies they assumed risk when building thse facilities.
When the government builds a toll raod they can't force you to use it so they have to provide an alternate route for which the don't charge toll fees, why should marinas be any different, why should you be forced to use one if you're boat is compliant with the legislation in every way?

LC. I believe when The first of Sydneys toll roads were built the government closed some surrounding roads to 'feed' the traffic
into the privately owned toll roads. The toll roads have to be privately owned because the Gov can't charge us for using roads
built with public money, so it doesn't surprise me that they would legislate something in favour of privately owned marinas
as they already have a history of doing such things.

samsturdy said..
LC. I believe when The first of Sydneys toll roads were built the government closed some surrounding roads to 'feed' the traffic
into the privately owned toll roads. The toll roads have to be privately owned because the Gov can't charge us for using roads
built with public money, so it doesn't surprise me that they would legislate something in favour of privately owned marinas
as they already have a history of doing such things.

You are correct Sam, they did try to funnel more business to the toll roads, their argument at the time was to get people to try them out and then to keep using them as they saved a lot of time. Unfortunately for them more people were interested in saving money than time and so the aforesaid "closed" roads had to be opened again and now by law there has to be an alternate free route.

sirgallivant said..
Moocher the moocher is complaining about the Tasmanian family spending time in Nsw presently at Chinamans beach right next to the yacht l am crewing on.

Well, they did not disturb us an iota and they are a friendly, cheerful lot.
The fact, that their boat does not look like a gin palace, well, big deal.
If the authorities legislate them out of the water most probably they are going to end up in public housing costing the community a fair bit more.
Some "people" might call them an eye sore but they are really not "people", they are just indignant creeps trying to regulate the world to their liking.

To do something about this infamous legislation perhaps joining the BOA or Boat Owners Association would be a good step.

The BIA is a creation of someone who is not interested in boating, quite the opposite, is an organisation which is purely created for pulling the wool over our eyes.

The reason I mentioned this yacht is not because they were disturbing anyone, but I know for a fact they have been on anchor around Sydney Harbour for over a year, and given the boat looks rather unsightly and is anchored off one of the most exclusive areas of the Norrhshore I would've thought there may have been residents complaints.
Obviously the 28day rule is not strictly enforced on Sydney Harbour as I know of two other boats , that have been living aboard with no permanent mooring of their own for at least 2/3 years, usually they're on the public moorings.
So sg I am not complaining about them, just giving out some facts in keeping with the thread. I was brought up on a yacht around Sydney Harbour and Pittwater back in the late 50's and 60's from the age of 5 through to 13, I still reckon it was a wonderful upbringing and I'm sure our boat looked unsightly as well .

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.

The RMS or the BSO are not doing their jobs very well if they harass legitimate travellers on cruise while the courtesy moorings are occupied by vessels for not only more than 24 hours but for weeks on end as l mentioned in my earlier post. Some commercial vessels are using those moorings on a regular basis. They should not!

The anchoring ban is an overkill trying to regulate something what should not be regulated.

Harassing the local mp is one way to achieve some results. Hopefully!

Good on ya nswsailor, l am following suit...

MorningBird said..

samsturdy said..

LooseChange said..
"To prevent vessel owners from circumventing the need to utilise commercial marinas or regulated mooring fields."

With that statement he is actively pushing you into the clutches of the money boys, by circumventing the horrendous fees that are charged by marina operators yachties are actively depriving the marinas of monies that they think they should be entitled to.

I could understand Mitchell's argument if NSW maritime had built the marinas, but as they are private enterprise companies they assumed risk when building thse facilities.
When the government builds a toll raod they can't force you to use it so they have to provide an alternate route for which the don't charge toll fees, why should marinas be any different, why should you be forced to use one if you're boat is compliant with the legislation in every way?

LC. I believe when The first of Sydneys toll roads were built the government closed some surrounding roads to 'feed' the traffic
into the privately owned toll roads. The toll roads have to be privately owned because the Gov can't charge us for using roads
built with public money, so it doesn't surprise me that they would legislate something in favour of privately owned marinas
as they already have a history of doing such things.

Not really the case Sam. There is no problem with the Government charging for road use.
The Motorway to Newcastle built and owned by the NSW Government had a toll for years. The Harbour Bridge is Government owned with a toll. The Motorway to Wollongong was Government owned with a toll until maybe 15-20 years ago. The M4 and M5 were pre private ownership with a toll but may have been sold off since.
It is a stupid policy and probably impossible to police in any meaningful way.
But to believe that the Government have implemented this policy to give marinas more money is well into conspiracy theory territory.

We don't have to believe MorningBird, its a stated fact, see the Mitchell letter above from Afloat his point (B) !!