Clause 17A or the 28/90 anchoring regulation.

I meet with RMS Minister Pavey today. I was asked why I was seeing her about that Clause as no-one else had ever approached her!!!!!!
At that point I knew I was going nowhere, especially when she asked how many people felt this way? Couldn't really give her a number.

It was stated that the Maritime Advisory Council had approved Clause 17A as proposed by the BIA. Again I was going no-where. The minister could not see what was wrong with clause 17A [28 days] but did mumble something about "that's about how long a boat can go without emptying its holding tanks"??


She gave my letter back to me and said rewrite it with firm proposals, evidence and numbers to back it up. She did flick through it.

As to the definition of "place", the 90 day anchoring limit and why interstate boats have to register in NSW after three months here; well with a "why" question they just went through to the keeper.

I now need a bit of time to sort something out for the Maritime Advisory Council [meets next in about 2 months] and I'll also post a standard letter for everybody to send to the minister, but more on that when I have something together.

It seems I've just kicked the door. I thing we have a long way to go.

Good on ya NSW for having a go, seems our local members haven't been passing on our concerns.

Select to expand quote

nswsailor said..
Clause 17A or the 28/90 anchoring regulation.

I meet with RMS Minister Pavey today. I was asked why I was seeing her about that Clause as no-one else had ever approached her!!!!!!
At that point I knew I was going nowhere, especially when she asked how many people felt this way? Couldn't really give her a number.

It was stated that the Maritime Advisory Council had approved Clause 17A as proposed by the BIA. Again I was going no-where. The minister could not see what was wrong with clause 17A [28 days] but did mumble something about "that's about how long a boat can go without emptying its holding tanks"??


She gave my letter back to me and said rewrite it with firm proposals, evidence and numbers to back it up. She did flick through it.

As to the definition of "place", the 90 day anchoring limit and why interstate boats have to register in NSW after three months here; well with a "why" question they just went through to the keeper.

I now need a bit of time to sort something out for the Maritime Advisory Council [meets next in about 2 months] and I'll also post a standard letter for everybody to send to the minister, but more on that when I have something together.

It seems I've just kicked the door. I thing we have a long way to go.

Extremely interesting that the regulation was proposed by the BIA, the body that "prides" itself on furthering the interests of the boating industry, obviously not the boating public.

May have come up with a solution:

If we get one word inserted.... no master may allow an UNATTENDED vessel... in each clause and we don't worry about the place problem.

I'm sure the BIA should save face and accept that amendment.

I think that would nail it nswsailor.

Obviously the minister is more concerned about votes than boats.

Regarding the minister's request for support numbers - that would require running a well publicised poll which would require effort to organise.
To counter, we could always ask - since we don't have a number, does the minister have a specific number for the people in NSW that support the 28 day and 90 day limits ?

Perhaps if the proposal to change the regulation could be made by an existing sailing or cruising association, it would have more weight.

Does anyone on the forum have an office bearer contact in "Yachting NSW" or the CYCA ?

We do have a yachting representative on the Maritime Advisory Council, does anybody know who it is?

Its appalling if true that the regulation change was on the initiative of the BIA, but hardly surprising given that the "main objective" of the BIA, according to its website, is to "support and improve the sustainability of the recreational and light commercial boating industry". Obviously the BIA provided the Minister with the belief (and words) that it is an appropriate use of her powers to drive recreational boaters into the grasp of commercial operators, but I doubt that this claim would stand up in Court, as an appropriate use of regulation making powers.

Who supports the interests of the recreational voter? Is it just the sailing/boating/fishing clubs? Is there an umbrella organisation for the clubs? (Sorry, I am ignorant, I have been overseas for a long time and I'm not a native Ozn anyway.) Seems to me there should have been some body reviewing this regulation change on behalf of the recreational boater, when it was first proposed. Seems unfair that nswsailor is having to carry all the burden of objection, could not clubs be involved also? And how interesting would it be to read the submission made by BIA to the Maritime Advisory Council?

How was the proposed regulation change publicised prior to being passed? Were the views of the rec boater actively sought? Or was the new regulation just gazetted without any public consultation? For the Minister to ask NOW how many boaters are affected, shows a high level of ignorance on her part, and on the part of her Department, and suggests there wasn't much consultation.

nswsailor you are to be congratulated for taking up the cudgels and I am sure that the sailing and cruising associations of NSW should also be involved.

JR

ps just seen that on the Recreational Vessels Advisory Group, which was established to provide advice to the Centre for Maritime Safety and RWS, a Chris de Jong is appointed to represent the Boat Owners Assn of NSW. He/she should be a part of this process now, or explain why he/she is not, and what input did he/she seek from the Boat Owners before the amending regulation was passed.

Thanks Ivory moon for the heads up to the recreational vessels advisory group. Looking at the minutes of the meetings prior to the regulation being amended there's only a passing mention and no detail. Maybe I missed something ? Google it your self and see if you can find any mention of anchoring, it appears that ALL of the attending party's where , well , ..........aware of the amendments content ???

Could you imagine the uproar if the same legislation was enacted to stop Grey Nomads from parking their caravans/motor homes for more than 28 days per calendar year in any area that they happened to like and wanted to stay without being in a caravan park.

Select to expand quote

IvoryMoon said..

How was the proposed regulation change publicised prior to being passed? Were the views of the rec boater actively sought?

Yes thanks Ivory Moon for putting your finger on the nub of the matter - an apparent lack of consultation prior to introducing a significant regulation.

Perhaps the BIA was consulted more than the people who will actually bear the brunt of the impact- ie. the recreational sailors. Logic says it should have been the other way round.

So rather than individual letters in the Afloat magazine or individual approaches to the minister, we should ask an entity (association, NGO or other) that claims to represent sailors/boaters, to raise the matter on our behalf (just like the BIA did on behalf of marine industry members). Such an approach will carry more weight. And the goal is not to ask for the whole thing to be scrapped; just to be tempered by factoring in the concerns of actual NSW sailors.

I like the caravan analogy early in the thread. Makes it understandable to non-sailors.

Is Australia one of the most inhospitable countries to cruisers?
So much beautiful coastline.
Id think trailer motorboats, jetkis etc have higher disruption, environmental impacts than sailing yachts?

Sydney newspaper reported today (17 Sep):

*****************
"The proposed lockout of fishers in the 25 sites is absolutely unacceptable," the minister told reporters in Sydney.
The plan to ban fishing in the new marine parks has been dogged by criticism and a targeted campaign by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. The minor party threatened to run in every coastal seat at the March state election, and campaign on the fishing bans, if the government did not back down on the plan."
*****************

So the NSW minister quickly backs down when faced with the prospect of losing votes at the next election.

This suggests there's definitely hope for a back down on the "you must patronise commercial marinas" regulation, provided we are able to press the right buttons.

As sure as eggs the honourable members will be in back flipping mode for the next 6 months, so long as we can make ourselves heard.
Any suggestions ?

There was a mention of a briefing presentation when Reg 17A was apparently presented to the MAC in 2016, I have a phone call into that presenter but after a week have not had a reply so will be ringing again Tuesday 18th.

There are now two lines of thought on Reg 17A:
1. That the words 'left unattended' be included before '28 days' & '90 days'
2. That Reg 17A be prefixed by 'Any vessel not having a state licensed mooring or a permanent berth shall....' for Part 1 and Part 2

Please comment on 1 & 2 above please.

This of course leave interstate visitors out on a limb after 28 and especially 90 days when they are required to register in NSW AND have a mooring or marina berth! So I have to work on that as well now. The clause immediately before this is about interstate cars etc and they have no restrictions.

I now realise that Reg 17A, while poorly written, is not about cruising vessels but about live-a-boards and we have just been sucked in by some of the more stiffer RMS officers.

NSW, I think point 1. Left unattended would be OK for obvious reasons. But point 2. As you have already said would disadvantage interstaters and as such would still be discouraging to interstate and international cruisers.

And yes I agree that the amendment was developed with live aboarders in mind especially those that like to anchor in veiw of exclusive water front property's. But when does cruising turn in to live aboard ? Is it a time span or a boat style ?

Select to expand quote

nswsailor said..

There are now two lines of thought on Reg 17A:
1. That the words 'left unattended' be included before '28 days' & '90 days'

Select to expand quote

woko said..


And yes I agree that the amendment was developed with live aboarders in mind especially those that like to anchor in veiw of exclusive water front property's.

NSWsailor, I don't quite get why Waterways would go for the "left unattended" part.

If liveaboards attend their boats every day since they sleep on them, how does that help Waterways address the problem of anchoring in front of exclusive waterfront properties (which we agree would be reasonable to restrict) ?

Karsten, when you look at it like that it's not a good addition. I was thinking of cheap vessels left at anchor for the gulls to use as rookeries. So back to the pre amended legislation ie. No more than 28 days in one area, just have to define what an area is !
And I don't like to anchor in front of exclusive waterfront properties because they spoil the veiw

Its not all that simple as other things are having an influence, such as..

Why do the registration rules for vessels differ from those of vehicles? www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/get-nsw-registration/index.html
General requirements in Australian jurisdictions
The common view in Australian states and territories is that any vehicle should be registered in the state or territory in which the owner/operator lives and where the vehicle is generally kept.Where you are a genuine visitor, or temporarily in NSW, and you drive a vehicle that is registered in your home state on NSW roads, you will not require NSW registration.
Visiting overseas vehicles
Vehicles that are registered overseas and only in NSW temporarily do not require NSW registration, as long as all plates and labels required by the overseas registration authority are displayed. Roads and Maritime also recommends that the overseas Certificate of Registration is carried when using the vehicle.

Yet NSW requires visiting vessels to be registered, why the difference?

Interstate and overseas vessels
You can use a vessel registered in another Australian state or territory, or overseas, on NSW navigable waters. If you're using the vessel temporarily in NSW, you don't need to get NSW registration, as long as the vessel:
Is not ordinarily used on navigable waters in NSW
Has not been in NSW for more than three months Is currently registered in another state, territory or overseas
Is properly numbered and carries an identification plate required by the law of its home state, territory or country.

If any of these conditions cannot be met, and the vessel is registrable under NSW law, it must carry NSW registration when on navigable waters in NSW.
If the home state, territory or overseas country does not have a vessel registration requirement, the vessel must be registered in NSW, or another state.
A notice issued to Visiting and Transiting Vessels also state that after 90 days not only is NSW Registration require but that vessel also requires, quote "a Marina Berth, Legal Wet Berth or Mooring License issued by the RMS.

And then there is the 'RMS perceived' problem of the quote "Hundreds" of liveaboards in NSW. I have heard of a whisper that the Lake is about to be "cleaned out". Our problem is that the RMS don't see us [day sailors and cruisers] as a problem. I've been told that a warning will always be issued first as the RMS is not up to losing when fines are challenged in court, seems they don't have the money for court cases they may loose.

I also think mooring minders are in there as well.

Select to expand quote

nswsailor said..
Its not all that simple as other things are having an influence, such as..

Why do the registration rules for vessels differ from those of vehicles? www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/get-nsw-registration/index.html
General requirements in Australian jurisdictions
The common view in Australian states and territories is that any vehicle should be registered in the state or territory in which the owner/operator lives and where the vehicle is generally kept.Where you are a genuine visitor, or temporarily in NSW, and you drive a vehicle that is registered in your home state on NSW roads, you will not require NSW registration.
Visiting overseas vehicles
Vehicles that are registered overseas and only in NSW temporarily do not require NSW registration, as long as all plates and labels required by the overseas registration authority are displayed. Roads and Maritime also recommends that the overseas Certificate of Registration is carried when using the vehicle.

Yet NSW requires visiting vessels to be registered, why the difference?

Interstate and overseas vessels
You can use a vessel registered in another Australian state or territory, or overseas, on NSW navigable waters. If you're using the vessel temporarily in NSW, you don't need to get NSW registration, as long as the vessel:
Is not ordinarily used on navigable waters in NSW
Has not been in NSW for more than three months Is currently registered in another state, territory or overseas
Is properly numbered and carries an identification plate required by the law of its home state, territory or country.

If any of these conditions cannot be met, and the vessel is registrable under NSW law, it must carry NSW registration when on navigable waters in NSW.
If the home state, territory or overseas country does not have a vessel registration requirement, the vessel must be registered in NSW, or another state.
A notice issued to Visiting and Transiting Vessels also state that after 90 days not only is NSW Registration require but that vessel also requires, quote "a Marina Berth, Legal Wet Berth or Mooring License issued by the RMS.

And then there is the 'RMS perceived' problem of the quote "Hundreds" of liveaboards in NSW. I have heard of a whisper that the Lake is about to be "cleaned out". Our problem is that the RMS don't see us [day sailors and cruisers] as a problem. I've been told that a warning will always be issued first as the RMS is not up to losing when fines are challenged in court, seems they don't have the money for court cases they may loose.

I also think mooring minders are in there as well.

As always good on ya NSW for have a go !
Vehicle rego is another world, all that's needed is a garaging address in your chosen state. But that doesn't mean you can't be in nsw for more than 90 days.
And please tell the source of the quote "a marina berth, legal wet berth or mooring licence " as well as nsw rego.
And so does that mean if you have a nsw mooring licence for example you can anchor in new waters as long as you please ?
And I can tell you first hand that if a BSO or any other figure of authority takes it to mind to issue you with a penalty point notice it is the defendant whom will take the the biggest risk, owing to the fact that one would be compeld to employ a barrister to put forth a decent case. From memory 17a attracted 50 penalty points @ $110 per penalty point so max fine $5500 plus cost. A barrister is going to make the penalty look cheap. So you do the sensible thing that is plead guilty and hope the magistrate is lenient !

Select to expand quote

woko said..

nswsailor said..
Its not all that simple as other things are having an influence, such as..

Why do the registration rules for vessels differ from those of vehicles? www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/get-nsw-registration/index.html
General requirements in Australian jurisdictions
The common view in Australian states and territories is that any vehicle should be registered in the state or territory in which the owner/operator lives and where the vehicle is generally kept.Where you are a genuine visitor, or temporarily in NSW, and you drive a vehicle that is registered in your home state on NSW roads, you will not require NSW registration.
Visiting overseas vehicles
Vehicles that are registered overseas and only in NSW temporarily do not require NSW registration, as long as all plates and labels required by the overseas registration authority are displayed. Roads and Maritime also recommends that the overseas Certificate of Registration is carried when using the vehicle.

Yet NSW requires visiting vessels to be registered, why the difference?

Interstate and overseas vessels
You can use a vessel registered in another Australian state or territory, or overseas, on NSW navigable waters. If you're using the vessel temporarily in NSW, you don't need to get NSW registration, as long as the vessel:
Is not ordinarily used on navigable waters in NSW
Has not been in NSW for more than three months Is currently registered in another state, territory or overseas
Is properly numbered and carries an identification plate required by the law of its home state, territory or country.

If any of these conditions cannot be met, and the vessel is registrable under NSW law, it must carry NSW registration when on navigable waters in NSW.
If the home state, territory or overseas country does not have a vessel registration requirement, the vessel must be registered in NSW, or another state.
A notice issued to Visiting and Transiting Vessels also state that after 90 days not only is NSW Registration require but that vessel also requires, quote "a Marina Berth, Legal Wet Berth or Mooring License issued by the RMS.

And then there is the 'RMS perceived' problem of the quote "Hundreds" of liveaboards in NSW. I have heard of a whisper that the Lake is about to be "cleaned out". Our problem is that the RMS don't see us [day sailors and cruisers] as a problem. I've been told that a warning will always be issued first as the RMS is not up to losing when fines are challenged in court, seems they don't have the money for court cases they may loose.

I also think mooring minders are in there as well.

As always good on ya NSW for have a go !
Vehicle rego is another world, all that's needed is a garaging address in your chosen state. But that doesn't mean you can't be in nsw for more than 90 days.
And please tell the source of the quote "a marina berth, legal wet berth or mooring licence " as well as nsw rego.
And so does that mean if you have a nsw mooring licence for example you can anchor in new waters as long as you please ?
And I can tell you first hand that if a BSO or any other figure of authority takes it to mind to issue you with a penalty point notice it is the defendant whom will take the the biggest risk, owing to the fact that one would be compeld to employ a barrister to put forth a decent case. From memory 17a attracted 50 penalty points @ $110 per penalty point so max fine $5500 plus cost. A barrister is going to make the penalty look cheap. So you do the sensible thing that is plead guilty and hope the magistrate is lenient !

And please tell the source of the quote "a marina berth, legal wet berth or mooring licence " as well as nsw rego. You will find it here...

www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/get-nsw-registration/index.html

Well I think the present battle is lost, but not yet the war, against Clause 17A etc.
Let us consider what we know:

Clause 17A is badly written.

The requirement for visiting vessels to re-register in NSW after 90 days is unreasonable.

To my knowledge no cruising yacht has been issued a fine under the above two items.

Some yachts have been issued on arrival at a place with 28 day notices for a location [Port Stephens].

I have been informed that such notices do not exist. [Home made by the local RMS officer?]

I have personally received a verbal request about my intentions, on the 28th day anchored, for a second yacht that I did own [and sold on the 30th day ].

The Hon. Pavey, MP, Minister for Roads Maritime & Freight doesn't really know much about recreational boating and especially cruising yachts. During my meeting with Pavey she took the high ground and refused to accept my letter re Clause 17A by hand. I have yet to post it and at this stage I don't think I will.

Pavy did reluctantly accept my letter re the poor state of the so called Bar Cams. That is mainly about out of focus cams and the fact that most of them concentrate on the rivers, not the bar.

Recently I was informed that the RMS is trying very hard to remove live-aboards [who don't have a rented mooring or marina berth] and mooring minders from our waterways. Seems that one large area has in excess of 400 plus live-aboard boats!

I have been personally assured that Clause 17A is a last resort to deal with those who abuse the privilege of using our waterways and not about legitimate users.

In light of all this, until a cruiser is fined, there is not much we can do at this stage. But if I arrive in a "place" and am handed one of the 28 day notices I will be asking the officer to post it to my postal address. I will not be accepting it by hand.

I will be maintaining a Log Book.

Those who have connections within the Labour Opposition in NSW should be lobbying them now, as at this stage this is the only avenue of change that I can see to Clause 17A etc. I do have a 14 page document with all the arguments that I can email on request. "Message" me with your email and state "Request 17A info".

And as a final note I did get a motion passed at the 2018 National Party Conference to have changes made to Clause 17A and the requirement to notify RMS if you are leaving your mooring for more than 28 days. Also that regulations better reflect the needs of the boating community and that more consultation be under taken when developing such regulations.

Thanks to all those who have contributed to this fight. I don't think it's over yet, we are just entering a phoney campaign period.

NSW, you deserve a medal for taking the battle to the front line !
Lobbying a government that's more than likely to be ousted at the next election, is as you've pointed out is proably a wast of time.
You've done a grand thing by getting the NATS at least to acknowledge the issue, it's now on the record.

As this effects any one contemplating cruising the NSW coast, I don't see why interstaters shouldn't put their two bobs worth in.

I had a glimps of the last afloat and I think it was boat owners association or something like that, was proposing a lobbying body for the likes of us interested in protecting the existing mooring fields and other existing boaters infrastructure. What's the heads up on this mob ? Did I see their add in the afloat or was I having some sort of episode ?

Ps. If the powers that be, are really concerned about live aboarders they should turn their attention to affordable housing !!! Wooops rant alert

Select to expand quote

I had a glimps of the last afloat and I think it was boat owners association or something like that, was proposing a lobbying body for the likes of us interested in protecting the existing mooring fields and other existing boaters infrastructure. What's the heads up on this mob ? Did I see their add in the afloat or was I having some sort of episode ?

As far as existing mooring fields are concerned, the RMS went and put 2 public moorings in the Camden Haven Inlet right in the middle of the best holding ground instead of in an adjacent area of poor holding. Because of them it can be awkward when we have a few [10 or so] in here.

If only they had asked.


PS Got way to go yet before getting that medal

Interesting, had a visit from a youthful member of the aspiring Labour candidate recently, they were seeking opinions on any state issues and of course the 90 day topic jumped to the fore , as it would, they listened somewhat sympathetically and went on their way. Ah yes thinks I, another waste of time! Lo and behold, in the mail today arrived a personally addressed letter from the candidate replying to my raised concerns (not a generic vote for us cause we're so good pamphlet) and stating the proposed creation of a new independent body to be known as RecFish NSW if Labour wins. One of the priorities of this body would be improving governance for recreational boating and fishing industries, including a review of marine regulations.
Their plan is to give recreational fishers and boaters a seat at the table allowing the likes of us to more effectively voice our concerns.

Or so they say, but the response from the venting to a campaign worker is so markedly different to the response from the sitting member when I tried to voice my concerns to him at an organised public meet and greet. I never did get any response to an email that I sent to him, except the usual notice of receipt.
Gladys, I have only one thing to say, I boat and I vote !!!!

RecFish NSW already exists.

Select to expand quote

UncleBob said..
Interesting, had a visit from a youthful member of the aspiring Labour candidate recently, they were seeking opinions on any state issues and of course the 90 day topic jumped to the fore , as it would, they listened somewhat sympathetically and went on their way. Ah yes thinks I, another waste of time! Lo and behold, in the mail today arrived a personally addressed letter from the candidate replying to my raised concerns (not a generic vote for us cause we're so good pamphlet) and stating the proposed creation of a new independent body to be known as RecFish NSW if Labour wins. One of the priorities of this body would be improving governance for recreational boating and fishing industries, including a review of marine regulations.
Their plan is to give recreational fishers and boaters a seat at the table allowing the likes of us to more effectively voice our concerns.

Or so they say, but the response from the venting to a campaign worker is so markedly different to the response from the sitting member when I tried to voice my concerns to him at an organised public meet and greet. I never did get any response to an email that I sent to him, except the usual notice of receipt.
Gladys, I have only one thing to say, I boat and I vote !!!!

Would this youthful member be from the same NSW Labor Pardee that wants to introduce a new tax on boats in the form of stamp duty to apply to both new and used boats?
While the state one wants to introduce stamp duty on boats the federal one wants to bring back death duty.
Trust all politicians at your peril

But of course 17A is really about stay-put Live-a-boards, who are not really recreational boaters.

I noticed you they did not include them on their revamped RecFish NSW!!!

Select to expand quote

LooseChange said..

UncleBob said..
Interesting, had a visit from a youthful member of the aspiring Labour candidate recently, they were seeking opinions on any state issues and of course the 90 day topic jumped to the fore , as it would, they listened somewhat sympathetically and went on their way. Ah yes thinks I, another waste of time! Lo and behold, in the mail today arrived a personally addressed letter from the candidate replying to my raised concerns (not a generic vote for us cause we're so good pamphlet) and stating the proposed creation of a new independent body to be known as RecFish NSW if Labour wins. One of the priorities of this body would be improving governance for recreational boating and fishing industries, including a review of marine regulations.
Their plan is to give recreational fishers and boaters a seat at the table allowing the likes of us to more effectively voice our concerns.

Or so they say, but the response from the venting to a campaign worker is so markedly different to the response from the sitting member when I tried to voice my concerns to him at an organised public meet and greet. I never did get any response to an email that I sent to him, except the usual notice of receipt.
Gladys, I have only one thing to say, I boat and I vote !!!!

Would this youthful member be from the same NSW Labor Pardee that wants to introduce a new tax on boats in the form of stamp duty to apply to both new and used boats?
While the state one wants to introduce stamp duty on boats the federal one wants to bring back death duty.
Trust all politicians at your peril

In this day and age I think truer words were never spoken, sadly. This is the first election in my life where I cannot see a clear direction in which to send my vote.

The above mentioned 'l boat and l wote' slogan smacks of hysterics. (This is not a personal criticism of the writer but a general observation of the symptom!)

Well, either side of the political divide could be fine, but...once one has an accepted ideology, belief, conviction to follow, the only decent way to behave - no matter what happens - to stick to it and change it from the inside by joining and voicing one's opinions, ideas, convictions, not under any circumstances running away to the opposition and woting for them!

After all one has a conviction of which side of politics one belongs to.
The existence of such as a "swinging voter" is an aberration an abnormality a mistake !

In footy terms, no decent follower of a team would think of abandoning his side because it has lost a few games.