Yep its Law!!
For a full discussion on this see also www.facebook.com/groups/1647101438946548/

And here are some details:












Enjoy your day fellow Welshmen(women)

I'd better start on that fake log! I'm going to start putting "hove to" for the overnight stop - or just "sailing in circles".

Bristolfashion said..
I'd better start on that fake log! I'm going to start putting "hove to" for the overnight stop - or just "sailing in circles".

Won't work, apparently they have been spying.

I get the 28 day bit to keep the riff raff moving along but the 90 day anchoring in total is barbaric ! And impossible to police unless ais becomes mandatory. I'll be seeing my mp ASAP

I doubt this will effect the average cruiser. It's just a tool for Waterways to use against known offenders who consistently move their vessels short distances on our waterways.
Most of the complaints are from pensioners in their waterfront properties cheesed off with that untidy steel yacht plonked in front of their house with that scruffy old bloke that tends to drink to much.
Locally the waterways bloke is out and about once a week keeping an eye on the moorings. I never log on with the marine rescue association but I bet they note my comings and goings just the same.

Its becoming a police state. What is soo wrong with living on your boat.

Just one more example of the ruling of Australia by the undemocratic, unelected so called public service, by fait accomplii of the all encompassing regulation, all those in NSW who have been living on their boats as a life style choice have my sympathy, but I'm sure that this will spread to other states and territories as time goes by as these 'servants of the public' absolutely hate anyone who does not conform to their ideals in any, way, shape or form. Vive La Revolution, Death to the 'Crats. .

Well, I'm just thinking that 90 days is not the same as 90 nights. There is also the requirement to prove that the boat is actually anchored rather than cleaning their gear in the water! If a good, defensible case comes along it might be worth getting a fighting fund together and slinging a bit of lawyer at it.

Seabreeze v.s. The State of New South Wales has a good ring, I'm in for a few quid.

Cheers

Bristol

Bristolfashion said..
Well, I'm just thinking that 90 days is not the same as 90 nights. There is also the requirement to prove that the boat is actually anchored rather than cleaning their gear in the water! If a good, defensible case comes along it might be worth getting a fighting fund together and slinging a bit of lawyer at it.

Seabreeze v.s. The State of New South Wales has a good ring, I'm in for a few quid.

Cheers

Bristol

Sorry but, the burden of proof is no longer upon the state, if it ever really was, it is up to you to prove that you were not anchored in NSW waters for the period of any ninety days, non concurrently out of the year. Good luck with that. I haven't read the regulation, as it doesn't affect me at the moment but, what exactly is the penalty imposed for non compliance?

Bruski068 said..

Bristolfashion said..
Well, I'm just thinking that 90 days is not the same as 90 nights. There is also the requirement to prove that the boat is actually anchored rather than cleaning their gear in the water! If a good, defensible case comes along it might be worth getting a fighting fund together and slinging a bit of lawyer at it.

Seabreeze v.s. The State of New South Wales has a good ring, I'm in for a few quid.

Cheers

Bristol

Sorry but, the burden of proof is no longer upon the state, if it ever really was, it is up to you to prove that you were not anchored in NSW waters for the period of any ninety days, non concurrently out of the year. Good luck with that. I haven't read the regulation, as it doesn't affect me at the moment but, what exactly is the penalty imposed for non compliance?

That would be a max of 50 penalty points, one point costs $110.00 at the moment.

Bruski068 said..

I haven't read the regulation, as it doesn't affect me at the moment but, what exactly is the penalty imposed for non compliance?

Its at the top of this thread Bruski

"At anchor includes vessels secured to trees or other means of attachment to the shore or sea bed. "
I guess marinas wouldn't be one of those means of attachment ? So the 5 days at the laurieton wharf or the 24hrs on the pontoons in the Clarence etc, does that count as anchored ? Or as being in a marina ? I'm pretty sure that if you where hauled out that wouldn't count as anchored, tho you would still be attached to the shore, so how about if you where dried out on a sand bar ? Hmm the mention of dried out and bar has given me an idea !

UncleBob said..
Yeah, and to add further maritime have deemed that all of Sydney Harbour, yes in it's entirety is one place as is all of broken bay, from the bridge at Brooklyn to the sea and all of the waterways is likewise one place so it appears that we only have the use of our boats for fourteen weekends per year.

With the description of all of Sydney harbour being one place how do they reconcile the differential mooring costs within that one area?

Interesting that the 90 day limit does not state consecutive days, just a total of 90 days so I guess that one has to assume they mean we may only use our boats for one quarter of the calendar year.

Should do wonders for the boating industry.

Where have you found this interpretation. It is not consistent with the interpretation of "place" as set out in the explanatory letter from Transport NSW published at start of thread. It would seem to me that separateLy defined anchorages or mooring fields are different places by that interpretation.
unfortunately there must be a few derelict vessels that have brought this regulation into being and everybody potentially pays for that.

cisco said..
Acording to a mate of mine this regulation has been in force since the 1920s i.e. the depression years and was introduced due to the number of people living on barges etc.

Anybody else know anything about that??

If you bothered to read my previous post on here I said that

When were were travelling around Australia and working in our Caravan the Caravan Parks in Sydney had the same sort of rule where we could only stay in the one tourist park for 28 days and then we had to move to another one for another 28 days before we could return to the first one

The rule was 28 days in each park and only 3 stays in the same park each year

We had 6 months in Sydney and alternated between 2 parks for the stay

The reason for this was to stop people living permanently in tourist parks and one park operator told us after a certain period a person staying in the park rights changed and it was harder for the park to evict them if they were playing up

Regards Don

Donk107 said...
The reason for this was to stop people living permanently in tourist parks and one park operator told us after a certain period a person staying in the park rights changed and it was harder for the park to evict them if they were playing up

Read between the lines of legislation and it essentially means the :- "law is against being poor".