View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Consultation Report
Historic Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Bill 2016
Prepared by the Conservation and Land Management Branch – July 2016
ii
Contents
1 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 3
2 CONSULTATION PROCESS 3
3 FEEDBACK RECEIVED 5
3.1 Survey Results 5
3.2 Public and Stakeholder Consultation 8
4 ANALYSIS 14
5 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 15
3
1 Background to proposed amendments
Amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 (the Act) have been proposed in response to the significant
number of reports of illegal activity received by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
(DEWNR).
This illegal activity has taken place particularly in the Marine Park Sanctuary Zones and around the Zanoni Historic
Shipwreck following increased compliance and monitoring of the sites with the introduction of fishing restrictions
which took effect in October 2014.
The proposed amendments to the Act include that all existing penalty amounts be increased to bring them in line
with contemporary measures. Whilst increasing penalty amounts was the primary driver for the amendments, it
was also opportunistic to consider a number of other minor amendments at the same time, which were mostly
administrative in nature.
DEWNR recognises the importance of South Australia’s shipwrecks and works towards helping to safeguard these
shipwrecks and relics for future generations.
2 Consultation process
A public consultation process inviting feedback on the Historic Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016
(the Bill) commenced on 20 May 2016 and closed on 24 June 2016. The following methods of consultation were
undertaken:
YourSAy consultation - open from 20 May until 24 June 2016 (included a survey for interested members of the
public to complete)
Advertisement published in The Advertiser on 28 May 2016
Letters to key stakeholders were sent on 23 May 2016. The key stakeholders contacted are listed in Table 1.
In addition, further stakeholders were identified throughout the consultation process and were contacted
directly and invited to provide feedback. The additional stakeholders included:
Mr David Steinberg, President, Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology
Ms Wendy Van Duivenvoorde, Flinders University, Department of Archaeology (Maritime)
Ms Deborah Lindsay, Australia ICOMOS, Executive Committee and SA Representative.
Article published in the DEWNR Good Living Blog on 17 June 2016.
Consultation promoted through the Department of Premier and Cabinet and DEWNR Twitter accounts.
4
Table 1
Contact Position Organisation
Mr Sean Sloan Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Primary Industries and Regions
SA
Mr Grant Stevens Commissioner for Police SAPOL Attn: Expiation Notice
Branch
Mr Grant Luckman Senior Program Officer -
Underwater Cultural Heritage
Department of Environment
Mr Kevin Jones Director South Australian Maritime
Museum
Mr David Ciaravolo Executive Director RecFish SA
Mr George Bolton General Manager Boating Industry Association of
SA Ltd.
Mr Matt Pinnegar Chief Executive Officer Local Government Association
Mr Marcel Vandergooot Secretary Adelaide Sportfishing Club
Mr Brian Andrew President SA Recreational Boating Council
Mr Geoff Thomas President Australian Anglers Association
(SA Division) Inc.
Mr Perry Will West Coast Recreational Fishing
Committee
Mr Alan Hall Upper Spencer Gulf Recreational
Fishing Committee
Mr Paul Davies Development Recreational
Fishing Committee
Mr John Marsh SA Game Fishing Association
Mr Jonathon Harper Australian National Sportfishing
Association
The Secretary Scuba Divers Federation of
South Australia
The Secretary Underwater Explorers Club of SA
Mr Steve Reynolds President Marine Life Society of South
Australia
5
3 Feedback received
3.1 Survey Results
There were 18 respondents to the survey on YourSAy. The survey questions and results are outlined below.
Penalties and Compliance
Q1: Do you believe the proposed adjustments in penalty amounts is fair and reasonable for activity
undertaken contrary to the legislation.
Answer choices Responses
Yes 88.89% (16)
No 5.56% (1)
Unsure 5.56% (1)
Total 18
Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:
Based on a recent view of the Commonwealth Act, the proposed adjustments would bring the SA Act in line with
the penalties required by the Commonwealth Act.
Higher penalties could only improve protection from the intentional degrading and destruction of underwater
cultural heritage.
The penalties needed to be updated as they were out of date.
Yes; certain individuals in the past have salvaged items from wrecks or have actually salvaged anchors with
impunity the wrecks are there for all divers etc and those interested not to a select few who profit from removal
of items also preservation costs and knowledge is out of the range of many people leave the items be in their
marine state
Comments from respondents who answered ‘unsure’:
A person who ceases to be an inspector must immediately return his or her identity card to the Minister -
section 21(3) What is immediately? I think $500 is too much. The rest seems fair though.
Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’:
The ability for professional divers with the permits will face harder times and abilities to show those interested
the ship and will in turn be fined on spot with thousands of dollars taken not to mention the equipment used by
those who own it.
Powers of Inspectors
Q2: Do you think that Historic Shipwreck Inspectors should have the power to issue on-the-spot fines.
Answer choices Responses
Yes 100% (18)
No 0.00% (0)
Unsure 0.00% (0)
Total 18
6
Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:
While selecting 'Yes', I think ‘on-the-spot’ fines should be reserved only for repeat offenders.
Without the threat of on-the-spot fines, the Act would be regarded as having 'no teeth'. Plus, convictions would
be more likely and less expensive from court costs, therefore resources are better spent.
This is the fastest and cheapest way to administer the fines, and is in keeping with approaches under other
legislation. More inspectors are also needed given the number of wrecks and the vast area over which they are
spread otherwise the changes to the legislation are meaningless.
This should be extended to include owners of vessels caught fishing within exclusion zones around historic wrecks
such as the Zanoni.
The current abilities of the inspectors are limited in the fact that they can not fine a person that is proven to be
conducting a non authorized dive with false papers.
Q3: Do you agree that Historic Shipwreck Inspectors should have the power to seize any equipment
suspected of being involved in an offence.
Answer choices Responses
Yes 83.33% (15)
No 11.11% (2)
Unsure 5.56% (1)
Total 18
Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:
While selecting 'Yes', I do think ‘the power to seize any equipment’ should be guided by a set of rules taking
account of matters such as legal precedence (i.e. enforcement practices under the NPWS Act and the Fisheries
Management Act et al).
This is in line with other legislation such as offences for illegal fishing etc.
Yes that includes all equipment used in the committing of the offence eg boats, trailers, towing vehicles [ie car, truck], scuba gear, recovery gear.
Yes because some equipment when used by those that are not allowed on the site can be used for many hours and have artefacts taken to a location that they can only get to.
Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’:
Must have PROOF Suspicion is not enough.
General
Q4: With regard to the proposed changes to the Act outlined in the information sheet (i.e relating to the
increase in penalty amounts, declaration of historic shipwrecks, powers of inspectors etc.), is there
anything we have missed that you think should be taken into account?
7
Comments from respondents:
No, not as far as I have been able to determine.
I believe higher penalties is a good start.
What are the provisions for "official" recovery of shipwreck material, such as items from the Zanoni and wrecks
around Kangaroo Island? Will these penalties and guidelines also be reviewed?
All efforts should be taken to mark the location of shipwrecks marker buoys etc.
No.
Artefacts that are in the possession of Museums and the like. Genuine interested parties (i.e. divers) are still able
to have access, nothing worse than sites protected but not able to be accessed, why bother having them if they
can’t be seen and enjoyed.
About time it was updated. Being an avid scuba diver, I have seen first hand the damage done to historic
shipwrecks by anglers dropping anchors too close to wrecks.
Most persons upon discovery of wrecks anchors will leave them take gps readings [if possible] take photos of the
artefact may take landmark shots [my friend and myself did that ]and contact the relevant authority asap
However, the authorities means of contact should be made more accessible eg waterproof cards that can be
carried conveniently by divers [that is now how artefacts are discovered yes gps in boats are more sophisticated
to sound out wrecks.
Q5: Do you have any further comment or feedback on what the government can do to help manage and
protect the State’s historic shipwrecks and relics?
Comments from respondents:
Information about the locations of shipwrecks should be better integrated into government documents such as
the following. Property Location Browser which is the main portal for property development has no layers for any
registered heritage items including shipwrecks, however information for particular shipwreck sites can be found
via the search function. Particular development plans (i.e. Land Not Within a Council Area (Coastal Waters) and
Land Not Within a Council Area (Metropolitan)) which cover parts of state waters do mention shipwrecks in the
text but do not show locations of sites on drawings & maps unlike development plans for terrestrial parts of the
state jurisdiction which show locations of sites registered under the State Heritage Act et al.
The Act would benefit from being brought into line with the impact on underwater cultural heritage from
increased growth in the industry/development sector. Archaeology assessments should be encouraged to be more
commonly integrated into larger environmental impact assessments. Protection of UCH would be further
enhanced with the definition being broadened to include: submerged buildings, aircraft, maritime related
structures such as jetties and wharves as well as prehistoric deposits and submerged aboriginal material.
More inspectors are also needed given the number of wrecks and the vast area over which they are spread
otherwise the changes to the legislation are meaningless. More public education, media coverage and
information about the shipwrecks is also needed including signage at boat ramps etc
Each site if they aren't already be well marked with permanent buoys / markers outlining what it is & brief
overview of the penalties for the various infringements.
Inspectors defiantly should have the ability to issue on the spot fines and charges should be recorded offences,
potential employers need to know if people will be a danger to historical or culturally significant areas as they
8
are held in trust for all the people of Australia. It is my property it is your property and I do not take lightly to the
destruction of my property.
Yes. More active monitoring, custodianship and interpretation of our historic shipwrecks please. The current low
level of support is not acceptable. It is one thing to increase penalties, but DEWNR must resource the other
aspects of the relevant acts properly.
Police it.... Great to have rules and regulations, but pointless if it’s not actioned, supported and enforced. A
toothless tiger without staff and infrastructure to ensure sites are protected.
Funding for inspectors may need to be increased.
3.2 Public and Stakeholder Consultation
The feedback below was received following public and stakeholder consultation via a number of sources including
the discussion board on YourSAy, media, Twitter and submissions from key stakeholders.
Contact/
Organisation
Feedback provided/query raised DEWNR response
Alec Mathieson Comment via YourSAy: Having been among the
first people to dive on the wreck of the Zanoni I
believe penalties should be increased for owners
of vessels caught fishing within protection zones
around historic wrecks. The damage they can
cause with anchors, crab nets and fishing lines can
be extensive. I also believe the Government
should play a bigger role in to promoting the
recovery of some selected significant items from
historic shipwrecks for preservation and public
display. This would help encourage greater public
involvement and interest.
Thanks for joining the discussion Alec. It’s
good to hear you think the government is
on the right track with increasing penalty
rates under the Historic Shipwrecks Act. As
you rightly point out, a lot of damage can
be caused to our precious shipwrecks as a
result of people illegally fishing within
protected zones and unfortunately much of
the damage caused is irreversible.
In relation to the recovery and preservation
of significant relics please note that in the
past the government has undertaken
excavations (including at the Zanoni site) in
order to recover and conserve certain relics.
Many of these relics are currently on
display in various museums throughout the
state. However, generally we consider best
practice to be in situ conservation rather
than undertaking excavations in order to
recover and conserve items.
Thanks again for your interest and
comments.
Alex Moss Comment via YourSAy: Increasing the penalties for
impacting on wreck sites and removal of
associated relics is important start to improving
the Act. Further improvements will come from
turning attention to direct and indirect impacts
from the development/industry sectors. The Act
would benefit to reflect impacts from increased
Thanks for your input Alex and for letting
us know we are on the right track with
regard to proposed amendments to the
Act, particularly in relation to penalties.
Your additional comments are valued,
however on this occasion they fall outside
9
growth in the resources sector. An emphasis could
be on the need for archaeology impact
assessments in the early stages of a development.
Major incentives would come from informing and
encouraging industry in matters of underwater
cultural heritage.
Benefits to protection of submerged heritage
material would also come from broadening the
definition of shipwrecks and related material to
include aircraft, submerged buildings, maritime
related structures (jetties, wharves etc) and
submerged landscapes.
Additional comment received:
Thanks for the reply to my comment. I understand
the status of the States and Territory of the
Australian Underwater Cultural Heritage
Intergovernmental Agreement, 2010 which aims
for the highest standards of international best
practice in accordance to the Annex of UNESCO
Convention for the Protection of Underwater
Cultural Heritage. The Commonwealth will be
taking the lead on this.
I believe that an opportunity for amendments
made to the SA Act could encourage the
promotion and encouragement for the ratification
of the convention sooner rather than later. It
would be fantastic to see the matter having wider
publicity and being brought to the attention of
the broader community.
I understand that much foreshore and intertidal
heritage is covered by different Acts. For example
submerged Aboriginal material I believe is
covered by the Native Title Act. I think many
would like to see historic aircraft being included in
the Historic Shipwrecks Act.
I am keen to the positive movement forward in
this review of the Historic Shipwrecks Act. I wish
you the best of luck.
of the scope of the amendments the
government is currently proposing to the
Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981, particularly as
they relate to other pieces of legislation.
Specifically, your comments on
development are addressed under the
Development Regulations 2008 and
referrals in relation to archaeological
impact assessments are required under
these regulations.
Further, you may be interested to note that
the Heritage Places Act 1993 protects some
maritime related structures in South
Australia such as jetties and wharves based
on an assessment of significance.
In relation to underwater cultural heritage,
and recognising the need to preserve and
protect such heritage, UNESCO established
the Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2001. It is
worth noting that the Australian
Government has previously proposed a
redraft of its legislation to include
underwater cultural heritage which will
ultimately replace the Commonwealth’s
Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976.
It is currently unknown when these
amendments will be progressed, however
changes to the South Australian Historic
Shipwrecks Act 1981 to include underwater
cultural heritage may be expected to follow
in accordance with the Commonwealth
amendments.
Once again, thank you for your feedback
and please don’t hesitate to let us know if
you have any further queries or comments.
David Cowan Comment via YourSAy: Firstly, I agree with
changes such as increase of penalty amounts,
declaration of historic shipwrecks and powers of
inspectors. Secondly, I think the dissemination of
information about heritage matters such as
shipwrecks needs improvement and also needs to
an ongoing process. For example, the DEWNR
annual report for 2014-15 mentioned the return of
over 600 relics to local museums, the surveying of
three (presumably new-discovered) shipwrecks in
Thank you for that feedback David. Your
comments regarding the dissemination of
information on heritage matters is
appreciated and recognised as an area
requiring some improvement. I am pleased
to advise that the State Heritage Unit is
currently developing a customer
communication strategy and one
recommendation in the strategy will be
around increasing the profile of heritage
10
the South East and the issuing of 300 permits to
dive the Ex-HMAS Hobart. This information can
only be found by downloading the annual report
which is a document that most people would not
be aware of. Should not channels such as social
media be used to share this information in the
same matter as currently being used for the
Botanic Gardens and NPW Act reserves?
matters on social media which will include a
Facebook page as an option. In addition,
the State Heritage Unit is looking at ways
of improving its page on the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources
website in order to provide better
information. So please stay tuned as we
work towards improving the profile of
heritage across South Australia. Once again,
thank you for your feedback.
ABC South East Radio interview requested to discuss proposed Act
amendments including what the amendments
cover, how many shipwrecks along SA’s coast fall
within the protection of the Act, why the Act
needs to be amended etc.
Following the radio interview, media picked up the
following community response:
A maritime historian says the state’s shipwreck
protection laws need to be updated with bigger
fines for people who damage the historic vessels.
The Environment Department has released
proposed tougher penalties for public comment,
including boosting maximum fines from $5000 to
$20000. Most of the 800 shipwrecks recorded off
the state’s coasts are currently protected by
Commonwealth laws but about 270 fall under
state protection. Peter Christopher helped draft
the state’s Historic Shipwrecks Act and says those
local laws haven’t stayed in touch with
Commonwealth regulations.
Christopher: “I think there’s a level of
harmonisation going on where the
Commonwealth Act has been regularly updated
and what we’re looking at is South Australian
legislation and legislation in other states really I
think coming into line with each other.”
Beverley Voigt, Manager State Heritage
Unit participated in an interview which was
aired on 25 May 2016. A full transcript of
the interview is available upon request.
Vin Brown Question via Twitter: How many wrecks to we have
in SA
South Australia has a rich maritime history.
More than 800 shipwrecks have been
recorded along South Australia’s coast and
inland waters and approximately 270
wrecks have been declared under the
Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981.
SAPOL
Comments via written submission: I refer to your
correspondence dated 23 May 2016 which invited
feedback from SAPOL in relation to the Historic
Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.
11
SAPOL understands that the Bill predominantly
realigns penalty amounts in accordance with
contemporary standards and replaces various
other sections to enable better management of
the resources covered by the legislation. The
changes proposed in the Bill will have no adverse
impact on our operations and on this basis are
supported. SAPOL further notes that successful
progression of the Bill will precipitate the
introduction of new regulations and expiable
offences.
The introduction of expiable offences is an aspect
of the legislative change which does have the
potential to create an operational impact for
SAPOL. For this reason there is a requirement to
consult on the regulations during drafting.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Bill and we look forward to further contact in
relation to development of the regulations and
expiable offences.
Upper Spencer
Gulf
Recreational
Fishing
Committee
Comments via email: I recognise the importance
of protecting the sites and have no problem with
the proposed amendments
Australasian
Institute for
Maritime
Archaeology
(AIMA) Inc
Comments via written submission: AIMA supports
the increase to penalties to be more in line with
contemporary amounts. This increase in penalties
better reflects the seriousness of the offences and
should work as a strategy to deter offenders.
It is noted that most other jurisdictions cite
‘penalty units’ for offences rather than specific
dollar values, thereby making any future
adjustments for inflation easier without the need
to amend legislation. For this reason AIMA
recommends incorporating penalty units.
In regard to the types of penalties for offences
AIMA notes that section 25 (3) of the
Commonwealth’s Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976
provides for the forfeiture of a vessel or
equipment used in an offence. This is a provision
that provides a strong deterrent and may be
appropriate in more serious cases.
AIMA appreciates that an expiation system (on the
spot fine) will allow for efficient and expedient
compliance for more routine offences such as
anchoring on shipwrecks. AIMA has been assured
that the inspector will retain a level of discretion
12
and will make a determination based on the
severity of the offence whether it should be dealt
through the expiating system or be elevated.
The commitment to amend the Historic Shipwrecks
Act demonstrates a solid commitment from the
South Australian Government to protect its
historic shipwrecks. This should be applauded.
However historic shipwrecks constitute only part
of Australia’s rich Underwater Cultural Heritage.
There are many other types of significant
underwater sites, for example sunken aircraft and
archaeological remains of port infrastructure such
as jetties and piers.
The South Australian Government was a signatory
to the Australian Underwater Cultural Heritage
Intergovernmental Agreement 2010. This included
a commitment to meet international best practice,
as outlined in the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO
Convention on the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage. It also included a commitment
to administer State legislation to identify, protect,
manage, conserve and interpret historic
shipwrecks and other underwater cultural
heritage.
It is based on this commitment and international
best practice that AIMA recommends the South
Australia Government be inclusive in providing
suitable and effective protection of all of its
Underwater Cultural Heritage, and not only
historic shipwrecks.
PIRSA (Fisheries
and
Aquaculture)
Comment provided via email: Fisheries and
Aquaculture Division of PIRSA reviewed the draft
Bill and had no comment.
Australia
ICOMOS
Comments via written submission: Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on the proposed
amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981
(SA).
I provide this letter as a submission on behalf of
Australia ICOMOS. ICOMOS, the International
Council on Monuments and Sites, is a non-
government professional organisation that
promotes expertise in the conservation of cultural
heritage. ICOMOS is an advisory body to the
World Heritage Committee under the World
Heritage Convention. Australia ICOMOS, formed
in 1976, is one of over 100 national committees
throughout the world. Australia ICOMOS has over
600 members in a range of heritage professions.
We have expert members on a large number of
13
ICOMOS International Scientific Committees, as
well as on expert committees and boards in
Australia. We have a particular interest in
Australia’s world and national heritage places.
Proposed Amendments
Australia ICOMOS supports the proposed
amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981
(the Act), as outlined in the Background
Document. The amended delegations and powers
of inspection are positive changes to support the
protection of South Australia’s significant
shipwrecks and associated artefacts.
We recommend the use of penalty units rather
than monetary fines; however, we understand that
there is consistency with other Acts in South
Australia with this system. It is understood that
penalties under the Act
will be moved to the Historic Shipwrecks
Regulations 2014 following changes to the Act.
Recommended Future Changes
Underwater cultural heritage is not mentioned in
the Act. The Act does not protect underwater
cultural heritage items, such as sunken aircraft and
artefacts not associated with a shipwreck. The
UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted in 2001, is
yet to be ratified by the Australian Government.
Further changes are required to the Act to have
compliant legislation to ratify the Convention,
which would provide best practice management
of all underwater cultural heritage.
Thank you again for your consideration of the
views of Australia ICOMOS in this important issue.
Commonwealth
Department of
the Environment
and Energy
Comments via phone call (not verbatim):
Recommended repealing Section 21(3) of the Act
relating to the appointment of inspectors and
instead suggested the return of the inspector
cards should be a requirement for inspectors that
is explained as part of the training. Alternatives
may include an expiry of the authorisation after a
certain number of years or to make it an offence
to impersonate an inspector (i.e. for someone who
hasn’t returned the card after their authorisation
has expired or been revoked).
14
4 Analysis
Consideration has been given to the responses and comments raised through the YourSAy survey as well as the
feedback received through the discussion board on YourSAy, media, social media and written submissions. All
feedback (apart from the survey responses) has been acknowledged. Following is an analysis of the main
comments received.
There was clear support for the proposed penalty increases in the Act with only one survey respondent indicating
that an increase to penalties in the Act should not be made based on the impact to professional divers (see full
comment under section 3.1 above – response to Q1) and one survey respondent being unsure, believing that a
$500 penalty for not returning an identity card (for people who cease to be Inspectors under the Act) was too
much.
While there were minor comments received on the additional proposed amendments (the main ones are listed
below), they received general support. The additional proposed amendments are administrative in nature and
unlikely to have an impact on community members.
Streamlining of the declaration of historic shipwrecks, historic relics and protected zones under sections 4a, 5,
6 and 7 of the Act.
Powers of inspectors – section 22 of the Act in relation to powers of inspectors is proposed to be re-written and
broadened to bring it in line with other contemporary pieces of legislation containing similar provisions.
Delegation – amendment to the Minister’s ability to delegate any duties, functions or powers conferred to him
or her under other Acts.
There were a number of comments received in relation to Inspectors under the Act. In particular, comments
indicated that there should be more monitoring and increased compliance undertaken around our historic
shipwrecks and that there should be more Inspectors and an increase in funding for Inspectors. The general
consensus was that there was no point in increasing penalties unless appropriate monitoring was to take place
and unless the Act was going to be enforced accordingly. Comments also stated that compliance should be
balanced with other responsibilities of the Act. It is noted that some additional support for inspectors and
compliance work within DEWNR has begun with 12 additional inspector authorisations taking place in 2015.
Comments also indicated that there should be better information available about historic shipwrecks and that the
location of shipwrecks should be marked with permanent buoys. It is noted that the State Heritage Unit within
DEWNR is currently developing a communications strategy which will include recommendations for raising the
profile and increasing education around heritage related matters (including historic shipwrecks) across the state.
Further, while some shipwrecks are marked with permanent buoys, not all are, and there is no requirement under
the existing Act to do so. Technology such as GPS and data layers is considered a more cost effective and efficient
way of communicating a shipwreck location.
There were also a number of comments provided which were out of scope of the proposed legislative
amendments on this occasion. A number of these comments related to underwater cultural heritage. It is worth
noting that the Australian Government has previously proposed a redraft of its legislation to include underwater
cultural heritage which will ultimately replace the Commonwealth’s Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. It is not known
when these possible amendments will be progressed, however changes to the South Australian Historic Shipwrecks
Act 1981 to include underwater cultural heritage is anticipated to follow the Commonwealth amendments.
15
Further, in its consultation material, DEWNR highlighted that should the proposed amendments to the Act be
made, subsequent amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) would also be
necessary. Included in Clause 29(e) of the Bill is a proposal to fix expiation fees, not exceeding $750 for alleged
offences against the regulations. The ability for Historic Shipwreck Inspectors to issue on the spot fines (which are
currently not provided for at all in the current Act or Regulations) received strong positive support.
5 Summary and next steps
As a result of the feedback received, there are no additional amendments proposed to the Historic Shipwrecks
(Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. However, there were a number of constructive comments received (most
of which were outside the scope of the proposed amendments) which will be further considered by the State
Heritage Unit and potentially considered further as part of any future proposed Act amendments or as part of any
administrative or operational changes that can be made without legislative amendment.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation will be provided with a copy of this consultation
report for consideration prior to the draft Bill being finalised for introduction to Parliament. An update on the
consultation process will be included on the YourSAy website following finalisation of the draft Bill and this report
may be made available on the YourSAy site.
Following the Bill being assented to by the Governor in Executive Council, the process of amending the Historic
Shipwrecks Regulations 2014 will be progressed further.
16
Recommended