| Author |
 Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 review  |
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
 Posted - 04 August 2009 : 12:25:53 PM
|
In response the review of the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976
There have been 31 Respondents
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/shipwrecks/review/submissions.html
Approximate Break up of Respondents
Heritage Departments, Maritime Museums, Archaeologist and alike vested interests 18
Government Departments Excluding Heritage and alike 5
Diving Related 5
Individuals 2
Lawyers 1
Still going through them to extract the interesting parts
A couple of things that stand out
3 Government departments wanted their submissions to be confidential (great for openness in government)
A large push to strengthen the enforcement and penalties side
Several pushing for greater use of permits
No response from Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts as to several procedural issues raised last week as yet
And Darwin Sub Aqua Club rate a special mention for taking stuff of shipwrecks
|
|
|
The Phantom Wreck Rat
Dive-Oz Supporter
Wollongong
Australia
1488 Posts |
Posted - 04 August 2009 : 1:20:21 PM
|
Interesting reading. Some of the stuff written by the various govt departments and the museums in particular sound paranoid o the extreme.
They all sound like they are only interested in pushing their own barrow and couldnt give a hoot about anyone or anything else. Cant see much room for compromise in their statements which I guess is typical of any govt beaurocracy.
I wonder why the 3 from the dept environment wanted theirs 'confidential'? Great governement we have....kinda like 1930's Germany sometimes  |
|
|
PaulD
30+ Posts
Shoalhaven
Australia
63 Posts |
Posted - 04 August 2009 : 1:31:07 PM
|
| If this keeps going the way it is I can see only one outcome is going to happen for the diving fraternity.. That is all new wrecks discovered by divers will most likely be kept totally confidential so that they can be dived without going through all the crap associated with permits etc... I for sure would not report any wrecks I discovered if it meant that we could no longer dive them. |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 04 August 2009 : 4:07:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Wreck Rat
Interesting reading. Some of the stuff written by the various govt departments and the museums in particular sound paranoid o the extreme.
They all sound like they are only interested in pushing their own barrow and couldnt give a hoot about anyone or anything else. Cant see much room for compromise in their statements which I guess is typical of any govt beaurocracy.
I wonder why the 3 from the dept environment wanted theirs 'confidential'? Great governement we have....kinda like 1930's Germany sometimes
Got to agree with you phantom
Also got to share with you all one of the classics so far
Biggest cop out of all the review must go to 
Jim Gardner  Acting Executive Director of the Heritage Victoria who on official letterhead provides the biggest bureaucratic cop out there is
I provide the following response as the Federal Minister's Victorian delegate under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. The comments provided below do not necessarily represent those of the Victorian Government, the Department of Planning and Community Development or the Heritage Council of Victoria. I note that Daryl Jackson AO has written to you on this matter as the Chair of the heritage Council of Victoria.
So Jim are you giving it as an individual or are you providing this on behalf of the department so then you are putting forward the views as the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria or do you want your cake and want to eat it as well??
To give you a flavour of his comments
Many underwater archaeological sites are in unstable sediments subject to periodic erosion events, Relics dislodged as a result should have equal protection to those still in-situ. This would eliminate the "drift-dive excuse" used by looters who claim that objects actually removed from archaeological sites were found loose on the seabed while drift diving.
Ie find anything anywhere and pick it up you have disturbed a site so subject to prosecution (good thing I didnt pick up that dive reel 15 meters off a wreck on the weekend or I might have a case to answer to under this style of thinking
No. Shipwreck discoveries should be reported as soon as practical and within 7 days
So if travelling away from home, make sure to take the hotline number to report finding that new wreck, or if you see a anchor at any dive site make sure you report it just in case it is over 75 years old and the rest of a vessel may being laying around (or buried) somewhere better safe than sorry
The provision of monetary rewards reinforces two common misconceptions about shipwrecks:
1) that shipwreck finders should be reimbursed for time and expense incurred in locating wreck sites;
2) that finders should be compensated when legislation prohibits then, from taking ownership of wrecks or relics they have located
the ability to apply conditions to permits give great flexibility in achieving the protection of historic shipwrecks
Expect permits and fees if NSW is any guide these will only be given to commercial operators and shut out both clubs and individuals
Oops just read on a bit further
Heritage Victoria is currently completing an access policy for use in determining protected zone requirements and access
any public consultation??? or are you just going to regulate diving out (scuba tax by stealth?)
|
|
|
Adam T
150+ Posts
Tuggerawong
Australia
181 Posts |
Posted - 04 August 2009 : 4:19:37 PM
|
I knew this would happen, they had already made their decision. Its time for total non cooperation with these people. Its the only way to protect any future discoveries from Government interference. Big push for more penalties ! Wonderful. Its a good thing we live in a democratic country, we still have the right to have "dissenting thoughts"! |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 09:08:14 AM
|
OK one of the many many issues brought up in the review
Restricted Access
The push to limit your access to wrecks, many of the heritage departments and archaeologists have pushed this barrow. Several departments are currently actively using permit systems as defacto ways to prevent diving on wrecks by failing to issue permits to a number of individuals and or clubs
Examples of several of the statements associated with restricting access can be found below (several may sound somewhat OK (e.g. no diving where remains are but as most wrecks have had fatalities this is closing off a very large segments of dive able wrecks)
This is what you are looking forward to
Collections Council of Australia (CCA)
The CCA recommends the protection of human remains on or all sites of underwater cultural heritage by restricting access
Threshold elements of these plans, including access restrictions, priority conservation tasks and an indication of significance could be specified in legislation, with the view to more in-depths investigation and interpretation of certain sites in due course. Inclusion of elements of management plans on the publicly accessible register, particularly decisions regarding access and significance
Some wrecks and other sites of underwater cultural heritage should not be accessible, particularly those which contain human remains, and those which are not stable. The CCA believes that management plans for registered shipwrecks should make recommendations about their use and suitability for public access
Regulated dive tourism
Dr Silvano Jung Archaeological Consultancies
Access should be denied to sites that are known to contain human remains and to sites that have been recently discovered, but are yet to be assessed by archaeologists. Access, furthermore, should not be allowed at sites that have no management strategies in place
Heritage Council of Western Australia
The Office of the Heritage Council of Western Australia would suggest open access to most shipwrecks be discontinued and a permit system established.
However, these activities should be regulated, perhaps with the permit system discussed above, with clear, guidelines for allowable activities and periodic monitoring of sites to track impacts
Heritage Council of Victoria and Heritage Victoriato apply conditions to permits give great flexibility in achieving the protection of historic shipwrecks.
Heritage Victoria is currently completing an access policy for use in determining protected zone requirements and acces
Australian National Maritime Museum
new public access guidelines could look at these criteria
However, it should be carried out in such a way as to limit the potential impact of divers and their boats on underwater sites. Guidelines for anchoring on sites, encouraging 'live' boating, development of mooring facilities on popular sites, discouraging divers with 'poor' buoyancy control from visiting sensitive or fragile sites should all be looked at and appropriate guidelines developed.
Patrick J. O'Keefe Lyndel V. Prott
provided there is adequate supervision and all those participating are educated in the values of the underwater cultural heritage
Commercial enterprises that organize such tourism should be registered or licensed and required to abide by specified conditions. Staff must be knowledgeable in the requirements of the Act and its subsidiary regulations.
|
|
|
My-way
Dive-Oz Supporter 2008
Fantasy land
Australia
1811 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 10:08:02 AM
|
Permits = $$ into goverment revenues and the entirety of the $$ are unlikely to be directed into the activity that the permits are suppsed to be, in part, regulating.
As previously indicated, the experts, so called, seem to indicate that they, an no one else ought to be listened to.
As for the human remains, well, has anyone visted an historic cemetary and taken out a permit.
Petty empire buidling and attempted self justification their existence.
Can't see too many wrecks being reported in the future. |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 12:59:09 PM
|
Regulation & Training by my rules
From reading, the submissions there is also a strong push for all you divers to do yet another course to allow you to dive on their wrecks. Nice if you have the time it requires
Several organisations are pushing that access to wrecks and the issue of permits are restricted to people who have undertaken the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA/NAS)course. This course basically makes you do their work for them i.e. choose and wreck and fully document it for them
http://www.aima.iinet.net.au/frames/aimavtframe.html under courses
The Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA), in conjunction with the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS - United Kingdom), is now teaching a 4 part course series on maritime archaeology. (Part 1 - 2 days, Part 2 - 2 Days, Part 3 - 100 hours face to face, Part 4.12 Weeks)
Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
Educational programs such as the AIMA/NAS training course are valuable in educating people including dive charter operators, instructors etc.
Australian National Maritime Museum
Educational programs such as the AIMA/NAS training course are useful in educating people including dive instructors. Local maritime archaeological associations should be encouraged in those States, which don't have active associations.
Cosmos Archaeology
The support of a vocational training programmes such as AIMA/NAS Introduction to Maritime Archaeology as well as incorporating sections on maritime heritage protection in diving course curriculums.
Patrick J. O'Keefe Lyndel V. Prott
provided there is adequate supervision and all those participating are educated in the values of the underwater cultural heritage. For example
Staff must be knowledgeable in the requirements of the Act and its subsidiary regulations. Failure to observe conditions should lead to withdrawal of the licence
Western Australian Museum
The Act should state clearly that no physical inference, penetration, activities that disturb the site (e.g. boating, anchoring) or picking up/removing relics is permitted. Education/public programs including the AIMA/NAS program should be supported
|
|
|
ring23
Dive-Oz Supporter 2008
Sydney
Australia
1689 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 1:39:44 PM
|
Just what real impact will these laws have on most wreck dives, I wonder? Laws don't work if the government doesn't provide the money to enforce them. Just look at how poorly our marine reserves are enforced because of no money for fuel, etc for the services required to do these jobs. They may be able to enforce the laws on some of the most popular/accessible/historic wrecks, but in reality I doubt it will have much impact on most dives.
The laws will likely have a larger impact on reporting of new wrecks, not a good thing, and on those who want to remove bits from the wrecks, a good thing in my opinion.
Like most government initiative I'd expect lots of volume but little actual action to back it up.
EDIT: the AIMA/NAS program sounds great, but forcing everyone who wants to dive wrecks to do it sounds like petty empire building for under-worked bureaucrats. |
Edited by - ring23 on 05 August 2009 1:46:12 PM |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 4:21:10 PM
|
The biggest bug bear of mine in these submission is the reversal of millennia of legal law proposed by several of these@#$%!!!
It really does disgusts me what these people with such a low sense of what is morally right are suggesting 
Specifically
Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
Other aspects need to be addressed including reversing the onus of proof onto the person who has an object..
For example the onus of proof could be on a person with a relic, rather than an Inspector, to provide evidence that the relic did NOT come from an historic shipwreck site
Australian National Maritime Museum
For example the onus of proof could be on a person with a 'relic', rather than an Inspector, to provide evidence that the relic did NOT come from an historic shipwreck site.
Department of Planning Heritage Branch NSW
Other aspects need to be addressed including reversing the onus of proof onto the person who has an object
The onus of proof could be on a person with a relic, rather than an Inspector, to provide evidence that the relic did NOT come from an historic shipwreck site.
Maybe they should consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence, which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems (i.e. ours in Australia)
The burden of proof on the prosecutor (expressed in the Latin brocard ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat, "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"). This principle is known as the presumption of innocence, and is summed up with "innocent until proven guilty,"
This legal concept has just a little bit of history behind it. A little bit of quick research into this concept of innocent till proved guilty and the presumption of innocence, and you quickly find that it goes past England law, past Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Law, and, at least according to Greenleaf, to Deuteronomy (the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible and of the Old Testament the book several centuries after Moses time, to the late 7th century BC) throughout the law put down is a sense of justice. For example the demand for multiple witness (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)
Worth a look at the fuller history of the concept here http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
Maybe these crazy Archeologists need to study some ancient history and take a few classes on civil liberties, justice and equality?
P.S. the wording looks very similar I wonder if these glorified academics have ever head of the concept of plagiarism (use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud) wikipedia definition
|
Edited by - whodidwhat on 05 August 2009 4:28:32 PM |
|
|
The Phantom Wreck Rat
Dive-Oz Supporter
Wollongong
Australia
1488 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 6:03:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glug_glug_nauticalcircumstances where someone has artifacts they acknowledge come from a wreck or are trading or selling the items
Who is doing that or has done it or even seen it?? In almost 20 years of diving I have never ever heard of anyone selling an artifact from an historic wreck. This sounds like paranoia of the highest degree.
Please give me an example of someone trading or acknowledging they have an artifact from an australian wreck over 75 years old.
BTW. Do you really keep receipts of every item in your house/garage/possession to prove you didnt steal it?? A car and a house yes but everything?? I think not. So why should someone who buys a porthole or binnacle or other maritime paraphenalia from a market or from that shop down at the rocks have to prove they didnt steal it from a shipwreck?? Its really paranoid to think that the majority of divers visiting wrecks are stealing stuff and ignorant to believe the majority of divers visiting can even find stuff on wrecks in the first place.
|
|
|
sharks2stow
300+ Posts
Melbourne
Australia
349 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 6:23:15 PM
|
This is madness! I can't pick up an object on a drift dive because it might be historic! Then I have to prove it isn't.
And I thought they were already power mad...
A 2006 Fed Police dawn raid on 2 houses in Melbourne impounded a quantity of "stuff" supposedly pilfered from historic wrecks. After 2 years a letter from the DPP saying the 2 homeowners had no case to answer. A year later no response from Fed Police or Heritage as to when the non-offending items will be returned. After a written request to have all items returned, they recieved response from Govt Dept saying they were "seeking legal clarification in respect to the return of the items" It is now 3 1/2 years since the raid.
If anybody doubts the above scenario please feel free to contact me personally.
Sharks |
|
|
AB
600+ Posts
Queenscliff
Australia
1083 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 7:13:43 PM
|
Do you suppose the thousands of items held in museums storage areas have actually been declared? By that I mean, does each piece have the required documents to comply with the Acts? It is not uncommon for statutory bodies to assume they are not affected by legislation they create, so there are rarely any exemptions written in.
Alan |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 7:46:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glug_glug_nautical
I'm not employed by any of the respondents to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 review but I understand what's being said about the burden of proof re "that the relic did NOT come from an historic shipwreck site".
The Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Australian National Maritime Museum and Department of Planning Heritage Branch NSW are probably all referring to the same sort of circumstances where someone has artifacts they acknowledge come from a wreck or are trading or selling the items while claiming or inferring they come from a particular wreck.
Sorry but you are wrong
Go back and read the original submissions
In response the review of the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/shipwrecks/review/submissions.html
These comments come from
Question.23 Are the offence and penalty provisions appropriately framed to encourage compliance with the Act? Do they provide a satisfactory level of deterrence to provide for the adequate protection of matters covered in the Act? Are there other measures that should be incorporated into this Act to support the objectives of the Act?
and
Question.24 Does the Act contain a sufficient, comprehensive and appropriate range of enforcement mechanisms? Are those mechanisms capable of deterring and responding to contraventions of the Act? Are there any other measures which would assist to ensure compliance with the Act?
Not
Question.20 Should Australia ban all future trade in historic shipwreck relics or continue to allow trade in relics with proven provenance that have previously been traded?
Either way I stand by my feelings of great concern that these proponents are pushing to overthrow a legal concept of "innocent till proven guilty" and would be if this had to do with diving or any other activity. What next the loss of our right to remain silent from these @$$!!!
|
Edited by - whodidwhat on 05 August 2009 7:59:16 PM |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 8:16:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glug_glug_nautical
Well if they had a clue and read the current Historic Shipwreck Act all the authorities have to do is prove the items are from an Australian shipwreck over 75 years old to have reason to retain the items. Even if they can't identify the wreck names forensic proof of the age should easily be available attached to some of the items. 
The second hand ship chandlery near Tom Uglys Bridge at Sylvania regularly has items over 75 years old (i.e. 1930s vessel) (as well as a pile of other second hand boat bits) off vessels that are actively being scrapped.
How do you prove a bit of brass is off a legitimate vessel when this onus is reversed. How do you prove the age of a piece of brass (this is not easy not 74 not 76 years way too much CSI), how do you prove it is not of an Australian Vessel, How do you prove it is not a vessel that sunk
Again it is still morally bankrupt to reverse the onus of proof
|
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 8:16:50 PM
|
| Double post |
Edited by - whodidwhat on 05 August 2009 8:18:13 PM |
|
|
whodidwhat
30+ Posts
Sydney
Australia
99 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 8:32:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glug_glug_nautical
I see Question 23 you refer to :)
That's a bit like the cops demanding proof that the guy walking down the street at 3am wearing a balaclava and carrying a bag of breaking tools hasn't just pinched the plasma TV on his back and ditto all the other plasma TVs filling up their shed at home... 
My understanding is that the Police must still prove the items are stolen and not just assume they are and make the guy produce an invoice and if he cant then convict him
It could just be cold hence the balaclava and he is just carrying his tools home after work after stopping in at the pub having won the TV in the raffle
This is the whole concept of assumption of innocence |
|
|
The Phantom Wreck Rat
Dive-Oz Supporter
Wollongong
Australia
1488 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 9:36:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glug_glug_nautical
So e.g.
An inspector comes across divers at the boat ramp. They are dressed in wetsuits and are unloading 18C pottery and a bronze cannon covered in barnacles.
I agree, in this scenario they should probably have the book thrown at them but... what dreamworld do you live in? Where is this fantastic wreck with 18th C Pottery and Cannon just lying there waiting for some divers to come along? More importantly where are these divers? It just doesn't happen, or if it ever did it probably accounts for less than .0001% of all wreck dives undertaken in the last 50 years.
Even more importantly, even if they do exist, why tar all divers with the same brush if a very few break the law. Is it sensible to ban diving on wrecks because a minority do the wrong thing? I really think the powers that be are barking up the wrong tree here and should be engaging divers to assist with wreck monitoring, recording and archeology not marginalising them and making them all feel like guilty criminals. Divers are the greatest resource the museums and maritime history departments have bt they are not managing or utilising that resource properly. |
|
|
AB
600+ Posts
Queenscliff
Australia
1083 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 9:44:47 PM
|
The value of the presumption of innocence far outweighs any social benefit of any heritage value. That any interest group should plot to rob us of the basic rights which should be guaranteed in our constitution is at least disturbing. If this is the case, the heritage people have seriously lost touch with their relevance to society, and need to be stopped emphatically.
Alan |
|
|
ring23
Dive-Oz Supporter 2008
Sydney
Australia
1689 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 9:57:14 PM
|
Funny how you're all concerned about Question 23, I told you those 23's just keep coming back to get you!!!
Presumption of innocence should be inviolate. There is NO excuse for any government attempting to change this. If the courts can't prove you are guilty, then you are not guilty. It may not always give us verdicts we like, just look at the OJ trial, but better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is deprived of his liberty. |
Edited by - ring23 on 05 August 2009 9:58:04 PM |
|
|
The Phantom Wreck Rat
Dive-Oz Supporter
Wollongong
Australia
1488 Posts |
Posted - 05 August 2009 : 10:04:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ring23
Funny how you're all concerned about Question 23, I told you those 23's just keep coming back to get you!!!
Presumption of innocence should be inviolate. There is NO excuse for any government attempting to change this. If the courts can't prove you are guilty, then you are not guilty. It may not always give us verdicts we like, just look at the OJ trial, but better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is deprived of his liberty.
They are already doing this with members of so called 'bike gangs' so why not target divers next. Like 1930's Nazi Germany its easy to pick on a few fringe groups first, use them to change a few laws, for the good of the country of course, then the slippery slope starts. |
Edited by - The Phantom Wreck Rat on 05 August 2009 10:10:38 PM |
|
|
Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 review |
|
Topic Locked
