Page 1 of 3

Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:39 am
by Matt Flynn

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:08 am
by Lats
These permits really need to be easily accessible. Just walk into an office and get one. They also need to be cheap and be able to get 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 1 year permits. So many trips get cancelled or changed locations at the last minute due to weather

If it's made difficult people will just say frig it and go anyway

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:46 pm
by theodosius
So much uncertainty

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:35 pm
by theodosius
Plus NLC chair just resigned

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:22 am
by jeffish
We shouldn't have to pay to fish . Sure have a permit system for monitoring or what ever , but the Government should pick up the bill after all they started this cr.p by saying "SORRY" .

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:36 am
by Matt Flynn

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:04 pm
by ronje
Crunch time? Been coming for a while as a tactic.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:31 am
by BigT
Does this in anyway affect the lodge owners who have agreements with the local land owners?

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:19 pm
by ronje
Doubt it. They'd have land use agreements to bring in clients. I reckon you'd need a permit to fish in the intertidal zone or be a guest of the lodge and fall under their "umbrella".

Commercial fishos might/might not have their own land use agreements.

It was originally proposed that a 2 n mile buffer zone extended the inter-tidal zone way out but that was scrapped when Malcom Faser got in (luckliy for NT fishos). It was gunna be a lot worse.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:20 am
by BigT
Cheers Ronje. Thought as much.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:55 am
by shaggs
What are they going to do , lock me up. I doubt it. Who's going to police and enforce it?

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:25 am
by ronje
In other states, prosecution of an offence is open to anybody.

Its called a private prosecution.

It's not just police or other enforcement bodies who can start a proceeding.

I don't know if that's the case under NT law. If it is, the local TOs can do it, the NLC can do it on their behalf or any person could be hired to do it (ex-cop or lawyer etc).

Sure be interesting if that was introduced in NT. Sure be a way to increase pressure on Govt.

It can certainly be done in Qld. There was local discussion about that happening here with Darumbal elders considering it when Fisheries Dept was reluctant to stop some netting being carried out by younger Darumbal guys.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:41 am
by ronje
From the NT Law Handbook

A private citizen who lays a complaint must themselves pursue prosecution. Certain government departments, such as local councils, carry out their own prosecutions, providing their own lawyers for this purpose.

It might apply to the NT after all.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:03 am
by tristan.sloan
Guys, its probably worthwhile recognizing that Blue Mud Bay give TO's control of intertidal areas being defined as down to the 'mean' low tide mark. This can only be established by an extremely expensive bathometric survey and even then the low tide mark frequently shifts. Without an accurate and current bathometric survey to determine the 'mean' low tide mark it would be impossible to identify and prosecute potential trespassers.

Re: Permit system likely delayed

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:28 am
by ronje
The High Court decision of 2008 didn't define low tide at all. It merely nominated low water as the boundary.

The other thing is that this isn't NT legislation. What the NT Govt defines as low water (mean low water, lowest astronomical tide, mean low water springs or neaps) are definitions of last resort not first resort.

What we're dealing with here is basically trespass. Entering or remaining on tribal land.

As this ALRA (NT) 1978 Act is commonwealth legislation and, as it doesn't define low water, precedents (among other things) come into play. Other commonwealth legislation deals with low water boundaries eg Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and no bathometric surveys of the northern coastline of Qld have been undertaken. GBRMPA has had no problem prosecuting offenders in places like Shoalwater Bay on low water boundary issues.

Its been 10 years since the Blue Mud Bay decision and the NLC wants the NT Govt to talk to it about universal access (with conditions). Private organisations have negotiated individual land use agreements with fishing lodges being the most relevant.

So far, the NLC hasn't been satisfied with the way the NT Govt has been negotiating so its been ramping up the ante by reducing access. From the NLC perspective, patience is wearing thin and that's been signalled by a shorter extension.

If it keeps up, expect the Fed govt to tak to the NT Govt. By arrangement, there are several issues that the Fed Govt reserves the right to be involved in and aboriginal issues is one of them. Federal annual contribution towards monetary compensation for universal access may be part of the solution.

Still a way to go yet, it seems.

However, don't rule out private prosecutions. It would only take 1 to get the NT Govt's attention pretty quickly via the NT rec fishing reaction.

In cases like this (Federal law), the Commonwealth Dept of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can take over the court presentation once the private organisation gathers sufficient evidence.

The NT fisheries people wouldn't be involved.