Search results

but whilst the powers that be have a view, unless that view is included in legislation, it's invalid

anyway just read the documents, you'll see what I mean gazette.slv.vic.gov.au/images/1914/V/general/66.pdf www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/ma189076.pdf would love to know your thoughts cheers

the Govt these days, with regard to legislation, seems to want to impose all of these responsibilities on users, but is not very upfront with regards to our entitlements

back when the original act was made, occupation of said land was intended to mean "somewhere to reside" occupation, meaning to reside for the purpose, of course, to have a bit of a dig and I haven't, as yet, seen anywhere the revocation of these rights, apart from the said waterways (back in...

modern legislative acts usually have a "definitions" category where various terms are given legal "weight" hence then common confusion regarding "exempted" rivers and streams, both amongst the prospecting fraternity and the bureaucrats I haven't seen in ANY Victorian Act any reference to...

the lands that are "excepted" from occupation for mining purposes are now designated as "for public use"

but for its context to be fully understood, one must look back to the original legislation of the Victorian Miner's Right which entitled the bearer to take up land associated with his/hers mining activities

found the legislation regarding "excepted" (not EXEMPTED) from occupation for mining purposes

been doing a bit of digging tonight :pickshovel:

I don't usually go about resurrecting dead threads, but with the discussion of "exempted rivers and streams" still going on to this day, thought I'd help to clear these muddy waters a bit

BTW just realised, after all the time I've been lurking here, that was my first post

hey all please excuse the following posts seems I'm not allowed to post links until I have 10 posts under my belt but you'll see why I am so determined cheers