NSW Highbanking Illegal ..... so what is a Highbanker and Highbanking?

[reefer]

Haha..Ken. :8 :8 :8 What can I say! ] Your honour, In the matter of the FORUM POST SPACE. V's REEFER. It is my instruction from him in consideration of the facts brought before the court recently by the honourable member from Nowra, that it would be his intention , in light of the said facts,not withstanding the veracity or otherwise of anything he has said, claimed, or otherwise pontificated that he would in this case plead:GUILTY!

 

[MikeB05]

Been watching this thread.

Some writers effectively saying...don't do anythging ...let NAPFA have the space to represent us and be patient while they do so.....and others expressing their views and looking at legislation and interpretations etc.or just venting their frustrations.

The way some posts come across is 'either/ or'. Either support NAPFA and don't have and express a view...OR...express your view but don't draw NAPFA into it.

From my perspective why cant it be both.

I am happy to allow NAPFA to represent a view for all of us..... but that doesn't mean I am giving up having my own view or expressing same. If that's flogging a dead horse for some..then they are welcome to not read my opinion. They are also welcome not to tell me that I shouldnt express an opinion.

NAPFA and any organisatioin is only as strong as its members and their individual and collective view.

I would expect that NAPFA will welcome and absorb all comments, ideas and opinions from these pages, as it tells them what their members think and may offer lines of attack not currently in their arsenal. It may also tell them what non-membes of NPAFA think.

I think it is great to see a diversity of views, ideas and opinions...beyond please join NAPFA and then do nothing.

Again...just my view..survey of one.

 

[Tathradj]

We do read the forums.

 

[MikeB05]

We do read the forums.

Never doubted it Tathradj.

NAPFA has the great opporunity to see and consider a diversity of views on this subject which is great.

For me, seeing the varied views of many members is both informative and interesting.

This horse is not flogged just yet.

 

[madmulga2]

Been watching this thread.

Some writers effectively saying...don't do anythging ...let NAPFA have the space to represent us and be patient while they do so.....and others expressing their views and looking at legislation and interpretations etc.or just venting their frustrations.

The way some posts come across is 'either/ or'. Either support NAPFA and don't have and express a view...OR...express your view but don't draw NAPFA into it.

From my perspective why cant it be both.

I am happy to allow NAPFA to represent a view for all of us..... but that doesn't mean I am giving up having my own view or expressing same. If that's flogging a dead horse for some..then they are welcome to not read my opinion. They are also welcome not to tell me that I shouldnt express an opinion.

NAPFA and any organisatioin is only as strong as its members and their individual and collective view.

I would expect that NAPFA will welcome and absorb all comments, ideas and opinions from these pages, as it tells them what their members think and may offer lines of attack not currently in their arsenal. It may also tell them what non-membes of NPAFA think.

I think it is great to see a diversity of views, ideas and opinions...beyond please join NAPFA and then do nothing.

Again...just my view..survey of one.

With respect to others napfa has done little in the way of things only time you here from them is when something like this come up and its a mad rush join join there group i have been a member and will not rejoin unlike the pmav where i do get news letters from .Will this stop me from highbanking no i will still go to my spots and dig and dig use my pumps and my boxes to find gold .As this has been going on now for more then two year why has it not been put up early

 

[user 4485]

Highbanking rules/regulations has been discussed numerous times on here over the years NAPFA has been up & running with good input from them. Due to both NAPFA members & non members frequent questioning of what can & can't be done I believe prompted NAPFA to take this up a few years ago with NSW Resources (damned if you do, damned if you don't) - unfortunately its been NSW Resources that haven't come to the party.
It's been a long running & ongoing issue!! It hasn't just been put up now but has now become more of an issue after the NSW Resources Regulator recently declared a period of priority on compliance & enforcement on highbanking as an activity.
I don't really blame you for keeping on doing what you have always done but be prepared to be fined etc. if caught. I don't think they are mucking around!
For the record I get periodic updates from NAPFA throughout the year via email (Edit: these are also posted on various forums + their own website I believe). Sometimes due the volunteers having their own lives it might be awhile in between but they do come through. Maybe check your spam box & set NAPFA as a trusted sender? The PMAV has been running for over 30 years, is well supported in Victoria + interstate (I'm a NSW member) & also calls on member support when things dictate i.e. recent heritage issue & more Parks areas. NAPFA is only in it's infancy & needs more + ongoing support to succeed here in NSW. These are the times that we need to stick together not jump ship!! :|

 

[Tathradj]

Thanks Mbasko, :Y: :Y:
Yes, NAPFA has only been running since 2012 and the achievements gained in
this time frame speak for themselves.
The regulation enforces "Mechanical Processing"and that includes water pumps.
We can not do this our selves without the support of more members.
I am also a member of the PMAV as well.

 

[MikeB05]

It seems to me that the legislation (Regulation) banning power operated equipment (pump) for use in 'processing' is dated 2016.

It's not a new issue.

Not sure if anyone noticed the regulation back in 2016 but it seems that submissions by NAPFA (Sluicing Reports) didn't get enough traction to have the word 'processing' removed from the Regulation.

Those Sluicing Reports are great!!

Maybe the Regulation was just ignored...or some thought there was some kind of 'grey' aspect to what seems to be a pretty clear black and white regulation.

As Mbasko suggests....Isn't the current focus on highbanking in NSW just a response to the fact that the 2016 Regulation will be enforced. So up until now people were having a punt on nobody noticing pumps being used in processing

If someone does get fined and contests it and it ends up in court, then the outcome will be cemented as legal precedent for NSW.

In Qld, breaches of the Fossicking Act 1994 (yes it's that old!) can lead to additional penalties such as confiscation of fossicking equipment and even vehicles used when breaching the Act. So up here, its a risk business using pumps but it happens.

Anyway I look forward to NAPFA telling its members what its next approach will be on this issue. While I trust in NAPFA representing me...I still think there would be some benefit in individuals expressing their personal concern to their parliamentarians and local government representatives.

 

[Tathradj]

It is your decision on what you do in this world.
But, Doing the wrong thing like you say is just going to make it worse for us
all to sway the regulations.
It is also you who is going to be out of pocket by a large substantial sum of
money also when caught. And lose all your gear.
What is that going to prove. ???

Been watching this thread.

Some writers effectively saying...don't do anythging ...let NAPFA have the space to represent us and be patient while they do so.....and others expressing their views and looking at legislation and interpretations etc.or just venting their frustrations.

The way some posts come across is 'either/ or'. Either support NAPFA and don't have and express a view...OR...express your view but don't draw NAPFA into it.

From my perspective why cant it be both.

I am happy to allow NAPFA to represent a view for all of us..... but that doesn't mean I am giving up having my own view or expressing same. If that's flogging a dead horse for some..then they are welcome to not read my opinion. They are also welcome not to tell me that I shouldnt express an opinion.

NAPFA and any organisatioin is only as strong as its members and their individual and collective view.

I would expect that NAPFA will welcome and absorb all comments, ideas and opinions from these pages, as it tells them what their members think and may offer lines of attack not currently in their arsenal. It may also tell them what non-membes of NPAFA think.

I think it is great to see a diversity of views, ideas and opinions...beyond please join NAPFA and then do nothing.

Again...just my view..survey of one.

With respect to others napfa has done little in the way of things only time you here from them is when something like this come up and its a mad rush join join there group i have been a member and will not rejoin unlike the pmav where i do get news letters from .Will this stop me from highbanking no i will still go to my spots and dig and dig use my pumps and my boxes to find gold .As this has been going on now for more then two year why has it not been put up early

 

[Hairyman]

There are many ways to skin a cat other than by pulling its rectum over its head.

The submissions by NAPFA have my support but if you want action and decisions that actually work in our favour then the way to do that is via your local member. I have written to mine on one occasion and received a quick and satisfactory response on an access to crown land issue for fossicking.

I know how ministerial requests work having been on the receiving end of such requests.

There are two steps that must be addressed together. NAPFA have done one of those well. The other is up to individuals to politely bombard government members with requests for the NAPFA submission to be addressed with alacrity.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar in this world so take the time to write thoughtfully and ask for a simple issue to be resolved. Don't labour and confuse the issues. Do not just vent your your spleen. Be polite and keep it simple. After all, a real person - a bureaucrat - is on the end of the request and will colour his advice in response to how well and concisely you word the request.

Making it complicated just slows the response time. Keep it simple.

Be diplomatic. Diplomacy is the art of getting someone to agree with what you want but for them to think it is their idea.

Turn abusive or threatening and you will achieve nothing but getting what you deserve.

You can reference the NAPFA submissions as an attachment so there is no need to go over the same ground. The bureaucrat will be familiar with them. If not he will be able to look them up on the relevant file. There will be a file.

My current member is a minister so he will be getting such a request soon.

Write and send your request. If you don't step forward then you will always be in the same position. You have to understand that politicians respond to voters, though sometimes it's not always obvious.

Politicians versus bureaucrats? Why talk with the monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder. Pollies are there to represent us. Help them do that. The more voices then the higher the chance of success.

By all means become a member of NAPFA but there is no cost to email your local member.

Your choice - do nothing or spend one day to try to change the situation.

 

[reefer]

I hope what we have here is not a misunderstanding. I have no need to defend 7.62's comment about 'flogging a dead horse'. He is big enough and capable enough to do that himself.But it is evident that all the rhetoric under the sun, is not going to count one iota when the 'Compliance' arsehole hands you a ticket.And no amount of discourse here is going to change the wording of the mining act ...Article 12(c). In essence I think Ken was saying that everybody should just calm down and wait for Napfa to report back to us.There was no suggestion that inferred Napfa was flogging a dead horse!. Just making that point as clear as I can. :

Otherwise, I think discussing it here is a healthy outlet for a whole lot of frustration that this ridiculous situation is creating. I also hope that some Government Troll is listening in on this post and taking it all in, like the slimy grub he or she is!...Rest assured...we're coming at you!.. and sooner or later we're going to win!
The Force is with us..in our numbers, and we, Swear by the Southern Cross to Stand Truly by each other and fight for our rights and liberties!.Rossco..aka. Reefer.

 

[iamagoldenoldie2]

G'Day all
if a compliance regulator hands you a PIN and you have not questioned his/her actions at the offence site and taken your own contemporaneous notes on the interview, in the format of I said and he/she said, then your a shot duck, in the court that compliance officer will be considered as an expert witness and the magistrate will look at that in the same light, it will be a matter of interpretation of those grey areas with wording and the intent of legislation, I posted a suggested course of action that might cast doubt on the offence, the prosecution must demonstrate that the offence and supporting evidence is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I do not understand how one can suggest that NAPFA is not doing anything, in my opinion there has been a lot of research and work placed in the last submission, on the other hand , the parties looking at any submissions do not have to justify or record how they came to another conclusion , a quick read thru then filed accordingly .
I have read lots of comments on the forum which appears to me to a display of anarchy within the ranks, tp the policy writers thats good news, the mob are an unorganised rabble.
The best action you can take is to join NAPFA and let the association battle on on your behalf, and also discuss this issue with you local member, they are the people who are supposed to represent you in the Parliament.
my comments are from experience , now I am a retired regulator who wants to go high banking, legally .

 

[7.62marksman]

At this time it does not matter how anyone try to interpenetrate the law it was made so they win they is no way that any of us can bend the law to suite what we want to do
i am not by any means saying that we should stick our heads in the sand and give up what i am saying don't push the point with the law YOU WILL loose
they have it in black and white all you have is grey
let NAPFA sort it out just get behind them and help when they ask
don't make their life any harder then it already is

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY DONT
https://www.prospectingaustralia.co...5/1504584330_206-flog-a-dead-horse-visual.jpg
JMO mind you

Just to clear up any mistake on the way this was written
At no time did i accuse NAPFA of flogging a dead horse i am a member and i will stand behind anything that they ask me to do

That comment (flogging a dead horse) was made to all the people (bush lawyers out there) that THINK they can turn the wording of the LAW around to suite what they want to do
I have spoken to people in the law buisness showed them all the paper work i could get (and that was a lot) their comment to keep it clear and to the point so everyone understands "you get caught you are screwed" the law is on their side
Go ahead and do what you want because you WILL come out second best

Sorry if this sounds harsh but everyone out there knows right from wrong so get over it and get behind NAPFA and help them NOT hinder what they are doing by getting busted doing something illegal

 

[MikeB05]

For me the 2016 Regulation is crystal clear...no 'grey' for me...it's black and white...cant use power operated equipment for 'processing'.

Everyone is correct in stating that people should abide by the law (as written) and should not bend rules or ignore the law and if they do, they will get into trouble.

There is no argument that NAPFA has done some great submissions via sluicing reports but in the end NAPFA's submissions have not changed the wording or the intent of the 2016 Regulation.

When reading these posts in these threads I never read that NAPFA was flogging a dead horse...

What I read was 7.62 was telling everyone not to say anything (because they are flogging a dead horse) and just join NAPFA. His post above is now lecturing everyone...'you will come out second best'. Thanks but you are not the only one who can read legislation or talk to lawyers to try and sort out the law.

His view is a survey of one...just like mine or anyone else's view. His view counts just as much (but no more) than anyone else's view.

I still believe this forum provides an opportunity for all members to have their say (and not be shut down) and vent their frustration and even bounce around ideas..some of which will be good and probably some will be stupid...that's what makes it a great forum.

People having a vent on this forum and receiving feedback (and not being shut down or made wrong) might just provide them the balance to deter them from doing the wrong thing and ending up in trouble.

Where I do agree with 7.62 is suggesting members join and support NAPFA. I also think (survey of one) that members should write to their elected representatives and express concerns and missed opportunities arising from this ban (impact on tourism, revenue loss for small towns etc). I also think that members should complete the survey doing the rounds that will provide fact based data to assist taking this fight to the government.

Finally I am keen to keep seeing members express ideas and opinions on this matter...if only to keep the fires burning. For me, once the passion is lost in this matter..it could well be 'game over'.

 

[Tathradj]

Thanks MikeB05,
Constructive criticism is always appreciated. :Y: :Y:

 

[reefer]

Well!..I think we all agree on at least one or two things. Firstly, Napfa is best placed to obtain the change to Article 12. (C) that we want. Secondly, no one wants to break the law, even though the law is flawed and unfair.....Thirdly, some of us a prepared to say it like it is...depending on their point of view...ie, some would approach their grievance with the state of affairs in a pleasant and conciliatory manner, using all their powers of persuasion and diplomacy, political correctness,procedural awareness and the whole gambit of negotiating skills needed to prosecute an effective and favourable result.
These are the types we have to rely on to negotiate our cause.
On the other hand, the types who are...or are regarded as ..shall we say more militant, are a great thermometre of the temperature of the common members of forums such as this and of the population as a whole.
All to often the word 'Anarchy' is trotted out by people in authority whenever there is the slightest murmur of opposition to any interpretation of the substance of any law...even if that law is a bad one.
My interpretation of the word is that it is more purely, 'the absence of government and absolute freedom".(to do whatever takes your fancy, basically).And I have never been a proponent of that, have never been nor would I promote such a system.
It appears that all those who express opposition to matters of law or social justice are lumped into one pot and tarred with the same brush! It is an offensive word used by despots to stifle debate.
I'm not sure who happened upon the phrase:'WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW...RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY'.
But...never was a truer Phrase coined. ]

 

[golddiggerart]

 

[Hairyman]

In science, Power (Watts) is a measure of the time rate at which work is done or energy (Joules) is consumed. Logically then power operated equipment would be any equipment that consumes energy over some time interval. Simple enough.

There are many forms of energy chemical energy from hydrocarbon fuels (petrol etc) and chemical reactions (batteries) through to solar and potential and kinetic energy from the flow of water.

It also refers to the energy which we manually use to disturb the surface, excavate and process material by such equipment as shovels, sieves and pans. The loose terminology used in the Mining Act is not scientifically rigorous nor well defined or technically correct but more of a layman use of words. The confusion is made worse by differing interpretations and additional terms that some of the regulators make of the terminology. This is highlighted in the May 2017 NAPFA paper where they refer to bureaucratic use of such phrases as semi industrious and the use of words like processing.

If we use a proper scientific use of terms then any work we do and any energy we use, either manually or with the help of powered equipment in fossicking is technically forbidden. They all refer to the same expenditure of energy over time.

To repeat myself, in strict scientific terms, the manual wielding of a shovel etc is using powered equipment. The wording of the ACT should be precise but it is far from that. There should be no need to argue over layman or bureaucratic use of words. It should be spelt out precisely by clearly defined terms and words, not the current shambles where regulators can decide whatever suits their intentions at the time. It beyond reason to say on one hand that human powered hand operated shovels etc are okay and then forbid powered equipment.

If you think about it, to place a stream sluice in a creek and use the power of the water to process material will be the next thing they object to. Even if we ignore the the turbidity problem, this is sheer madness. Could not happen you say? Well, just watch this space.

Okay, you can say I am nitpicking but laws should be absolutely precise but in this case they are just a complete ***.

 

[reefer]

:Y: I totally concur with you on the points you raise Hairyman.. This is why the bloody-minded interference of the Compliance wing of the P.E.R.E. is so premature, immature, and downright draconian to say the least.
I would not be surprised in the least if it is also seen as 'revenue' grab as well.
I have often while out in the field, taken down my own notes on how far the turbidity trail endures after it enters the mainstream when the highbanker discharges directly into it(not good practice Iknow) but just so as to see what the true effect is.At no time, while processing the gravels and associated 'red clay' typical of material from Tuena CK. near Mt. Costigan did the dirt trail ever exceed 60 mts... And after shut down at no time did the turbidity exceed 20mins.Soon after that time, the creek returned to its pristine condition. So the turbidity angle that they trundle out has absolutely no long term consequence on either the creek or the ecosystem therein requires, for long term sustainability.Thier whole argument centered around the 'environment" is ill founded and not in anyway proven at all. We all know(without the requirement of a doctorate in Natural Science), that one moderate rain event will create turbidity lasting in the order of a week or even longer.
It introduces nutrients for aquatic plant forms, macro and micro fauna, for the fishies and many more species. In short..'turbidity' is good for the state of the system.Let's see them give us recent, reliable, and independent proof of any 'detrimental' evidence to the contrary!.

 

[HeadsUp]

I see a few members asking others from all states to join NAPFA and lend their concern and actions to the issue that has arisen in NSW where highbankers are deemed illegal.

In another post I said it was great that NAPFA is there to champion concerns and seek change in NSW and that in Qld we are not that organised.

To me, the problem in NSW is just another demonstration that we need a national body with state based chapters to recognise that each state and territory seems to have different laws.

A single national organisation would have some real clout and would address the concern expressed by some NSW members that other states should join them as the problem in NSW will just spread. It might or it might not spread to other states.

It's a real shame that when these issues arise, people don't care until it affects them. Now everyone in NSW are jumping up and down and would like those in other states to support them. I will be doing that...as a Queenslander I will join NAPFA and support its actions on this matter.

While there is so much focus on NSW and highbanking a little story.... on 29 Dec 2015 a Qld member of PA posted in the PA Forum a post called "Change.org Petition for Qld Fossickers" and asked all members to read, sign and pass it on.

As a matter of interest...that post got 15033 views and 169 responses.

Despite 15000 views, that petition (seeking improvements for fossickers in Qld and opening up of more fossicking areas) could not raise even 1000 signatures and still sits a couple of hundred short of the 1000 signature target that was hoped for.

18 months after asking for help from all PA members we are still struggling to make the petition effective and those championing it are frustrated to say the least.

I am hopeful that all members of PA will support NAPFA and get this ridiculous highbanking law changed. When that is done, Qld fossickers would also like some help.

I am suspicious when i see petitions or online polls , how do you know there wasnt 2000 responses but someone with prejudice deleted most of them from official records to obstruct us ?

We need to be vigilant for such skulduggery and if found , the perpetrators should have police complaints lodged against them.