They state on their web page that if a vessel comes adrift from a mooring due to poor maintenance it could damage infrastructure, other vessels and the environment. Yes that is correct. The adrift vessel is responsible for any damage caused and is a mooring condition. Their argument that it cost Maritime money for salvage which could be used for boating infrastructure is very thin and we have yet to see Maritime salvage or tow a vessel.
Now what is wrong with this mooring and vessel audit?
Essentially nothing but the aims are inter alias; increase mooring compliance, remove mooring minders and reduce wait list for moorings plus some verbiage about a register of non-compliant vessels to protect secondary resale market purchases.
Where did all that come from? Million dollar water front house owners? Or may be the BIA members looking for more business via the RVAG committee?
Well lets look at the process.
Firstly the audit will be conducted by the local Boating Safety Officer (BSO) who, I am sure, has been adequately trained in inspecting moorings according to the NSW mooring standard…… but wait there is no standard, so how will they judge that it is non-compliant?
The BSO will audit your vessel to determine if they consider it to be seaworthy. OK by what standard? Sure it should have the correct markings and boatcode label but will the BOA check if the rig is in good condition or if the bilge pumps are working – no way. The FAQ have a set of defects that will attract a penalty notice but the majority are so subjective (hull and equipment in poor condition) that they would not pass in a court of law or even the pub test.
Now the outcome.
You will be issued with a non-compliance letter (certified mail requiring signature – joke) setting out the items to be rectified and the usual threat of fine and/or prosecution and a time-frame of usually 21 days.
If you object or cant meet the time conditions you have to contact the local BSO (yes the same one who issued the defect notice) to develop a “plan of action” to correct the non-compliance issues. The plan will have the items to be rectified and the schedule and has to be agreed by you and BSO!
When completed you have to provide proof of service and invoice from a qualified mooring contractor. Hello, what qualifications does this contractor have to have? There are none. RMS does not have a list and recommend you use the yellow pages! Or in respect of your vessel a qualified shipwright. Hello, have you seen one of those in a 100 nm radius of the Bay – no. Thankfully you can make a stat dec that you serviced the mooring yourself.
What are the consequences of doing nothing.
Maritime will issue you with a fine and a notice to remove the vessel – again certified mail requiring signature – more jokes by me. Can you appeal the audit and the mooring cancellation (assuming the legislation is changed) yes but to the very authority who issued the notice.
Now I understand this has been suggested to focus on Sydney area and the many mooring minders that hold mooring for when the owner can afford a better boat but the law is an ass and wrong.
Remove the 28 consecutive day restriction to say one year or permit the subletting of moorings (with notification) to a similar type of vessel. That would make proper use of the facilities.
Secondly, let the State through Maritime offer to take unused or not wanted vessels at no cost to the owner and to dispose of them via dismantling and recycling but not to auction. That would be a nice little business to be in and foster reuse of equipment. This along with the first suggestion will clear the mooring minders and unwanted vessels from the Sydney waterways. It worked in Florida and elsewhere in the USA so why cant it work here in Australia?
No comments:
Post a Comment