You are not logged in.

  • Register to access all forum features  

#1

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 2,687
Member
16 October 2016 08:48 am

Recently there has been a staged repeal of the NSW Mining Regulation 2010. Staged repeal is a process that helps government ensure that regulations are up to date & modern.
As a result of this process the Mining Regulation 2010 has been repealed and remade as the Mining Regulation 2016. The only change to affect us is to clause 12(1) to link the offence regarding disturbance of soil, rock or other material to the actions of a “person”, in line with the existing obligation on a person in clause 12(2) regarding fossicking activities. There were no change to the requirements of the clause.

Clause 12 under the Draft Mining Regulation 2016 provides:
‘(1) A person who causes any soil, rock or other material to be disturbed in the course of work carried out for the purpose of fossicking for minerals must ensure that:
(a) the soil, rock or other material is removed and stockpiled separately, and (b) after completion of the work, the soil, rock or other material is replaced in order to reconstruct the original soil profile.’
The current clause 12 under the Mining Regulation 2010 provides:
‘(1) Any soil, rock or other material that is disturbed in the course of work carried out for the purpose of fossicking for minerals must:
(a) be removed and stockpiled separately, and
(b) after completion of the work, be replaced in order to reconstruct the original soil profile.’

As a whole the changes were insignificant to us as fossickers/prospectors but has highlighted that the Greens are not the only group that has an interest in seeing recreational fossicking/prospecting made more difficult or over regulated in NSW.

NSW Minerals Council  wrote:

The proposed amendments to clause 12 are not material but fossicking districts have recently been expanded yet fossicking is largely unregulated. Fossicking is similar to low impact exploration yet there is no requirement for fossickers to obtain written agreement with the landholder, demonstrate their identity or technical competence, pay for the privilege to the Government, provide a security deposit in case of poor rehabilitation nor require additional approvals for surface disturbing activities. The remake of the regulation is an opportunity for clearer regulation for fossicking. As in previous correspondence and submissions, this could include licences for fossickers (similar to the current NSW fishing or firearm licences) to at least provide proof of identity. Such licences are required in other Australian jurisdictions including Western Australia and Queensland.
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.a … ged-repeal

In response NSW Resources has noted the NSWMC concerns but said it was a new policy proposal beyond the scope of the Staged Repeal process.
I'm not sure where this will head or if indeed any new policy proposal will be looked at or acted on but it does highlight that we need to be mindful of what we are doing when out & about. We don't need to be giving these seemingly anti recreational groups any ammunition.
There were also no changes to any wording around the use of highbankers or moreso any clarification as to what is classed as "power operated" equipment for fossicking.
I know NAPFA have been working on this but it seems to either not been adapted or also deemed to be beyond the scope of the Staged Repeal process?


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

9 users like this post: Ivo, blisters, shivan, RM Outback, Reeks, jimnyjerry, Chewy, ChrisM, Detectist

#2

jimnyjerry
Member
From: Blue Mts
Joined: 30 December 2012
Posts: 230
Member
16 October 2016 09:09 pm

Thank you for the info mbasko. smile

Lets hope the do not want us at some later date to collect and replace worms etc in their burrows. big_smile

The NSW Minerals Council seem to want by their comments to be rid of us.
Do not they know that prospecting, fossicking and metal detecting organizations have a code of conduct let alone the one we agree to when we get a State Forest Fossicking permit.

End of rant. roll


I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.

1 user likes this post: mbasko

#3

mbasko
Member
From: Central West NSW
Joined: 27 January 2015
Posts: 2,687
Member
16 October 2016 10:34 pm

Yeah It would appear to me that they have their nose out of joint due to the designation of more fossicking districts which has removed the power of their members to deny fossicking on EL's! They have been opposing any changes to us requiring EL holder permission since it was pushed for.
Trying to compare recreational activities to exploration of any scale is just plain ridiculous IMO. Yes there may be some similarities in the very basic exploration techniques but most of us seek out relatively small patches of gold with our fingers crossed for that one off lucky find or multi gram/ounce patch with no realistic aspiration of discovering a multi million dollar deposit as exploration companies are looking for - or are they now seeking these multi gram/ounce patches out too lol .
I don't think they fully understand that we do it as a recreational pursuit not as a commercial interest or operation - why should we have to be licensed, show technical competence, pay for the privilege to the Government, provide a security deposit in case of poor rehabilitation or be required to get additional approvals for surface disturbing activities (these additional approvals for exploration relate to extraordinary sampling/bulk sampling & aren't even remotely relevant to us). They are kidding themselves & showing a complete lack of understanding of what exactly recreational fossicking/prospecting activities involve!
The hardest thing to swallow is that if they tried to understand what we're about a bit more we could actually work together in a lot of areas. Some of their ideas aren't totally out of the ballpark. A permit system wouldn't be the end of the world & an official DRE document for landholder permission that officially outlines legislated Landholder Indemnity could work in our favour when trying to get private property access? Having something in writing isn't a bad idea but there's nothing wrong with a handshake either.
Anyhow end of my rant to & hopefully we hear nothing more from the bulk of their submission.


Everything we use comes from mining or farming.

2 users like this post: Reeks, BigWave


Contact Us - Privacy Policy - Terms Of Service

View Desktop Site

Top