Aussie Top 10

[Lizzy]

Hi Guys/Gals
A friend & I will be hiking Australia's 10 highest peaks in Kosciuszko NP in a few weeks time in an effort to raise much needed funding for Bowel Group for Kids (BGK). This group supports families of children who suffer from rare bowel conditions which often involve life-long problems and lots of hospital time. If you can help out in any way it would be greatly appreciated.
Please click on this link to visit my very own fundraising page to find out all about it. Please dig deep to sponsor me. It only takes a few seconds.
Thank you very much.
Liz

You can visit my fundraising page at
http://www.everydayhero.com.au/top10

[TerraMer]

Have you checked with the KNP aboriginal officer about access/permission? In general, it will be okay, depending on whether the local Ngarigo Nation are doing anything up there at the time.
Most of these top 10 are significant sites, some are sacred. I only know of a few hikers who respect this, most don't give a stuff about cultural sensitivities if it stands in the way of "bagging a peak".

[WarrenH]

The Aboriginal tribes that hold these mountains sacred, have sacred places in the mountains that include saddles, stone outcrops or sacred quarry sites and ceremonial grounds. The Aboriginal people only want other Aboriginal People to not either go there or not go above these sacred places. Only the spiritual leaders of the tribes and some senior elders can visit the summits of the sacred mountains or go above the tribe's sacred places.

The Aboriginal people have no qualms about non Aboriginal people visiting the summits or their sacred places nor does NSW National Parks, when the sacred places are treated respectfully.

If we choose not to go to the sacred sites, honouring the Old People and the current beliefs that's cool ... but no one is offended if we do.

There is one thing though. If we damage a site even unknowingly or accidentally as visitors nowadays, we can be prosecuted, upto $200,000 and upto 2 years goal for each offense. If a site is deliberately damaged the fines are $550,000 per offense and 5 years goal. Not upto 5 years goal but 5 years goal per offense. If a site is damaged by a commercial operation the minimum fine is $1,100,000. Also Park's Officers can issue large on the spot fines now and recommend further prosecution.

These changes to the Act became law in 2010. This was NSW Labour's last hurrah.

Warren.

[climberman]

I'm confused about needing any sort of permission to access any of the top of Australia's ten highest peaks. There is a road to one of them (the highest) and many of the others are on one of the most popular alpine walks in the country which must be done by 100 000 people a year (the lakes walk). Jagungal and the Rams Heads are likewise popularly visited and discussed in a range of NPWS literature, signs, etc guiding people there.

WarrenH - the change to the Act was a good thing, and about time. Previously the max penalty was about $800 was wilfully incurred by a couple from the NSW north Coast who bulldozed a known midden, one of the largest in the area. They had been advised of it's nature, importance and of the legislation. They made a specific enquiry about the maximum penalty. Sadly, even that maximum penalty was not enforced. I can't recall all the details but I think it had burials in it as well.

When new changes can be made an Aboriginal heritage and culture can have legal protection under it's own Act or in a combined heritage act, that'd be even better. I find it galling that Aboriginal Culture in this state is managed along with parks and cut flowers. Even threatened species have their own act.

Details would be on austlii.

[maddog]

WarrenH - the change to the Act was a good thing, and about time. Previously the max penalty was about $800 was wilfully incurred by a couple from the NSW north Coast who bulldozed a known midden, one of the largest in the area. They had been advised of it's nature, importance and of the legislation. They made a specific enquiry about the maximum penalty. Sadly, even that maximum penalty was not enforced. I can't recall all the details but I think it had burials in it as well.

Details would be on austlii.

From the details you provided it is quite likely such an activity would not be an offence under law today. Refer to the NPW Reg, s80B Defences:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... /s80b.html

The list of defences is reasonably comprehensive.

Cheers

[Lizzy]

we will be minimal impact, respectful but also joyful to be walking up there
and doing it for a good cause

[maddog]

we will be minimal impact, respectful but also joyful to be walking up there
and doing it for a good cause

I wish you luck in your harmless but worthwhile venture.

[climberman]

No, it would not have been minimal, or have a due diligence defence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/ ... 7/553.html

[Lizzy]

well this topic is associating me with damaging Aboriginal sites which is hardly what we are about so I think I may move off this topic and post elsewhere. Feel free to continue here...
cheers
Liz

[forest]

I think you will have a great trip for a great cause.

The few times I've been up there its been lovely. Can't remember seeing signs to not be up on a peak. Gees what do we have to do to keep everyone happy. Google everything now for a pass to be there.
Respect things for what they are and just enjoy. Its not like your out to trash the joint.

Have fun and be sure to post some pics.

[maddog]

No, it would not have been minimal, or have a due diligence defence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/ ... 7/553.html

Climberman,

Interesting case. The problem the defendants had in Plath v O'Neill, was that they knew that the site was an Aboriginal object, which brings them under s86(1) of the Act. If they had not known, they would likely be charged under 86(2), if at all, allowing the defences available under s80B of the Regulation to come into play. These defences include a wide range of agricultural activities, infrastructure maintenance, and a range of exempt or complying development. Hence:

is quite likely such an activity would not be an offence under law today.

.

I did not refer to intent.

You also state:

Sadly, even that maximum penalty was not enforced

So I take it that you disagree with the mercy shown by Judge Biscoe in properly considering the circumstances of the case - that the defendants property was devalued by approximately $45,000, that they had to pay the costs of the prosecution ( a further $40,000) and other relevant considerations should be taken into account in determining any further penalty?

Would you prefer mandatory sentencing in NSW?

But really, bushwalkers are unlikely to cause such damage, knowingly or not. Lucky for Lizzy, the definition of 'harm' (s 5 of the Act) does not include any act or omission that is 'trivial or negligible', so statements like this:

There is one thing though. If we damage a site even unknowingly or accidentally as visitors nowadays, we can be prosecuted, upto $200,000 and upto 2 years goal for each offense. If a site is deliberately damaged the fines are $550,000 per offense and 5 years goal. Not upto 5 years goal but 5 years goal per offense. If a site is damaged by a commercial operation the minimum fine is $1,100,000. Also Park's Officers can issue large on the spot fines now and recommend further prosecution.

are a little over the top in the current context. Lizzy should keep up the good work, and feel free to go on her walks without the fear of fine or imprisonment.

Cheers

[WarrenH]

.. are a little over the top in the current context. Lizzy should keep up the good work, and feel free to go on her walks without the fear of fine or imprisonment.

I rang National Parks on another issue about an Aboriginal site in the SE region that I wanted to add to the register, as possibly a new site and at the end of the conversation, I asked the officer about TerraMer's thoughts on the Sacred Places and our obligations in these mountains now. I asked had they changed and he mentioned due diligence when approaching all Aboriginal sites. I was then told of the changes to the ACT, that are most stringent with little to no wriggle room compared to the past. ... even unknowingly and unwittingly.

I suggest that before you fire from the hip with both your eyes closed maddog, ring NSW National Parks and ask them about our NEW obligations of having due diligence within the parks. I think that you might be in for a bit of a shock. Several cases are currently being assessed for prosecution, with several cases already prosecuted, since the 2010 changes.

If Lizzy feels affronted by what she read from me, its best she also rings National Parks. Every single one of us is in the same situation nowadays, that's not just vandals and others having or showing little consideration but all of us.

Good luck and be careful where you now tread or question what you pick-up to have a look at. I did write, in my first post, ... even unknowingly or accidentally.

Warren.

[maddog]

I am overwhelmed by the strength of your argument, WarrenH.

I now realise that the triviality and negligibility of any harm caused by bushwalking will be no defence to prosecution.

BTW it is gaol not goal.

Cheers

[WarrenH]

BTW it is gaol not goal.

Ok, but goal is jail ... or better still its prison.

Warren.

[Lizzy]

I have written a trip report if anyone is interested.
viewforum.php?f=47
Cheers
Liz

[Lizzy]

Think I stuffed that link- anyway it is in NSW trip report section

[durks]

Have you checked with the KNP aboriginal officer about access/permission? In general, it will be okay, depending on whether the local Ngarigo Nation are doing anything up there at the time ...

I've just noticed this thread and have been left confused.

Can somebody please clarify whether or not actual access restrictions do now apply to the KNP, or areas within it? If they do, can somebody point me in the direction of some info (i.e. a webpage) which describes those restrictions? (I have had a look at the National Parks website myself, but I can't find any definitive information.)

Thanks.

[climberman]

Durks, no.

[climberman]

Maddog,

I guess there's a distance between the sentence handed down and the introduction of mandatory sentencing in my view. no ?
They found out how important the site was and how much the fine was, and took the punt. If any good came out of their appalling action it was to force the gummints hand to amend the Act.

I agree with you regarding negligible impacts.

I deal with the interaction of infrastructure and Aboriginal cultural heritage in a professional context most every day, including consultation, AHIPS, testing, salvage and have been involved in commentary on the changes since they were proposed, the roll out of those changes from Parks, and have been involved in a few major infrastructure jobs dealing with consultation under the 2010 guidelines, and employ due diligence and the provision of advice and action on them regularly. Pretty comfortable with my interpretation of the current requirements. Pretty comfortable that walking on any of the highest ten peaks in oz is legally, morally or conceptually ok w.r.t. Aboriginal cultural heritage.

But hey, we all have to make our own minds up.

[durks]

climberman: Ok, thanks.