Aussie Legal Hurdles (RTW) ???

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

You really are a stirring bugger aren't you

Funnily enough others had said the same in the past....

But I did give a pretty strong hint in the third sentence of the OP; intentionally included for the observant reader - like yourself

[Barra]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Doesn't mean it's legal, just that they aren't bothering you over it.

A 4-5hr sail that get's 12 miles offshore is likely to be taken much differently from a 3month round the world.

Interesting. So your saying that when i was fishing this week 15 NM offshore I was technically breaking multiple federal laws by not clearing out, not having my passport with me, not having an Australian registered boat, and not clearing back in???

its just that they dont bother to enforce it?

I think its more like the US situation posted earlier where round trips arent included and the question revolves around whether Chris's trip is legally the same as my fishing trip.

[Mirage Gecko]

Now I'm getting nervous with all this talk of non compliance.
I will be heading south from Whitsundays soon and due to soldier games at Showlwater Bay will need to be well outside the 12.05 limit and I do not have my passport,clearance papers and in fact we only have QLD rego.Where is my bloody licence and rego?
My boat spent a couple of years in China and the Singapore Navy will be joining the fun and games at SWBay will they remember the boat from back then and think we are doing a runner or the OZ guys might think we are spies.
I need a beer.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

Now I'm getting nervous with all this talk of non compliance.
I will be heading south from Whitsundays soon and due to soldier games at Showlwater Bay will need to be well outside the 12.05 limit

No you won't. The exclusion zone is at most 5 miles off Townsend Island and about 4 off the mainland. The 12 mile limit isn't from the mainland, it's from any Australia land including islands. Off Shoalwater Bay, it's actually an arc that runs 12 mile outside of High Peak Island to 12 miles outside of Dome island.

Edit: See this post for a simple rule to stay out of the no-go zone:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1918801

[Mirage Gecko]

Originally Posted by StuM

No you won't. The exclusion zone is at most 5 miles off Townsend Island and about 4 off the mainland. The 12 mile limit isn't from the mainland, it's from any Australia land including islands. Off Shoalwater Bay, it's actually an arc that runs 12 mile outside of High Peak Island to 12 miles outside of Dome island.

Edit: See this post for a simple rule to stay out of the no-go zone:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1918801

I'm only messing around with this BUT yes we will be more than 12.05 from any mainland or island if we do the course we are considering and the exclusion zone near High Peak is actually about 9 NM from the mainland.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Fremantle to Bass Strait ports by great circle..... ships don't 'clear out' for that trip....

Originally Posted by Wotname

Next time I have that chart in front of me, I will have to have a look at the GC route and where the Economic Zone line is

Good call El P, both the RL & GC route Freo to Bass St. extends seawards from the EEZ and all other Aussie maritime zones.

While Chris's voyage was somewhat tongue in cheek, fundamentally the issue is the same. If Freo to Bass St. doesn't require clearance, why should say Freo to Freo (the long way) require one. Both routes transverse exactly the same zones in the same manner.

Anyone know what government depart is the best / right one to ask - DEFAT or AMSA or ???

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Wotname

..

Anyone know what government depart is the best / right one to ask - DEFAT or AMSA or ???

Best to ask neither... ask any government functionary to make a decision and they will always default to the one least likely to come back and bite them on the bum....

[Rustic Charm]

I know this thread is tongue in cheek and hypothetical, but I'm starting to get a little confused about this whole 'clearing out' thing. why is this so hard to understand?

I see it as something that's as easy as travelling from Fremantle to Victoria by bus. That doesn't require 'clearing out either'

It's as simple as this, (I thought), if you are leaving Australian waters for 'another place' you must have clearance to do so. You leave Australian waters the moment you sail beyond the 12 mile border. That's the basic requirement, and it's a law that you can be fined if you ignore it.

As is common with many laws there are exemptions that apply to this law. And the exemptions are quite simple.

Your permitted to sail outside the 12 mile border without clearing out when transitting from one Australia place to another Australian place. Clearly Fremantle to Bass remains Australia to Australia. Are you seriously going to check to see if your going to need to clear out?

You can also leave the 12 mile limit to fish, to simply sail, to copulate outside Australia's sovereignty if you like. You don't need 'clearance' approval to do these things. You do expose yourself to quarantine laws however, if they so choose to board you.

Now, why can't you go from Fremantle and head west to 'Bass Strait' without clearing out? I'd suggest it's because you are travelling through other sovereign areas of responsibility to do that. Where as just crossing Australia's border whilst fishing, sailing or playing, your remaining within Australia's areas of responsibility including its search and rescue area of responsibility.

I'm not grasping why this is so difficult to grasp or am I missing something in this game

[Pelagic]

One legal aspect that has not been discussed as a qualifier for needing standard clearances in a RTW
..........is TIME. (at Sea)!

Perhaps amendments in the law mentions that.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Best to ask neither... ask any government functionary to make a decision and they will always default to the one least likely to come back and bite them on the bum....

That in effect is 'Cheating'
Governments are elected and empowered to interpret the Law and enforce their judgement......

From their perspective there are so many utility aspects to maintaining status quo, homeland security, customs and excise, that they would have no problem preventing Chris from starting a modern day legal smuggling. precedent.

[RaymondR]

Many decades ago there was an Australian Member of Parliament who applied for an Australian passport and was rejected on the basis that he did not meet the citizenship requirements. The person had two Australian born parents however he had been born in Britain during WW1. His father joined the diplomatic corps after the war and the person lived overseas and the whole family traveled on the fathers diplomatic papers. He joined the Australian army and served overseas during WW2 and then joined the diplomatic service. When he retired he returned to Australia, ran for parliament and won a seat. His problem was that he had never lived in Australia for the seven years required to qualify for an Australian passport even though born of Australian parents.

Never ever underestimate the complications which any interaction with a bureaucrat in Australia can throw up. Never expect them to know the laws and regulations in respect of any matter, and never expect them to comply with the laws and regulations even when they are bought to their attention.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

That in effect is 'Cheating'
Governments are elected and empowered to interpret the Law and enforce their judgement......

From their perspective there are so many utility aspects to maintaining status quo, homeland security, customs and excise, that they would have no problem preventing Chris from starting a modern day legal smuggling. precedent.

Exactly.... 'if in doubt say no' is SOP for guvment men...they wouldn't even think of researching it...

Ping..anarchist at large...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Exactly.... 'if in doubt say no' is SOP for guvment men...they wouldn't even think of researching it...

Ping..anarchist at large...

I think it is more..... Following the intent and purposes behind the published procedures.

However, more than one way to skin a cat...... Chris does not need to state her RTW Intent.

She can simply disappear for a few months, return to her mooring.... and if asked.... claim she got confused and a bit lost after bumping her head on the boom.

But Wotties challenge is that we try and set up a legal president of marine carrier exemptions, without contacting the authorities for their opinion and judgement.

That is just a circular argument

[Viking Sailor]

Hi Gang,

This has been a really fun read! As such, I feel compelled to take a leap and plop my size 14 viking sea boots right in the meddle of it...

Firstly, DNA testing would soon resolve any question of the relationship between Chris and the baby. So, momma and baby would not be separated (at least for along).

People do get separated from their passports all the time while traveling. It is inconvenient but not the end of the world. You have to fill out some forms and go to the right offices. You don't go to jail!

I don't know about OZ but in most places I have been to in this world people still interact largely based upon trust. If you tell someone that you went for a very long sail, didn't stop anywhere along the way, and didn't see any reason way you would needed a passport they tend to give you the benefit of the doubt. It is usually when someone tries to lie their way out of trouble that things end up in the crapper.

Best regards,

Paul

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

intent and purposes behind the published procedures.

Intent and purpose of published procedures is immaterial in this case, what matters is the law, not the policy. The "someone told me" and the "amsa website says" is useless drivel, only the law matters. I am not yet convinced that "place" includes a random "outside Australia's national waters" position, but I m keeping my powder dry till I finish review the case law etc.