Fines and Fees

[j3nk0]

Hello all,

I've followed this site for a good 5+ years now and think this is one of the best forums i've ever come across!

That being said i need to leverage off the collective wisdom here.
I have a quick question (trying to settle a debate at work) which i'm sure someone on here will know the answer to or at least point me in the right direction - or have the argument that supports a position either way.

Im a New South Welshman and i'm trying to understand under what NSW legislation exactly allows for the demand of
*entry fees/charges
*issuing fines etc in NSW National Parks.
Are these requests even legally enforceable? I've searched the NPWS website but can't find any info - i may just be having a boys look though
Under what act/clause can say a ranger issue a fine for small scale issues like camping in the wrong spot, walking off a track,going somewhere tapped/signed off or requiring for entry fees or vehicle permits etc?

My view is parks struggle enough with limited budgets so i'm generally happy to throw a dog a bone. But i'm also a stickler for rules (rules give the environment at least some protective status - so it works both ways). The conversation at works has hit a stone wall because neither party seems to really know the answer!

Can anyone help me out here?
Regards,

[DaveNoble]

I think you may have to download the relevant acts of parliament - e.g. the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act and its amendments etc to find all the details. I understand that a national park ranger has the powers of a "special constable" when inside a national park. And certainly if you do the wrong thing - like enter a closed national park or a restricted areas within a park or take a dog in a park then you could cop the fine (which I think is around $3,300). Another offence is now smoking within a park. I think separate acts apply for offence rating to total fire bans (and there are separate park fire bans) and endangering ecologically rare organisms or communities (where the fines can be over $200,000).

[michael_p]

I'm no legal expert.

A quick search of Austlii turned up a reference to the maximum penalty units for offenses here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... wr2009338/

There is also a reference to the max possible penalty in the 1974 act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... /s175.html

In NSW a penalty unit is $110. So times the max penalty units by $110 to get the max dollar penalty.

As Dave said. There are significant penalties for certain offenses. Here is a link to a fact sheet on Aboriginal heritage: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... facts3.pdf

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Fees are covered here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 0or%20fees

Cheers,
Michael.

[Supertramp]

Contact any of your local National Parks and Wildlife Service office's, I'm sure they'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Depending on the area you are in/and doing what you are doing, will determine if you can get a fine for being in said area/or doing what you are doing.

I know this being a ranger myself.

Referring to the act's/legislation would be your best bet.

[tastrax]

Lots of offences are probably covered by regulation 4 (by notice, signs etc). Failing to follow signs or notices.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... %20%20fees

Then there are oral directions as well under section 5

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... %20%20oral

Ignorance about signs or notices is not a defence (I think ...at least it is in Tassie)

[tastrax]

Camping regulations

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... %20%20camp

[ribuck]

Camping regulations

Thanks - I always wondered how long one was allowed to stay in a national park, and your link gives the answer (21 days at a time).

[Xplora]

I think you may have to download the relevant acts of parliament - e.g. the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act and its amendments etc to find all the details. I understand that a national park ranger has the powers of a "special constable" when inside a national park.

This is almost correct. Rangers are authorised officers under the Act but and the Act bestows powers on them while in a National Park and also outside a National Park. An authorised officer can execute a search warrant on a house for instance if they suspect an offence has occurred. This could be in relation to keeping protected fauna for example. Special Constables are something quite different altogether. You will see them at Police buildings and have a similar uniform to Police but the arm patch will state Special Constable. You also need to read the Regulations for the Act as they outline offences and fines.(http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/regul ... 09-427.pdf) If it is to settle an office argument then you need to have it in black and white and it clearly states they have power to charge fees, direct people and issue fines.

[ribuck]

These fines are all civil offenses rather than criminal offenses, right? They are summarily issued.

What happens if they are challenged in court? Can the penalty be increased? Can it be increased beyond the amounts specified in the regulations?

I'm sure many of the regulations have been broken by conservation activists over the years, and looking back many of those breaches are now considered to have been justified, principled and worthwhile.

[ribuck]

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/regulations/2009-427.pdf

Division 2, Section 7, Paragraph (5)a: A person must not open any gate, barrier, or similar device in a park

Seriously? I always close them again, but I have opened hundreds of gates in parks.

[Xplora]

Seriously? I always close them again, but I have opened hundreds of gates in parks.

Most gates in NP's will have a lock and I think they are the ones this regulation was put in place for. Everyone has the right to challenge any offence in court, whether by infringement, summons or arrest. When it says maximum penalty point then the court will take that into account but if you lose then you will also have to pay court costs. The court also has the right to reduce the fine. Conservation activists may have their cause justified in the end but during that process they have to weigh up the consequences of their civil disobedience. Justification of the cause does not change the facts they broke the law or even exonerate them. If you consider the cause worthy then you will pay the price and history will judge you.

[ribuck]

Thanks Xplora.

I'm also amused by the prohibition against being in possession of a fork whilst in a cave or rock overhang. Presumably they mean a digging fork. But in the case of knives there is a specific exemption for knives used in the preparation or consumption of food. There is no exemption for forks used in the preparation or consumption of food.

[Xplora]

Legislation can be amusing at times and I have read volumes over the years. Generally it is formed to deal with an issue and they hope to capture any loop holes. You should also consider that the legislation is administered by people and hopefully they have enough common sense to know when to enforce it. I know that is not always the case.

[j3nk0]

Thanks for all the replies!

It's been a couple of months now. It's fair to say I'm still reading. I was blown away about the volume of seemingly unrelated clauses, sub clauses, exempt and non expempt cross intersectional relationships these rules have! At the end of the day the work discussion essentially ended with - there needs to be a consolidation of these laws because forcing your average outdoors person who just wants to do the right thing to essentially become a pseudo law professor is not the intention of the words as they've been written.

Thanks again.

[kjbeath]

As well as the laws and regulations, there are the plans of management which define things like allowed campsites, which can then be overridden by a park manager. As well as NPWS other government bodies look after some things like roads, or exclusion zones for water supplies. In addition to all of this is case law, because if the law is unclear then someone may have taken it to one of the higher courts. That affects things like access.

When it comes to trivial offences, most magistrates will agree that a conviction should not be recorded, and possibly suggest to the police etc that they shouldn't waste the courts time.