Consultation Report

Historic Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous)

Amendment Bill 2016

Prepared by the Conservation and Land Management Branch – July 2016

ii

Contents

1 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 3

2 CONSULTATION PROCESS 3

3 FEEDBACK RECEIVED 5

3.1 Survey Results 5

3.2 Public and Stakeholder Consultation 8

4 ANALYSIS 14

5 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 15

3

1 Background to proposed amendments

Amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 (the Act) have been proposed in response to the significant

number of reports of illegal activity received by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

(DEWNR).

This illegal activity has taken place particularly in the Marine Park Sanctuary Zones and around the Zanoni Historic

Shipwreck following increased compliance and monitoring of the sites with the introduction of fishing restrictions

which took effect in October 2014.

The proposed amendments to the Act include that all existing penalty amounts be increased to bring them in line

with contemporary measures. Whilst increasing penalty amounts was the primary driver for the amendments, it

was also opportunistic to consider a number of other minor amendments at the same time, which were mostly

administrative in nature.

DEWNR recognises the importance of South Australia’s shipwrecks and works towards helping to safeguard these

shipwrecks and relics for future generations.

2 Consultation process

A public consultation process inviting feedback on the Historic Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016

(the Bill) commenced on 20 May 2016 and closed on 24 June 2016. The following methods of consultation were

undertaken:

YourSAy consultation - open from 20 May until 24 June 2016 (included a survey for interested members of the

public to complete)

Advertisement published in The Advertiser on 28 May 2016

Letters to key stakeholders were sent on 23 May 2016. The key stakeholders contacted are listed in Table 1.

In addition, further stakeholders were identified throughout the consultation process and were contacted

directly and invited to provide feedback. The additional stakeholders included:

Mr David Steinberg, President, Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology

Ms Wendy Van Duivenvoorde, Flinders University, Department of Archaeology (Maritime)

Ms Deborah Lindsay, Australia ICOMOS, Executive Committee and SA Representative.

Article published in the DEWNR Good Living Blog on 17 June 2016.

Consultation promoted through the Department of Premier and Cabinet and DEWNR Twitter accounts.

4

Table 1

Contact Position Organisation

Mr Sean Sloan Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Primary Industries and Regions

SA

Mr Grant Stevens Commissioner for Police SAPOL Attn: Expiation Notice

Branch

Mr Grant Luckman Senior Program Officer -

Underwater Cultural Heritage

Department of Environment

Mr Kevin Jones Director South Australian Maritime

Museum

Mr David Ciaravolo Executive Director RecFish SA

Mr George Bolton General Manager Boating Industry Association of

SA Ltd.

Mr Matt Pinnegar Chief Executive Officer Local Government Association

Mr Marcel Vandergooot Secretary Adelaide Sportfishing Club

Mr Brian Andrew President SA Recreational Boating Council

Mr Geoff Thomas President Australian Anglers Association

(SA Division) Inc.

Mr Perry Will West Coast Recreational Fishing

Committee

Mr Alan Hall Upper Spencer Gulf Recreational

Fishing Committee

Mr Paul Davies Development Recreational

Fishing Committee

Mr John Marsh SA Game Fishing Association

Mr Jonathon Harper Australian National Sportfishing

Association

The Secretary Scuba Divers Federation of

South Australia

The Secretary Underwater Explorers Club of SA

Mr Steve Reynolds President Marine Life Society of South

Australia

5

3 Feedback received

3.1 Survey Results

There were 18 respondents to the survey on YourSAy. The survey questions and results are outlined below.

Penalties and Compliance

Q1: Do you believe the proposed adjustments in penalty amounts is fair and reasonable for activity

undertaken contrary to the legislation.

Answer choices Responses

Yes 88.89% (16)

No 5.56% (1)

Unsure 5.56% (1)

Total 18

Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:

Based on a recent view of the Commonwealth Act, the proposed adjustments would bring the SA Act in line with

the penalties required by the Commonwealth Act.

Higher penalties could only improve protection from the intentional degrading and destruction of underwater

cultural heritage.

The penalties needed to be updated as they were out of date.

Yes; certain individuals in the past have salvaged items from wrecks or have actually salvaged anchors with

impunity the wrecks are there for all divers etc and those interested not to a select few who profit from removal

of items also preservation costs and knowledge is out of the range of many people leave the items be in their

marine state

Comments from respondents who answered ‘unsure’:

A person who ceases to be an inspector must immediately return his or her identity card to the Minister -

section 21(3) What is immediately? I think $500 is too much. The rest seems fair though.

Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’:

The ability for professional divers with the permits will face harder times and abilities to show those interested

the ship and will in turn be fined on spot with thousands of dollars taken not to mention the equipment used by

those who own it.

Powers of Inspectors

Q2: Do you think that Historic Shipwreck Inspectors should have the power to issue on-the-spot fines.

Answer choices Responses

Yes 100% (18)

No 0.00% (0)

Unsure 0.00% (0)

Total 18

6

Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:

While selecting 'Yes', I think ‘on-the-spot’ fines should be reserved only for repeat offenders.

Without the threat of on-the-spot fines, the Act would be regarded as having 'no teeth'. Plus, convictions would

be more likely and less expensive from court costs, therefore resources are better spent.

This is the fastest and cheapest way to administer the fines, and is in keeping with approaches under other

legislation. More inspectors are also needed given the number of wrecks and the vast area over which they are

spread otherwise the changes to the legislation are meaningless.

This should be extended to include owners of vessels caught fishing within exclusion zones around historic wrecks

such as the Zanoni.

The current abilities of the inspectors are limited in the fact that they can not fine a person that is proven to be

conducting a non authorized dive with false papers.

Q3: Do you agree that Historic Shipwreck Inspectors should have the power to seize any equipment

suspected of being involved in an offence.

Answer choices Responses

Yes 83.33% (15)

No 11.11% (2)

Unsure 5.56% (1)

Total 18

Comments from respondents who answered ‘yes’:

While selecting 'Yes', I do think ‘the power to seize any equipment’ should be guided by a set of rules taking

account of matters such as legal precedence (i.e. enforcement practices under the NPWS Act and the Fisheries

Management Act et al).

This is in line with other legislation such as offences for illegal fishing etc.

Yes that includes all equipment used in the committing of the offence eg boats, trailers, towing vehicles [ie car, truck], scuba gear, recovery gear.

Yes because some equipment when used by those that are not allowed on the site can be used for many hours and have artefacts taken to a location that they can only get to.

Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’:

Must have PROOF Suspicion is not enough.

General

Q4: With regard to the proposed changes to the Act outlined in the information sheet (i.e relating to the

increase in penalty amounts, declaration of historic shipwrecks, powers of inspectors etc.), is there

anything we have missed that you think should be taken into account?

7

Comments from respondents:

No, not as far as I have been able to determine.

I believe higher penalties is a good start.

What are the provisions for "official" recovery of shipwreck material, such as items from the Zanoni and wrecks

around Kangaroo Island? Will these penalties and guidelines also be reviewed?

All efforts should be taken to mark the location of shipwrecks marker buoys etc.

No.

Artefacts that are in the possession of Museums and the like. Genuine interested parties (i.e. divers) are still able

to have access, nothing worse than sites protected but not able to be accessed, why bother having them if they

can’t be seen and enjoyed.

About time it was updated. Being an avid scuba diver, I have seen first hand the damage done to historic

shipwrecks by anglers dropping anchors too close to wrecks.

Most persons upon discovery of wrecks anchors will leave them take gps readings [if possible] take photos of the

artefact may take landmark shots [my friend and myself did that ]and contact the relevant authority asap

However, the authorities means of contact should be made more accessible eg waterproof cards that can be

carried conveniently by divers [that is now how artefacts are discovered yes gps in boats are more sophisticated

to sound out wrecks.

Q5: Do you have any further comment or feedback on what the government can do to help manage and

protect the State’s historic shipwrecks and relics?

Comments from respondents:

Information about the locations of shipwrecks should be better integrated into government documents such as

the following. Property Location Browser which is the main portal for property development has no layers for any

registered heritage items including shipwrecks, however information for particular shipwreck sites can be found

via the search function. Particular development plans (i.e. Land Not Within a Council Area (Coastal Waters) and

Land Not Within a Council Area (Metropolitan)) which cover parts of state waters do mention shipwrecks in the

text but do not show locations of sites on drawings & maps unlike development plans for terrestrial parts of the

state jurisdiction which show locations of sites registered under the State Heritage Act et al.

The Act would benefit from being brought into line with the impact on underwater cultural heritage from

increased growth in the industry/development sector. Archaeology assessments should be encouraged to be more

commonly integrated into larger environmental impact assessments. Protection of UCH would be further

enhanced with the definition being broadened to include: submerged buildings, aircraft, maritime related

structures such as jetties and wharves as well as prehistoric deposits and submerged aboriginal material.

More inspectors are also needed given the number of wrecks and the vast area over which they are spread

otherwise the changes to the legislation are meaningless. More public education, media coverage and

information about the shipwrecks is also needed including signage at boat ramps etc

Each site if they aren't already be well marked with permanent buoys / markers outlining what it is & brief

overview of the penalties for the various infringements.

Inspectors defiantly should have the ability to issue on the spot fines and charges should be recorded offences,

potential employers need to know if people will be a danger to historical or culturally significant areas as they

8

are held in trust for all the people of Australia. It is my property it is your property and I do not take lightly to the

destruction of my property.

Yes. More active monitoring, custodianship and interpretation of our historic shipwrecks please. The current low

level of support is not acceptable. It is one thing to increase penalties, but DEWNR must resource the other

aspects of the relevant acts properly.

Police it.... Great to have rules and regulations, but pointless if it’s not actioned, supported and enforced. A

toothless tiger without staff and infrastructure to ensure sites are protected.

Funding for inspectors may need to be increased.

3.2 Public and Stakeholder Consultation

The feedback below was received following public and stakeholder consultation via a number of sources including

the discussion board on YourSAy, media, Twitter and submissions from key stakeholders.

Contact/

Organisation

Feedback provided/query raised DEWNR response

Alec Mathieson Comment via YourSAy: Having been among the

first people to dive on the wreck of the Zanoni I

believe penalties should be increased for owners

of vessels caught fishing within protection zones

around historic wrecks. The damage they can

cause with anchors, crab nets and fishing lines can

be extensive. I also believe the Government

should play a bigger role in to promoting the

recovery of some selected significant items from

historic shipwrecks for preservation and public

display. This would help encourage greater public

involvement and interest.

Thanks for joining the discussion Alec. It’s

good to hear you think the government is

on the right track with increasing penalty

rates under the Historic Shipwrecks Act. As

you rightly point out, a lot of damage can

be caused to our precious shipwrecks as a

result of people illegally fishing within

protected zones and unfortunately much of

the damage caused is irreversible.

In relation to the recovery and preservation

of significant relics please note that in the

past the government has undertaken

excavations (including at the Zanoni site) in

order to recover and conserve certain relics.

Many of these relics are currently on

display in various museums throughout the

state. However, generally we consider best

practice to be in situ conservation rather

than undertaking excavations in order to

recover and conserve items.

Thanks again for your interest and

comments.

Alex Moss Comment via YourSAy: Increasing the penalties for

impacting on wreck sites and removal of

associated relics is important start to improving

the Act. Further improvements will come from

turning attention to direct and indirect impacts

from the development/industry sectors. The Act

would benefit to reflect impacts from increased

Thanks for your input Alex and for letting

us know we are on the right track with

regard to proposed amendments to the

Act, particularly in relation to penalties.

Your additional comments are valued,

however on this occasion they fall outside

9

growth in the resources sector. An emphasis could

be on the need for archaeology impact

assessments in the early stages of a development.

Major incentives would come from informing and

encouraging industry in matters of underwater

cultural heritage.

Benefits to protection of submerged heritage

material would also come from broadening the

definition of shipwrecks and related material to

include aircraft, submerged buildings, maritime

related structures (jetties, wharves etc) and

submerged landscapes.

Additional comment received:

Thanks for the reply to my comment. I understand

the status of the States and Territory of the

Australian Underwater Cultural Heritage

Intergovernmental Agreement, 2010 which aims

for the highest standards of international best

practice in accordance to the Annex of UNESCO

Convention for the Protection of Underwater

Cultural Heritage. The Commonwealth will be

taking the lead on this.

I believe that an opportunity for amendments

made to the SA Act could encourage the

promotion and encouragement for the ratification

of the convention sooner rather than later. It

would be fantastic to see the matter having wider

publicity and being brought to the attention of

the broader community.

I understand that much foreshore and intertidal

heritage is covered by different Acts. For example

submerged Aboriginal material I believe is

covered by the Native Title Act. I think many

would like to see historic aircraft being included in

the Historic Shipwrecks Act.

I am keen to the positive movement forward in

this review of the Historic Shipwrecks Act. I wish

you the best of luck.

of the scope of the amendments the

government is currently proposing to the

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981, particularly as

they relate to other pieces of legislation.

Specifically, your comments on

development are addressed under the

Development Regulations 2008 and

referrals in relation to archaeological

impact assessments are required under

these regulations.

Further, you may be interested to note that

the Heritage Places Act 1993 protects some

maritime related structures in South

Australia such as jetties and wharves based

on an assessment of significance.

In relation to underwater cultural heritage,

and recognising the need to preserve and

protect such heritage, UNESCO established

the Convention on the Protection of the

Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2001. It is

worth noting that the Australian

Government has previously proposed a

redraft of its legislation to include

underwater cultural heritage which will

ultimately replace the Commonwealth’s

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976.

It is currently unknown when these

amendments will be progressed, however

changes to the South Australian Historic

Shipwrecks Act 1981 to include underwater

cultural heritage may be expected to follow

in accordance with the Commonwealth

amendments.

Once again, thank you for your feedback

and please don’t hesitate to let us know if

you have any further queries or comments.

David Cowan Comment via YourSAy: Firstly, I agree with

changes such as increase of penalty amounts,

declaration of historic shipwrecks and powers of

inspectors. Secondly, I think the dissemination of

information about heritage matters such as

shipwrecks needs improvement and also needs to

an ongoing process. For example, the DEWNR

annual report for 2014-15 mentioned the return of

over 600 relics to local museums, the surveying of

three (presumably new-discovered) shipwrecks in

Thank you for that feedback David. Your

comments regarding the dissemination of

information on heritage matters is

appreciated and recognised as an area

requiring some improvement. I am pleased

to advise that the State Heritage Unit is

currently developing a customer

communication strategy and one

recommendation in the strategy will be

around increasing the profile of heritage

10

the South East and the issuing of 300 permits to

dive the Ex-HMAS Hobart. This information can

only be found by downloading the annual report

which is a document that most people would not

be aware of. Should not channels such as social

media be used to share this information in the

same matter as currently being used for the

Botanic Gardens and NPW Act reserves?

matters on social media which will include a

Facebook page as an option. In addition,

the State Heritage Unit is looking at ways

of improving its page on the Department of

Environment, Water and Natural Resources

website in order to provide better

information. So please stay tuned as we

work towards improving the profile of

heritage across South Australia. Once again,

thank you for your feedback.

ABC South East Radio interview requested to discuss proposed Act

amendments including what the amendments

cover, how many shipwrecks along SA’s coast fall

within the protection of the Act, why the Act

needs to be amended etc.

Following the radio interview, media picked up the

following community response:

A maritime historian says the state’s shipwreck

protection laws need to be updated with bigger

fines for people who damage the historic vessels.

The Environment Department has released

proposed tougher penalties for public comment,

including boosting maximum fines from $5000 to

$20000. Most of the 800 shipwrecks recorded off

the state’s coasts are currently protected by

Commonwealth laws but about 270 fall under

state protection. Peter Christopher helped draft

the state’s Historic Shipwrecks Act and says those

local laws haven’t stayed in touch with

Commonwealth regulations.

Christopher: “I think there’s a level of

harmonisation going on where the

Commonwealth Act has been regularly updated

and what we’re looking at is South Australian

legislation and legislation in other states really I

think coming into line with each other.”

Beverley Voigt, Manager State Heritage

Unit participated in an interview which was

aired on 25 May 2016. A full transcript of

the interview is available upon request.

Vin Brown Question via Twitter: How many wrecks to we have

in SA

South Australia has a rich maritime history.

More than 800 shipwrecks have been

recorded along South Australia’s coast and

inland waters and approximately 270

wrecks have been declared under the

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981.

SAPOL

Comments via written submission: I refer to your

correspondence dated 23 May 2016 which invited

feedback from SAPOL in relation to the Historic

Shipwrecks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.

11

SAPOL understands that the Bill predominantly

realigns penalty amounts in accordance with

contemporary standards and replaces various

other sections to enable better management of

the resources covered by the legislation. The

changes proposed in the Bill will have no adverse

impact on our operations and on this basis are

supported. SAPOL further notes that successful

progression of the Bill will precipitate the

introduction of new regulations and expiable

offences.

The introduction of expiable offences is an aspect

of the legislative change which does have the

potential to create an operational impact for

SAPOL. For this reason there is a requirement to

consult on the regulations during drafting.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the

Bill and we look forward to further contact in

relation to development of the regulations and

expiable offences.

Upper Spencer

Gulf

Recreational

Fishing

Committee

Comments via email: I recognise the importance

of protecting the sites and have no problem with

the proposed amendments

Australasian

Institute for

Maritime

Archaeology

(AIMA) Inc

Comments via written submission: AIMA supports

the increase to penalties to be more in line with

contemporary amounts. This increase in penalties

better reflects the seriousness of the offences and

should work as a strategy to deter offenders.

It is noted that most other jurisdictions cite

‘penalty units’ for offences rather than specific

dollar values, thereby making any future

adjustments for inflation easier without the need

to amend legislation. For this reason AIMA

recommends incorporating penalty units.

In regard to the types of penalties for offences

AIMA notes that section 25 (3) of the

Commonwealth’s Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976

provides for the forfeiture of a vessel or

equipment used in an offence. This is a provision

that provides a strong deterrent and may be

appropriate in more serious cases.

AIMA appreciates that an expiation system (on the

spot fine) will allow for efficient and expedient

compliance for more routine offences such as

anchoring on shipwrecks. AIMA has been assured

that the inspector will retain a level of discretion

12

and will make a determination based on the

severity of the offence whether it should be dealt

through the expiating system or be elevated.

The commitment to amend the Historic Shipwrecks

Act demonstrates a solid commitment from the

South Australian Government to protect its

historic shipwrecks. This should be applauded.

However historic shipwrecks constitute only part

of Australia’s rich Underwater Cultural Heritage.

There are many other types of significant

underwater sites, for example sunken aircraft and

archaeological remains of port infrastructure such

as jetties and piers.

The South Australian Government was a signatory

to the Australian Underwater Cultural Heritage

Intergovernmental Agreement 2010. This included

a commitment to meet international best practice,

as outlined in the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater

Cultural Heritage. It also included a commitment

to administer State legislation to identify, protect,

manage, conserve and interpret historic

shipwrecks and other underwater cultural

heritage.

It is based on this commitment and international

best practice that AIMA recommends the South

Australia Government be inclusive in providing

suitable and effective protection of all of its

Underwater Cultural Heritage, and not only

historic shipwrecks.

PIRSA (Fisheries

and

Aquaculture)

Comment provided via email: Fisheries and

Aquaculture Division of PIRSA reviewed the draft

Bill and had no comment.

Australia

ICOMOS

Comments via written submission: Thank you for

the opportunity to comment on the proposed

amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981

(SA).

I provide this letter as a submission on behalf of

Australia ICOMOS. ICOMOS, the International

Council on Monuments and Sites, is a non-

government professional organisation that

promotes expertise in the conservation of cultural

heritage. ICOMOS is an advisory body to the

World Heritage Committee under the World

Heritage Convention. Australia ICOMOS, formed

in 1976, is one of over 100 national committees

throughout the world. Australia ICOMOS has over

600 members in a range of heritage professions.

We have expert members on a large number of

13

ICOMOS International Scientific Committees, as

well as on expert committees and boards in

Australia. We have a particular interest in

Australia’s world and national heritage places.

Proposed Amendments

Australia ICOMOS supports the proposed

amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981

(the Act), as outlined in the Background

Document. The amended delegations and powers

of inspection are positive changes to support the

protection of South Australia’s significant

shipwrecks and associated artefacts.

We recommend the use of penalty units rather

than monetary fines; however, we understand that

there is consistency with other Acts in South

Australia with this system. It is understood that

penalties under the Act

will be moved to the Historic Shipwrecks

Regulations 2014 following changes to the Act.

Recommended Future Changes

Underwater cultural heritage is not mentioned in

the Act. The Act does not protect underwater

cultural heritage items, such as sunken aircraft and

artefacts not associated with a shipwreck. The

UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the

Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted in 2001, is

yet to be ratified by the Australian Government.

Further changes are required to the Act to have

compliant legislation to ratify the Convention,

which would provide best practice management

of all underwater cultural heritage.

Thank you again for your consideration of the

views of Australia ICOMOS in this important issue.

Commonwealth

Department of

the Environment

and Energy

Comments via phone call (not verbatim):

Recommended repealing Section 21(3) of the Act

relating to the appointment of inspectors and

instead suggested the return of the inspector

cards should be a requirement for inspectors that

is explained as part of the training. Alternatives

may include an expiry of the authorisation after a

certain number of years or to make it an offence

to impersonate an inspector (i.e. for someone who

hasn’t returned the card after their authorisation

has expired or been revoked).

14

4 Analysis

Consideration has been given to the responses and comments raised through the YourSAy survey as well as the

feedback received through the discussion board on YourSAy, media, social media and written submissions. All

feedback (apart from the survey responses) has been acknowledged. Following is an analysis of the main

comments received.

There was clear support for the proposed penalty increases in the Act with only one survey respondent indicating

that an increase to penalties in the Act should not be made based on the impact to professional divers (see full

comment under section 3.1 above – response to Q1) and one survey respondent being unsure, believing that a

$500 penalty for not returning an identity card (for people who cease to be Inspectors under the Act) was too

much.

While there were minor comments received on the additional proposed amendments (the main ones are listed

below), they received general support. The additional proposed amendments are administrative in nature and

unlikely to have an impact on community members.

Streamlining of the declaration of historic shipwrecks, historic relics and protected zones under sections 4a, 5,

6 and 7 of the Act.

Powers of inspectors – section 22 of the Act in relation to powers of inspectors is proposed to be re-written and

broadened to bring it in line with other contemporary pieces of legislation containing similar provisions.

Delegation – amendment to the Minister’s ability to delegate any duties, functions or powers conferred to him

or her under other Acts.

There were a number of comments received in relation to Inspectors under the Act. In particular, comments

indicated that there should be more monitoring and increased compliance undertaken around our historic

shipwrecks and that there should be more Inspectors and an increase in funding for Inspectors. The general

consensus was that there was no point in increasing penalties unless appropriate monitoring was to take place

and unless the Act was going to be enforced accordingly. Comments also stated that compliance should be

balanced with other responsibilities of the Act. It is noted that some additional support for inspectors and

compliance work within DEWNR has begun with 12 additional inspector authorisations taking place in 2015.

Comments also indicated that there should be better information available about historic shipwrecks and that the

location of shipwrecks should be marked with permanent buoys. It is noted that the State Heritage Unit within

DEWNR is currently developing a communications strategy which will include recommendations for raising the

profile and increasing education around heritage related matters (including historic shipwrecks) across the state.

Further, while some shipwrecks are marked with permanent buoys, not all are, and there is no requirement under

the existing Act to do so. Technology such as GPS and data layers is considered a more cost effective and efficient

way of communicating a shipwreck location.

There were also a number of comments provided which were out of scope of the proposed legislative

amendments on this occasion. A number of these comments related to underwater cultural heritage. It is worth

noting that the Australian Government has previously proposed a redraft of its legislation to include underwater

cultural heritage which will ultimately replace the Commonwealth’s Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. It is not known

when these possible amendments will be progressed, however changes to the South Australian Historic Shipwrecks

Act 1981 to include underwater cultural heritage is anticipated to follow the Commonwealth amendments.

15

Further, in its consultation material, DEWNR highlighted that should the proposed amendments to the Act be

made, subsequent amendments to the Historic Shipwrecks Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) would also be

necessary. Included in Clause 29(e) of the Bill is a proposal to fix expiation fees, not exceeding $750 for alleged

offences against the regulations. The ability for Historic Shipwreck Inspectors to issue on the spot fines (which are

currently not provided for at all in the current Act or Regulations) received strong positive support.

5 Summary and next steps

As a result of the feedback received, there are no additional amendments proposed to the Historic Shipwrecks

(Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. However, there were a number of constructive comments received (most

of which were outside the scope of the proposed amendments) which will be further considered by the State

Heritage Unit and potentially considered further as part of any future proposed Act amendments or as part of any

administrative or operational changes that can be made without legislative amendment.

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation will be provided with a copy of this consultation

report for consideration prior to the draft Bill being finalised for introduction to Parliament. An update on the

consultation process will be included on the YourSAy website following finalisation of the draft Bill and this report

may be made available on the YourSAy site.

Following the Bill being assented to by the Governor in Executive Council, the process of amending the Historic

Shipwrecks Regulations 2014 will be progressed further.

16