What do we think (and play nicely)

[longbowinfected]

Jindy, you acknowledge a minor might be hunting on public land.
Perhaps Looseplucker can advise whether Public land or any of the other described places are indeed public places and whether they could be considered as public places as in the regs wrt restricting knives.
I strongly suspect that with such sloppy possibly contradicting legislation and regulations that every early case will be tested enthusiastically in the courts until a clearer picture evolves. All that will achieve is creating a feast for the naysayers as well as a huge number of folk who would not ordinarily express an opinion.

If anything goes wrong and a minor without immediate line of sight supervision has a problem and a gendarme believes they may have commited an offence the minor will not be likely to be able to claim that they were engaged in a lawful activity such as allowable and partially described in the regs controlling the carrying of knives.

From my reading of the regs a minor is not allowed to carry a knife in a public place. This might overule clauses which give rise to reasonable exceptions allowed to an adult. I strongly suspect none of the exceptions apply to minors. Whether they are engaged in an activity that would allow this carrying of a knife if they were an adult might not apply and could be open to question, and likely to be argued. Then the adult allowing them to go out kitted up could have a problem that might be argued. The responsible adult may have bought the knife and given it to the minor or been aware that a knife has been supplied.

It is potentially messy and problems might arise. I would be really interested in what guys like Looseplucker think about this.

The facts are that Fred Nile introduced the legislation about restricting knives because a there were aan increasing number of minors wearing knives as fashion accessories and that young people had been knifed to death. I think all parties supported this. That would have me believe that along with all the hype and zero tolerance comments from the pollies that the Police would engage situations involving minors on public land where a firearms offence may be thought to have occurred to go for the job lot wrt a minor not having reasonable cause if minors have that remedy available in the first place.......which I am yet to be convinced about.

I get very antsy about indemnity clauses and how they might be used. I get even more concerned about unintended consequences.

Kevin

[jindydiver]

Jindy, you acknowledge a minor might be hunting on public land.

Yes, but there is no blanket restriction on a child having a knife on public land, there are many exceptions.

The restriction on carriage and sale of knives is found within the Summery Offences Act 1988

There are indeed restrictions on carriage of knives, but there is the legal defence of "reasonable excuse".

I strongly suspect none of the exceptions apply to minors.

There is no difference based on age in any of the legislation until it deals with sales, there are no specific clauses making it any different for a child than for an adult when it deals with possession and control. You don't need to suspect anything, if it were true it would be plain to see. Division 2, Subdivision 1, go ahead and have a read and show me why it is illegal for a minor to carry a knife while legally hunting.

You said...

Minors are not allowed to buy knives or have them in public places.....in NSW

Now you say....

If anything goes wrong and a minor without immediate line of sight supervision has a problem and a gendarme believes they may have commited an offence the minor will not be likely to be able to claim that they were engaged in a lawful activity such as allowable and partially described in the regs controlling the carrying of knives.

In this case they have the defence of...

(b) the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances during travel to or from or incidental to an activity referred to in paragraph (a),

Any grey area will be removed by the changes proposed.
The minor will be carrying a permit allowing him to hunt on that land (without direct supervision from an adult, that being the purpose of the changes after all), and by default carry that knife. Anybody reading the regulations can see this is plainly so.
There are NO regulations specifically dealing with the control of a knife by a minor only with the sale or supply of that knife. The legislation specifically confers a right to carry a knife to that child while.....

(2) Without limitation, it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section for a person to have custody of a knife, if:......(iii) participation in a lawful entertainment, recreation or sport,

The purpose of the changes is to make the scenario you put up legal, it being illegal now (if the police can prove no direct supervision of a hunting activity) because of the requirement for direct supervision, not because children are treated differently in the Summery Offences Act.

[Roadie]

Morning All, At what age is a child considered not a child, and at what age does the parents Morall obligations cease.

[Rock Steady]

Morning All, At what age is a child considered not a child, and at what age does the parents Morall obligations cease.

1.Have a read, age varies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_cri ... _Australia.

2. Moral Obligations of parents? Does it ever end? I think it would be up to the parents morals and circumstances.

[looseplucker]

I still have an issue with the Fact that a Bankrupt person is considered not a fit person to go hunting, or allowed to let his child go hunting. In my opionion Aust is over regulated and under governed. Time for a coffee. Cheers Roadie

Roadie - I dont think that is quite the issue in the sense that it is a broad concept in terms of how things work with bankrupts. Probably a hangover back to the days of Debtor's Prisons. I did chase up a mate who works in the area and he said:

Technically speaking a bankrupt could give such an indemnity. However lots of State Governments when drawing up legislation concerning licensing put in a clause that forbids bankrupts from holding a license on reflex. There’s lots of things that bankrupts can’t do that seemingly have no connection with a person’s financial position.

For example a person cannot be a company director if they become bankrupt. I couldnt have a practising certificate as a lawyer if a bankrupt (or it might be subject to certain restrictions).

As for the carrying of a knife I have not looked at this yet, but will do so over the next couple of days.

For mine I think this is very much an ambit claim from a single issue party putting a price on their support for more general issues. In which case criticisms of other single issue parties, like the Greens, spring to mind. I don't think it is very clever and it has the potential to be a double edged sword/knife/broadhead etc

I may comment via the RIS process, time permitting.

[robmoore]

Is anybody going to respond via the RIS system to this proposed Regulation? It seems that, like Victoria where I come from, NSW has a Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 which requires the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Statement where affected persons can put in submissions as groups or individually commenting on the proposed Regulation...

Exactly... Thanks Dennis
That's why, when it was first announced, I requested and posted the information from the Game Council here:
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 85#p128085

I heard part of a radio interview with Brian Boyle explaining reasons for the proposal and requesting interested parties to make themselves aware of all information on the matter and how to properly respond to it. His interview is what prompted me to ask for, and attempt to publicise, the information. I have searched for an online copy of the interview to post here but I have only been able to locate unfavourably edited versions of that so far.

Bob

Looseplucker's post (unintentionally) moved the topic away from the original links to the Public Consultation Draft. In that first post, he stated:

I think I'd be OK with my young bloke out with a bow by himself, depending on the terrain etc - but not with a shooter until at least 15 or 16.

If , for example, his younger family members wished to apply for an R licence, they could not proceed without express knowledge and approval by a parent or legal guardian.

The possible change to the
The regulation update, if passed in the form of the Public Consultation Draft, consists of the original regulation, due to expire on 1st September 2012 but, with a change to the section relating to eligibilty for minors to hold an R licence. (It still specifically exludes the use of firearms.)

The new proposal would require the full knowledge and agreement of the minor's parent or legal guardian. This permission could be withdrawn by the parent or guardian at any time and the R licence would then be cancelled. On this basis, the parents of the minor decide if they are prepared to agree that the minor is able to apply. The minor must still meet all other criteria specified by the regulation.

I must have missed something. Many of our forum members would hold R licences. An R licence does not allow free access to hunt in public areas. Holders of an R licence can apply for conditional permits to hunt at specified dates in some specifed portions of some State Forests. I didn't yet find any recommendation for minors to simply wander into any public area waving guns and knives and in company of packs of wild dogs. That seems more like the distorted version portrayed by the anti-hunting brigade.

As to the bankruptcy clause, apparently that has been in the existing regulation which came into force in 2002. I gather it is common to other regulations and may have some historical legal significance. My budget is pretty small but I am not yet completely bankrupt so I don't wish to waste time worrying about its presence or absence in the regulation.

In some technical forums the acronym RTFM sometimes shows up. It means Read The Flamin' Manual or in this case please, first read the Public Consultation Draft and then, please do comment constructively in the appropriate way as requested on the DPI web site. (Dame Edna might add here "I mean this in the nicest possible way...")

Bob

[jindydiver]

Rob
I believe that when Looseplucker said

I think I'd be OK with my young bloke out with a bow by himself, depending on the terrain etc - but not with a shooter until at least 15 or 16.

(underlining mine)
He was talking in a more general sense about what HE would allow his bow to do, not commenting on what OTHERS should or should not be allowed to do. Like it or not though this type of post is what will colour many peoples view of the proposed changes because many people just read a few posts and not any source material before forming an opinion on what is proposed and just go with their gut. Already I have seen on a few forums where people are upset because "kids with guns shouldn't be allowed" or that "the changes will contradict the laws on people carrying knives in public", both claims being absolutely false.

[looseplucker]

Rob
I believe that when Looseplucker said

I think I'd be OK with my young bloke out with a bow by himself, depending on the terrain etc - but not with a shooter until at least 15 or 16.

(underlining mine)
He was talking in a more general sense about what HE would allow his bow to do, not commenting on what OTHERS should or should not be allowed to do. Like it or not though this type of post is what will colour many peoples view of the proposed changes because many people just read a few posts and not any source material before forming an opinion on what is proposed and just go with their gut. Already I have seen on a few forums where people are upset because "kids with guns shouldn't be allowed" or that "the changes will contradict the laws on people carrying knives in public", both claims being absolutely false.

That is pretty much it. I was also unintentional because I was not aware of Bob's post and did not intend to thread jack - I was raising the issue through the report in the media - I am certainly not commenting on what I think others ought do or be allowed or otherwise should be allowed to do.

Having said that I think the proposed regs are a silly idea largely because of how these things will be used to give hunters a whuppin on the first occasion that a minor who has been granted permission and all the rest of it suffers a mishap.

[Rock Steady]

Having said that I think the proposed regs are a silly idea largely because of how these things will be used to give hunters a whuppin on the first occasion that a minor who has been granted permission and all the rest of it suffers a mishap.

So when I am out hunting with my 16 year old son who has been in the bush since he was in nappies and we are making our way back down to the river I can not let him hunt the second ridge along and meet me at the river because if I did he would be unsupervised and we would be breaking the law?

I think that would be silly.

Michael

[looseplucker]

Having said that I think the proposed regs are a silly idea largely because of how these things will be used to give hunters a whuppin on the first occasion that a minor who has been granted permission and all the rest of it suffers a mishap.

So when I am out hunting with my 16 year old son who has been in the bush since he was in nappies and we are making our way back down to the river I can not let him hunt the second ridge along and meet me at the river because if I did he would be unsupervised and we would be breaking the law?

I think that would be silly.

Michael

No - that is not what I am saying at all.

[Rock Steady]

So are you for or against changing the law so that minors can hunt with a bow unsupervised?

[robmoore]

...Already I have seen on a few forums where people are upset because "kids with guns shouldn't be allowed" or that "the changes will contradict the laws on people carrying knives in public", both claims being absolutely false.

That is pretty much it. I was also unintentional because I was not aware of Bob's post and did not intend to thread jack - I was raising the issue through the report in the media - I am certainly not commenting on what I think others ought do or be allowed or otherwise should be allowed to do.

Having said that I think the proposed regs are a silly idea largely because of how these things will be used to give hunters a whuppin on the first occasion that a minor who has been granted permission and all the rest of it suffers a mishap.

Looseplucker, as you realise, I didn't become 'quivery-lipped' and interpret your post as thread jacking. I intentionally left my original post neutral and factual (I hoped). I didn't, and haven't yet expressed a personal opinion about the matter - and looseplucker, while you didn't set out to exagerate or sensationalise the issue, Mick (Jindydiver) was the only one so far who even responded to mine. As important as I thought this issue would be to our forum members, yours was the post which stimulated the emotions of the members. Even here, some of the discussion seems to be more about turning children loose with knives, guns and packs of wild dogs on public land or other public places, and concerns about why bankruptcy is mentioned in the Public Consultation Draft.

I had assumed that most of our forum members would hold R licences or at least be very much aware of the requirements, limitations and responsibilities imposed on licence holders. If any are not aware of the requirements they need only read the online document. Some of our forum discussion has been about items which are not part of the current regulation or of the Public Consultation Draft.

Anyway, this is becoming too long winded. Thanks Looseplucker, Jindydiver and Dennis for your efforts to steer our forum in a constructive direction.

Bob

[robmoore]

Having said that I think the proposed regs are a silly idea largely because of how these things will be used to give hunters a whuppin on the first occasion that a minor who has been granted permission and all the rest of it suffers a mishap.

So when I am out hunting with my 16 year old son who has been in the bush since he was in nappies and we are making our way back down to the river I can not let him hunt the second ridge along and meet me at the river because if I did he would be unsupervised and we would be breaking the law?

I think that would be silly.

Michael

If you both had R licences, and you had in your possession, the official written permission to be in that portion of that forest on that specific day, because he is still a minor, currently he would be required to remain with you and under your 'close personal supervision' at all times.

In that same situation, if you even allowed him to move away from you to complete a difficult stalk alone, under the existing regulation, he might be considered to be unsupervised and in breach of the conditions of his minor's R licence. There are certainly times when it is challenging enough for one to get up close and personal with an animal and two would jeopardise the chances of success. If that sounds trivial then compare it to allowing a learner driver to drive your vehicle unsupervised. At law, the person would be an unlicenced driver.

It is my understanding that that is one of the major reasons for suggesting this modification to the existing R licence section of the regulation for bowhunters. If a parent/guardian had the slightest doubt about the ability of their son or daughter to act responsibly in this situation they should not agree to the minor attempting the requirements and applying for the R licence.
In the case of the son you have described, I don't think you would hesitate to approve of him holding an R licence to be away from you while hunting.

Bob

[looseplucker]

So are you for or against changing the law so that minors can hunt with a bow unsupervised?

I am against it as I do not believe that the law changes are sufficiently well thought out.

BTW "indemnity" also might be construed as that if you give your minor permission, and that person is hurt, due to the negligence of the licencing organisation, GC, etc - then basically you've signed your kids rights away. That is a literal interpretation. I doubt that a court would uphold it - but why feed the legal system?

Moreover it also may mean that anything your kid does, even though purely an accident involving no negligence whatsoever and you've indemnified the GC, state of NSW. So guess what - they come after you. What does this mean? You could, at the high water mark, lose the family home - or go bankrupt.

I want to look at it all in the wider picture - would that minor be insured - or insurable. I'd like to check on that.

[jindydiver]

I want to look at it all in the wider picture - would that minor be insured - or insurable. I'd like to check on that.

You would expect so, the R licence having a liability insurance policy attached to it. It would be good to know though if a document signed by the parents accepting responsibility for the minor can be claimed by the insurer as an "out" if a claim is made against the child. Minors can't normally be sued for damages, can they, so the whole thing sounds a bit rubbery from that angle.

[Roadie]

Morning All, With regards to my NSW R licence, I have to provide documentation that I have done the appropatite courses and hold the revelent documents, so if my 12 year plus wants to go hunting he to must be able to prove he has acquired knowledge and competency required by the Game council and undertaken the neccessary training. so therefore if he is a member of an archery club shuoldn't he be covered by the insurances Etc. So for me the young person doing the hunting and carrying a knife,for hunting reasons is not an issue. Taking it to a school or a Blue light disco, NOW that is another isue.
OR have I got this ALL wrong. Cheers Roadie.

[looseplucker]

I want to look at it all in the wider picture - would that minor be insured - or insurable. I'd like to check on that.

You would expect so, the R licence having a liability insurance policy attached to it. It would be good to know though if a document signed by the parents accepting responsibility for the minor can be claimed by the insurer as an "out" if a claim is made against the child. Minors can't normally be sued for damages, can they, so the whole thing sounds a bit rubbery from that angle.

It is very rubbery - and unless the law has been changed in NSW a minor's rights re civil claims cannot be signed away - indeed, any compensation settlement for a minor required approval from a Court - so unless something drastic has happened in NSW then this is smoke and mirrors.

But if something drastic has happened then parents/guardians should be very careful what they sign re minors.

This is not "sky falling in". Simple scenario. You give your kid permission etc- all is groovy. Now somewhere along the line someone from the GC or state forests or whatever has stuffed something up - and your kid is hurt or hurts someone or damages property because of that stuff up....indemnity has been signed. Potential ouch there.

[longbowinfected]

I would also expect that if the insured acted negligently or in fact was found guilty of an offence that there would be no insurance cover.
In fact with my PI and PL insurance my insurer does not allow me to sign indemnity clauses, it is one of their standard terms and conditions. If a specific client wants indemnity I do not do any work for them as I have been advised by my solicitor that you basically have no comeback......so why sign off on it? There is already considerable onus and responsibilty attached.

Kevin

[jindydiver]

The insurance provided by the GC (and by SSAA and ABA and others) is third party insurance and it doesn't cover an insured person for personal injury to themselves while hunting, it only covers damages that you might be liable for through an accident during hunting (eg, a damaged building, car or watertank, or injury to a third party).
This is the only problem I see and the only issue I have with the proposal, if you as an adult take full responsibility for your child and all that they do (as required by this document the GC will require you to sign) does the insurer still take responsibility for the childs liabilities, or do they claim that the parent has full responsibility for all liabilities and the parents policy does not cover liability incurred by the child. I am afraid I have a very low opinion of insurance companies and I can see them denying any liability in respect of the child (after all you can't sue a minor) and then denying any liability in respect of the father because they insured the father, not the child.
I wonder if there have been any claims of this nature in the years since the GC started (junior hunters being allowed under "close personal supervision" from the very start).

[looseplucker]

And at the end of the day I would much prefer to be hunting with my young bloke than not.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Sad to say that the NSW Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 does not have anywhere near the level of safeguards against Executive rule that the Victorian system has.