While we are on the subject Anzac , there seems to be a group of SSAA
Military shooters ejected from Anzac have decided to take over SSAA
Silverdale Range and remove all traits of Benchrest ,if you want to keep your Range in good hands go to their special meeting and vote these people down ,branch stacking is a word for it . so all you Sydney members
give up your day/night out to save your range ..
If you dont go and vote ,dont whinge that you lost your range !
Anzac Range closed
Moderator: Mod
-
Surgeon
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:13 pm
- Location: Warners Bay
- Contact:
-
Tman
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:04 pm
- Contact:
-
Tman
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:04 pm
- Contact:
Please read the following update with regard to ANZAC range
NSWRA MALABAR RANGE UPDATE
MEMO: ALL NSWRA MEMBERS
FROM: JOHN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN NSWRA
SUBJECT: UPDATE TERMINATION NOTICE ANZAC RIFLE RANGE.
At the request of NSWRA a meeting was called Thursday last week 17th November in the offices of our lawyers Hunt&Hunt between the Commonwealth Dept of Finance and Deregulation (DOFAD the landlord) for Anzac Rifle Range Malabar, and us (NSWRA) to discuss the Termination of Occupancy Notice issued by DOFAD effective January 31st 2012.
Rick Ashton NSWRA Treasurer and Public Officer and myself together with our lawyer Jim Harrowell AM (Hunt&Hunt) were present on behalf of NSWRA with Matthew Roser from Blake Dawson (lawyers acting for the Commonwealth) Rachael Manley Legal Branch DOFAD and Adrian Kirk Director Property Branch DOFAD.
The purpose of the meeting was to put forward NSWRA’s position in relation to the circumstances surrounding the Termination Notice and the consequences for NSWRA members if it was enforced, with hopefully a resolve to the impasse beneficial to all parties.
Unfortunately I advise the meeting did not conclude on a positive note. The lawyer for the Commonwealth suggested if NSWRA was finding it impossible logistically to vacate the complex by this deadline then maybe an extension of “a couple of weeks” may be agreed to. This was completely unacceptable to us – we are not going to capitulate for even a couple of month’s extension.
Consequently our lawyers have been instructed to prepare to file for an injunction for a stay of proceedings pending our case challenging the Termination Notice on the grounds of not adhering to certain conditions in our Licence Agreement (Contract) and in fact relying on an “implied term” as such, in the Federal Court.
Hon. Bob Ellicott QC (a former Federal Attorney General) has been engaged as our Senior Counsel to fight our case and has expressed an opinion in so doing. His opinion has given us every confidence that we have a winnable case. We expect the injunction to be lodged sometime in the first week of December, unless of course in the interim the Commonwealth recognises that common sense should prevail and are prepared to compromise their unconscionable determination to decimate our sport.
Further announcements will be made as they come to hand and as I have stated previously you will be kept fully abreast of the proceedings – Do not listen to the “Chinese Whispers”!
John Fitzgerald,
Chairman,
NSWRA Inc.,
Ben
NSWRA MALABAR RANGE UPDATE
MEMO: ALL NSWRA MEMBERS
FROM: JOHN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN NSWRA
SUBJECT: UPDATE TERMINATION NOTICE ANZAC RIFLE RANGE.
At the request of NSWRA a meeting was called Thursday last week 17th November in the offices of our lawyers Hunt&Hunt between the Commonwealth Dept of Finance and Deregulation (DOFAD the landlord) for Anzac Rifle Range Malabar, and us (NSWRA) to discuss the Termination of Occupancy Notice issued by DOFAD effective January 31st 2012.
Rick Ashton NSWRA Treasurer and Public Officer and myself together with our lawyer Jim Harrowell AM (Hunt&Hunt) were present on behalf of NSWRA with Matthew Roser from Blake Dawson (lawyers acting for the Commonwealth) Rachael Manley Legal Branch DOFAD and Adrian Kirk Director Property Branch DOFAD.
The purpose of the meeting was to put forward NSWRA’s position in relation to the circumstances surrounding the Termination Notice and the consequences for NSWRA members if it was enforced, with hopefully a resolve to the impasse beneficial to all parties.
Unfortunately I advise the meeting did not conclude on a positive note. The lawyer for the Commonwealth suggested if NSWRA was finding it impossible logistically to vacate the complex by this deadline then maybe an extension of “a couple of weeks” may be agreed to. This was completely unacceptable to us – we are not going to capitulate for even a couple of month’s extension.
Consequently our lawyers have been instructed to prepare to file for an injunction for a stay of proceedings pending our case challenging the Termination Notice on the grounds of not adhering to certain conditions in our Licence Agreement (Contract) and in fact relying on an “implied term” as such, in the Federal Court.
Hon. Bob Ellicott QC (a former Federal Attorney General) has been engaged as our Senior Counsel to fight our case and has expressed an opinion in so doing. His opinion has given us every confidence that we have a winnable case. We expect the injunction to be lodged sometime in the first week of December, unless of course in the interim the Commonwealth recognises that common sense should prevail and are prepared to compromise their unconscionable determination to decimate our sport.
Further announcements will be made as they come to hand and as I have stated previously you will be kept fully abreast of the proceedings – Do not listen to the “Chinese Whispers”!
John Fitzgerald,
Chairman,
NSWRA Inc.,
Ben
-
Surgeon
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:13 pm
- Location: Warners Bay
- Contact:
-
M12LRPV
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
6shooter wrote:Any updates on the ANZAC Range? And Silverdale as well.
The latest on Malabar is on the NSWRA site. http://www.nswra.org.au/pages/NSWRA-NEWS.html
As for the SSAA, it's as it should be.... quiet, now that the chief trouble maker has been shown the door.
-
bobeager
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:29 pm
- Location: Goulburn NSW Australia
Any new news
The Court case was to be held last week. Does anyone have any updates on what transpired?
-
Tman
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:04 pm
- Contact:
Firstlly, From a legal point in all of this, these are my own observations and opinions and in no way constitute the actual legal position of either of the parties, and should not be construed to be such legal positions.
I went to the first day at the Supreme Court in the Equity Court, a number of shooters from the Service range, as well as members of the Executive of the NSWRA, ie John Fitzgerald and others present, very interesting arguments were presented by both sides, the Commonwealth's side of it very thin, I felt that the presiding judge was not overly convinced by their pitch, hopefully this will be the outcome in our favour.
Items discussed on the first day included the following;
The relationship between the Governments of the day and the changing rifle shooting movement from Volunteer Defence forces to the civilian riffle clubs and the provision of funds from the government to these bodies, even making mention of the documents till November of last year referring to relocation by the government, all of this seen to be a sign of good faith as such and a long standing relationship between the two parties.
The Commonwealth's argument in this was that since the disposal of the range was a policy item from back in 1986, and that government policy can not be obstructed, as it is connected to the Constitution, that this trumps any agreement or contract that the government may have entered into, and they can escape any obligation that may exist, ie. the relocation of the range etc. I got the impression that the Commonwealth are trying to rely on this but trying at the same time not to have it attached to Constitutional law, which if I am not mistaken would take it out of the NSW Supreme Court and into the Federal Court. In a way, to me, the Commonwealth is trying to get it both ways, and I got the impression that the presiding judge was not impressed by this.
Reference was also made by the Commonwealth to the Malabar Headland Protection Bill, and its implications once it is law, with special regard to Lot 2, the area behind the butts, that was handed over in March, and that there would be no conditions upon its use, ie restricted access during range use. The Commonwealth put the argument that the public good was being achieved by all of this area being made a National Park, as per Peter Garrett's policy platform and the furthering of government policy as mentioned previously by the Commonwealth. At no time in this, did they mention the fact of their obligation to the NSWRA not being fulfilled, just the goal of the public good and the creation of a national park.
Mention was made of remediation notices and suitable times for work to be done, and exactly what was a suitable time these works to be done, given the diverse nature of these items, especially with regard to asbestos, and other works. The judge picked up on this as well. In my own mind, the period of 14 days for some of these items is unreasonable given what has to be done, given my own industry experience. Reference was made to reasonable time being allowed for if required, as the the case of McKay v Dick, a part of contract law that deals with being reasonable under contract and good will, the good will aspect of this also referred to by our counsel with regard to the long standing relationship since earlier times between the Association/s and the Government.
Mention was made with regard to fire protection, and the so-called lack of this, in club huts and their polystyrene ceilings, including mention of the store, powder and ammunition being stored without supposed fire protection, and the inherent risks due to fire and safety issues.
One of the other things that was mentioned was the aspect of the Association being responsible for maintenance of these building, as a lessee as such, and then reference to the Association being an agent of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth being responsible for this work, with the Association being their agent to do this work. If I am not mistaken, you can't be both, you are the lessee and the landlord is responsible for maintenance, you might get the work done but they as the landlord have to pay you for it. This is the only aspect of agency that I can see, ultimately the Commonwealth is responsible even though you undertake the maintenance on their behalf.
There was also the question to if we have a lease or a licence and the nature of these, and the lack of this being kept up to date due to the circumstances at the time, this more so the fault of the government more than anything else, they would dispute that. To me a lease is for a property, a licence is to operate in some fashion on that property, ie a hotel, the building and the serving of alcohol on that property.
In all of this I have the impression that the Commonwealth will pursue the line of Government policy not being obstructed, but trying to stay away from the aspect of constitutional law, as well as not having to satisfy any contractual obligation or any aspect of good will, despite the relationship that has existing for the past 135 years or more because they are the government and they don't have to, as well as the aspect of supposed non-compliance to remediation notices, this being a breach in the agreement supposedly giving them grounds to void it, in pursuit of the public good by the creation of a national park, with no mention of how they would or could afford remediation of the site.
These are my own observations of the first day, I would have liked to have been there today to see where it has progressed to, my hope in this being that we can stay there and from time to time access to the headland is restricted during range use, so that it is shared in some fashion or that we get the green light for Cecil Park. The Commonwealth does not see the good will aspect of this or their responsibility. It is interesting to note that they expect this of their constituency when there is an election on, but are not prepared to give it in return.
From a legal point in all of this, these are my own observations and opinions and in no way constitute the actual legal position of either of the parties, and should not be construed to be such legal positions.
In due course, the court will decide the legal position of all of this and where it goes from here
I went to the first day at the Supreme Court in the Equity Court, a number of shooters from the Service range, as well as members of the Executive of the NSWRA, ie John Fitzgerald and others present, very interesting arguments were presented by both sides, the Commonwealth's side of it very thin, I felt that the presiding judge was not overly convinced by their pitch, hopefully this will be the outcome in our favour.
Items discussed on the first day included the following;
The relationship between the Governments of the day and the changing rifle shooting movement from Volunteer Defence forces to the civilian riffle clubs and the provision of funds from the government to these bodies, even making mention of the documents till November of last year referring to relocation by the government, all of this seen to be a sign of good faith as such and a long standing relationship between the two parties.
The Commonwealth's argument in this was that since the disposal of the range was a policy item from back in 1986, and that government policy can not be obstructed, as it is connected to the Constitution, that this trumps any agreement or contract that the government may have entered into, and they can escape any obligation that may exist, ie. the relocation of the range etc. I got the impression that the Commonwealth are trying to rely on this but trying at the same time not to have it attached to Constitutional law, which if I am not mistaken would take it out of the NSW Supreme Court and into the Federal Court. In a way, to me, the Commonwealth is trying to get it both ways, and I got the impression that the presiding judge was not impressed by this.
Reference was also made by the Commonwealth to the Malabar Headland Protection Bill, and its implications once it is law, with special regard to Lot 2, the area behind the butts, that was handed over in March, and that there would be no conditions upon its use, ie restricted access during range use. The Commonwealth put the argument that the public good was being achieved by all of this area being made a National Park, as per Peter Garrett's policy platform and the furthering of government policy as mentioned previously by the Commonwealth. At no time in this, did they mention the fact of their obligation to the NSWRA not being fulfilled, just the goal of the public good and the creation of a national park.
Mention was made of remediation notices and suitable times for work to be done, and exactly what was a suitable time these works to be done, given the diverse nature of these items, especially with regard to asbestos, and other works. The judge picked up on this as well. In my own mind, the period of 14 days for some of these items is unreasonable given what has to be done, given my own industry experience. Reference was made to reasonable time being allowed for if required, as the the case of McKay v Dick, a part of contract law that deals with being reasonable under contract and good will, the good will aspect of this also referred to by our counsel with regard to the long standing relationship since earlier times between the Association/s and the Government.
Mention was made with regard to fire protection, and the so-called lack of this, in club huts and their polystyrene ceilings, including mention of the store, powder and ammunition being stored without supposed fire protection, and the inherent risks due to fire and safety issues.
One of the other things that was mentioned was the aspect of the Association being responsible for maintenance of these building, as a lessee as such, and then reference to the Association being an agent of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth being responsible for this work, with the Association being their agent to do this work. If I am not mistaken, you can't be both, you are the lessee and the landlord is responsible for maintenance, you might get the work done but they as the landlord have to pay you for it. This is the only aspect of agency that I can see, ultimately the Commonwealth is responsible even though you undertake the maintenance on their behalf.
There was also the question to if we have a lease or a licence and the nature of these, and the lack of this being kept up to date due to the circumstances at the time, this more so the fault of the government more than anything else, they would dispute that. To me a lease is for a property, a licence is to operate in some fashion on that property, ie a hotel, the building and the serving of alcohol on that property.
In all of this I have the impression that the Commonwealth will pursue the line of Government policy not being obstructed, but trying to stay away from the aspect of constitutional law, as well as not having to satisfy any contractual obligation or any aspect of good will, despite the relationship that has existing for the past 135 years or more because they are the government and they don't have to, as well as the aspect of supposed non-compliance to remediation notices, this being a breach in the agreement supposedly giving them grounds to void it, in pursuit of the public good by the creation of a national park, with no mention of how they would or could afford remediation of the site.
These are my own observations of the first day, I would have liked to have been there today to see where it has progressed to, my hope in this being that we can stay there and from time to time access to the headland is restricted during range use, so that it is shared in some fashion or that we get the green light for Cecil Park. The Commonwealth does not see the good will aspect of this or their responsibility. It is interesting to note that they expect this of their constituency when there is an election on, but are not prepared to give it in return.
From a legal point in all of this, these are my own observations and opinions and in no way constitute the actual legal position of either of the parties, and should not be construed to be such legal positions.
In due course, the court will decide the legal position of all of this and where it goes from here
-
Tman
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:04 pm
- Contact:
Thanks Alan, on another note, after speaking to you at the Sydney Queens re rear bags I was able to get a protector type with the thick base, as you suggested, the same type as yours and have been using it for the past couple of weeks. Makes all the difference thanks to you.
This weekend I am shooting in the Sydney teams City v Country matches, should be fun.
Ben
This weekend I am shooting in the Sydney teams City v Country matches, should be fun.
Ben
-
Surgeon
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:13 pm
- Location: Warners Bay
- Contact:
It seems the dejected SSAA lot from ANZAC are trying a two pronged assault .
One on the comittee at Silverdale and retry for ANZAC .
Interesting Reading:
http://www.ssaasydney.net/drupal/newsletters/201302.pdf
One on the comittee at Silverdale and retry for ANZAC .
Interesting Reading:
http://www.ssaasydney.net/drupal/newsletters/201302.pdf
-
macguru
- Posts: 1627
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am
I had a computer job in Broome St, Maroubra of Friday , not far from the 800m mound. Afterwards, I went down to the beach for a swim and lunch. Free parking... thats a good sign, clean water thanks to the outfalls I helped survey in the 80s, and you know what ? It feels really nice and open standing at the flags and looking 360 degrees. You know why ? Because the open land at the southern edge makes it really beautiful. If developers had their way there would be units along the southern side, i'll bet. Our range has protected the environment here for over a hundred years !
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests
Menu
Newest members