• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Why it matters (concrete effects)

• It creates binding administrative processes within AMSA for how maintenance, upgrades and any proposed changes are assessed, approved and recorded. Major works require a Heritage Impact Statement and referral to federal and state heritage authorities. This limits the range of changes that AMSA can implement without higher‑level approvals, particularly for fabric identified as "High" sensitivity (e.g. 1906 lantern base, balcony, stair, weight tube). (See Section 6.7 and Fabric Register in Section 4.)

• Operationally the plan prioritises maintaining the light as an Aid to Navigation (AtoN) while minimising harm to heritage fabric. That produces two concurrent constraints: safety and reliability standards (IALA Category 2; AMSA’s Navigation Act powers) on the one hand, and conservation rules (EPBC obligations, Burra Charter guidance) on the other. The plan specifies how AMSA will balance those (risk assessment, heritage advice before upgrades). (See Section 6.4 and Policies 1–3.)

Stated purpose and practical trade‑offs

• AMSA’s stated purpose is to “continue its utilisation as an AtoN while upkeeping appropriate maintenance to conserve and preserve the heritage values” (Section 6.4 and Policy 2). That is operationally credible but involves trade‑offs: keeping the light reliable can require equipment upgrades, and the plan anticipates this by allowing upgrades subject to heritage assessment (Policy 2, Section 6.7).

• Costs and who pays: routine and major works are to be funded and administered by AMSA (an Australian Government agency). Those costs ultimately fall on the Commonwealth budget (taxpayers) through AMSA’s asset program. Conservation obligations may raise maintenance costs compared with a non‑heritage operational asset because of requirements to use specialist materials, seek heritage approvals, and engage heritage experts. (See Policies 10–11, Section 8 implementation.)

• Incentives and behaviour changes: contractors must incorporate heritage protections into bids and site work; AMSA staff must consult and document decisions; visitors are subject to restricted access; Traditional Custodians and community groups are to be consulted earlier in planning. These procedural requirements increase administrative burden but create clearer accountability and record‑keeping. (See Policies 7–9 and Section 8.)

Implementation risks and discretion

• Bureaucratic discretion sits with AMSA’s Asset Management & Preparedness and the AtoN Heritage Coordinator who schedule works, select contractors, and decide when to escalate to external heritage authorities; Ministerial approval is required if actions are likely to significantly affect Commonwealth heritage values (EPBC). That produces single‑agency control over many day‑to‑day decisions but retains statutory oversight for major impacts. (See Sections 6.1, 7 and Appendix 3.)

• Operational risks include storm damage, access difficulties (island helipad/landing), and the tension between meeting the IALA availability target and restricting intrusive works on high‑sensitivity fabric. The plan contains contingencies (emergency repair procedures, stop‑work and discovery protocols). (See Sections 6.6–6.7.)

Net effect in plain terms

• The plan formalises how AMSA will run and protect the Tasman Island Lighthouse: keep it lit and reliable for mariners, maintain and prioritise original 1906 fabric where possible, require heritage assessment for significant change, monitor condition regularly, consult with stakeholders (including Traditional Custodians), and keep detailed records. It increases administrative and specialist costs relative to unconstrained maintenance but reduces the latitude to make unassessed modifications to heritage fabric.

Figure 10. Dalén's system - sunvalve, mixer and flasher (Source: AMSA)

Large dioptric lenses, such as that shown in Figure 8, gradually decreased in popularity due to cost and the move towards unmanned automatic lighthouses. By the early 1900s, Australia had stopped ordering these lenses with the last installed at Eclipse Island in Western Australia in 1927. Smaller Fresnel lenses continued to be produced and installed until the 1970s when plastic lanterns, still utilising Fresnel’s technology, were favoured instead. Acetylene remained in use until it was finally phased out in the 1990s.

In the current day, Australian lighthouses are lit and extinguished automatically using mains power, diesel generators, and solar-voltaic systems.

3.2 The Commonwealth Lighthouse Service

When the Australian colonies federated in 1901, they decided that the new Commonwealth government would be responsible for coastal lighthouses—that is, major lights used by vessels travelling from port to port—but not the minor lights used for navigation within harbours and rivers. There was a delay before this new arrangement came into effect. Existing lights continued to be operated by the states.

Since 1915, various Commonwealth departments have managed lighthouses. AMSA, established under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 (Cth), is now responsible for operating Commonwealth lighthouses and other aids to navigation, along with its other functions.

3.3 Tasmanian Lighthouse Administration

The table below details the authority of Tasmanian lighthouse management from 1915 to the present.

3.4 Tasman Island: a history

Aboriginal history

The following was provided by Tony Brown, former Aboriginal Curator at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

Aboriginal use of Tasmanian off shore islands is well enough documented and the attraction of Tasman Island was undoubtedly its rich food resources of muttonbirds (shearwaters), little penguins and fur seals.

Memos between the Marine Board of Hobart and the Tasmanian Museum in 1913 detail the discovery by one of the light house keepers of ‘a very ancient’ Aboriginal skull recovered from a penguin rookery on the top of the island. In 1922 an early historian mentions that ‘numbers of Aboriginal stone implements are to be found on the island,’ and anecdotal evidence by former lighthouse keepers and their families confirm the existence of artefacts.

While only a short distance from the coast, Tasman Island and its plateau appear to be inaccessible. Visitors to the island today must go either by helicopter or effect a difficult landing by boat or canoe under calm conditions. Tasmanian Aborigines, using their unique bark canoes, would most likely have approached the island from Crescent Bay, a distance of 11 kilometres. Prior to European occupation the only natural practical route from sea level to the plateau surface of the island would have been by way of a steep ramp on the north western side, known by lighthouse families as the ‘zig-zag’ track.

Although there has been no Aboriginal heritage assessment undertaken, the island is the site of the first record of Aboriginal seal hunting in southeast Tasmania. In 1982 a number of stone tools were found with the skeletal remains of a seal on the plateau of the island, in the vicinity of the ‘zig-zag’ track. (Stephen Harris, ‘A Seal Hunter’s Site on Tasman Island’, Australian Archaeology 1984:19)

There is no doubt that for hundreds, and possibly thousands of years, Tasmanian Aborigines travelled to Tasman Island. As with visitors today, the likelihood of bad weather blowing and making a return to the mainland impractical was an omnipresent hazard.

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania advised that although no Aboriginal heritage sites registered in the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR) are recorded within the lease footprint of the lighthouse, there are two Aboriginal heritage sites recorded elsewhere on Tasman Island.

Early European history

Tasmania was first sighted by European explorers in 1642 when Dutchman Abel Tasman sailed past the Tasmanian mainland and named it Anthoonji van Diemenslandt, after the Governor of the Dutch East Indies. A large part of the south-east coast of Tasmania was charted on this expedition, and ‘Tasmans Eÿl’, known today as Tasman Island, was recorded by cartographer Joan Blaeu and reproduced in a map by Melchisedech Thevenot in 1663[10].

Tasman Island was also included in the 1837 map of Tasmania by John Dower[11]. Surveyor, James Erksine Calder remarked that is was a wild and desolate looking spot, and ‘if accessible at all, only at one point.’[12] Due to its extreme height and formation, very few, if any, European settlers travelled to Tasman Island prior to the discussions of a lighthouse in the 1880s.

3.5 Planning a lighthouse

Why Tasman Island?

A meeting of the Consolidated Marine Board in August 1885 discussed the possibility of a lighthouse in the vicinity of Cape Pillar. For some time the masters of the Union Steam Company’s vessels had advocated for the erection of a light as the narrow passage of water beside the cape oversaw frequent traffic[13].

The necessity of such a light either on Cape Pillar or Tasman's Island has been felt absolutely essential for many years by seafaring people, and those commercially engaged in the mercantile marine; but it was not until the Russian war scare of last year that any practical proposals emanated from the Government in respect to its erection[14].

After discounting the cape itself and nearby Hippolyte Rocks, a site inspection was made on Tasman Island but the cost of construction was considered excessive. It was also noted that the expense of maintaining a lighthouse on the island would be double that of other locations[15]. The difficulty of establishing telegraphic communication to Tasman Island was also seen as an obstacle.

However by 1886, despite the disadvantages identified, the Consolidated Marine Board of Tasmania made the suggestion that plans and specifications should be prepared for the Tasman Island Lighthouse. By November of that same year, the Board had put out a tender for clearing a line of trees and erecting a 20-foot high cairn on the top of Tasman Island[16].

Momentum towards constructing the light was short-lived, as by April 1887, the Marine Board passed a motion 'That the resolution for the erection of a light on Tasman's Island be rescinded'.[17] Their justification was that as the site was so high, the lighthouse would frequently be obscured by clouds. Several captains under the Union Steam Navigation Company had since come forward and proclaimed the light was unnecessary and that the need of a light on the south-west coast was considered greater. The Tasman Island Lighthouse was deferred in favour of building Maatsuyker Island Lighthouse, which was constructed in 1891.

By 1897, there was again agitation for a lighthouse on Tasman Island, as the number of steamers trading from Hobart to New Zealand had increased and nearby mainland cities had grown. By the early 1900s, the River Derwent had become a busy thoroughfare and ships reported several close encounters with land and delays due to the fog around the Cape Pillar region. In 1903, the Consolidated Marine Board recommended to the Tasmanian Government the necessity for a light was by then an urgent matter. The Premier agreed that the state would pay the interest on the cost of construction of the light until the lighthouses were eventually taken over by the Federal Government[18].

Design

At a meeting of the Hobart Marine Board on 2 February 1904 it was announced that a lighthouse was to be built on Tasman Island[19].

In January 1904, the Hobart Marine Board visited Tasman Island for the purpose of selecting a site for the new lighthouse in the vicinity of Cape Pillar. The lighthouse committee recommended, based on the reports of the lighthouse inspector, the board's architects, and the Harbourmaster that the lighthouse be erected on the south-eastern part of Tasman Island.

This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.