AAAS impacts on volunteer community-based bushwalkers

[Lophophaps]

The best way to have a bad law removed is to enforce it. I've been involved in this, similar to Tom's advice above. There was a totally stupid requirement to submit a form. Fine, you want forms, here's a few thousand of them. The government office handling the forms could not cope, totally swamped, and we complained, why no response? The rules were changed.

[Nuts]

Doesn't seem like there's any compulsion on clubs to comply with this at the moment.

It would be ridiculous if there was. You'd probably have to submit it weeks in advance to ensure it has time to be processed. Then at the last minute you decide to go somewhere else because the weather dictates it.

It would sort of be funny if bushwalking clubs started submitting the form for every trip. Parks Vic would probably need to employ an extra person or two just to deal with the added paperwork!

I'm not sure whether clubs identify themselves Tom. Or if certain activities are excluded, i'm sure others in the topic have a better understanding, while it may not serve the petition to have a lot of discussion. The need to sign off on compliance seems fairly unambiguous. They are included on the Activity form:

[rcaffin]

Good Lord. Well, here's a generic form from a NSW Club:

AAAS2.jpg (59.27 KiB) Viewed 29537 times

I must say that asking any group of volunteers for a 'Licensed Tour Operator name' goes right to the heart of the problem. It is exactly the same mindset that produced the proposal to ban the public from parts of the Feathertop area so the tour operators could have exclusive access to our birthright. We, the public, OWN the national Parks.

I was accused of being emotional and irrational about all this. Yup, right on.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

I dare say most clubs can find someone willing to tackle at least some of the paperwork. And I know most clubs do have internal 'rules' covering training and even membership qualifications. On the other hand, there are other ways of dealing with the idea that all club activities may have a dependent person participating. Some clubs at least have a hard rule that all members MUST sign a legal liability release before they can participate in any 'club' activity. Some clubs have removed the concept of 'leadership' on a trip: all are equal.

The underlying point I am making is that the commercial concept of an organised trip with a liable leader and a number of dependents does not have to be accepted by a Bushwalking Club, a group of volunteers, each of whom is acting independently. We do not have to fit ourselves into their mold, and we should not even try to do so.

This is your stumbling block Roger and I am at a loss to find a way to get you over it. I have done a great many canyons but consider myself a dependent person on all canyon trips because I am not qualified to set up or rescue. I leave that to my very capable partner and her best friend who have been trained. Bushwalking or in the snow I am not a dependent person but I have led people, the same people, on dozens of walks and I consider them to be dependent persons because they just cannot (not for the want of trying) read a map or navigate to save themselves. When I was no longer available to lead them they joined a club. It is the level of dependence that clubs need to be aware of and you have identified rightly that some activities with some clubs do not have a dependent persons. But at other times they do and how a club responds to this is the important thing. I would suggest the wording regarding the standards 'rarely' applying is most applicable to the things you have been mentioning. Are you speaking on behalf of all affiliated clubs? Personally I feel it is a reckless endeavour to pursue your current reasoning.

I must say that asking any group of volunteers for a 'Licensed Tour Operator name' goes right to the heart of the problem. It is exactly the same mindset that produced the proposal to ban the public from parts of the Feathertop area so the tour operators could have exclusive access to our birthright. We, the public, OWN the national Parks.

I was accused of being emotional and irrational about all this. Yup, right on.

You are very literal and take everything on this form as pertaining to your circumstance entirely. It is not a very good form agreed but I can see how a simple N/A will suffice for most questions but I already have an image of you posting it again with N/A as the answer to all of them. I would hope someone from your organisation gets a seat at the table as a significant stakeholder but I feel your own assessment of the situation is correct. You are a little emotional and irrational about the matter and very rigid. It shows me you have considerable passion and it is certainly directed to the welfare of clubs but it is not the sort of head needed to affect an acceptable outcome for your charges. Irrational, impassioned people are given little credence when it comes to debating such matters as this and it is easy to deflect or reject their submissions. Nit picking every little word is less helpful than picking the core issues and developing a logical strategy with well thought out arguments not generalisations . I hate bureau-crazy as well and fight hard when needed but to do that you need to take yourself out the situation emotionally. Also by showing you are a little more flexible makes others in the debate see you as conciliatory. This softens their attitude to your concerns. There is a time for being a hard head but given a standard is already here I would suggest that time is over.

The push is to make the standard national but it is a long way from doing that. It was a bit like when they tried to nationalise road laws. Some states have specific requirements which remain. Groups sizes are one thing which many not be nationally adopted as some sensitive areas require smaller numbers. If the standard is not accepted nationally then this discussion is still valuable considering the AAS already in place.

[Xplora]

I would anticipate this has been read and noted
https://outdoorsvictoria.org.au/ovs-res ... alian-aas/

[rcaffin]

This is your stumbling block Roger and I am at a loss to find a way to get you over it.
That is a very arrogant attitude. It assumes that you are entirely right and that I am entirely wrong. It assumes that the 'right' thing would be for me to 'get over it'.
Have you considered that maybe the free members of our society should not roll over and submit? That we should resist the imposition of pointless intrusive bureaucratic regulations if we want to remain free? Have you never noticed that a 'small' regulation today soon becomes a huge regulation tomorrow? Do you really trust all the bureaucrats and politicians?
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

You are very literal and take everything on this form as pertaining to your circumstance entirely.
The law is very literal, especially when vested interests want it to be.
The speed limit is 60 kph in many places. To be sure, the police may not bother until you exceed that limit by at least 5 kph, but that does not change the law. Trying to change the law itself is very very hard: better to resist its imposition in the first place.

by showing you are a little more flexible makes others in the debate see you as conciliatory
You think I should roll over and let myself be just a little shafted then?

Politicians do respond to public anger when it gets sufficiently noisy. I would like everyone to make enough noise about this matter that the politicians see that the public is not on-side over it, and that they (the pollies) would be well advised to drop the subject. This will only happen when enough people get very emotional about it: to do otherwise is to acquiesce and submit. So I am happy to be told I am irrational and emotional about this.

Cheers
Roger
PS: to be sure, commercial operators and tour group leaders should have formal qualifications. They do have 'dependents'.

[Xplora]

This is your stumbling block Roger and I am at a loss to find a way to get you over it.
That is a very arrogant attitude. It assumes that you are entirely right and that I am entirely wrong. It assumes that the 'right' thing would be for me to 'get over it'.

I don't think you are entirely wrong to pursue clarification but you cannot get over this dependent person hurdle. Yes I do feel I am right about that matter and you are wrong. That is what a differing opinion is about. If you think me arrogant because I have a different view then so be it. Get used to it because more of that is coming your way when you lead this fight.

Have you considered that maybe the free members of our society should not roll over and submit? That we should resist the imposition of pointless intrusive bureaucratic regulations if we want to remain free? Have you never noticed that a 'small' regulation today soon becomes a huge regulation tomorrow? Do you really trust all the bureaucrats and politicians?
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I have considered this to be your right but take a look over your shoulder every now and then to make sure the support you feel you have now is still behind you.

You are very literal and take everything on this form as pertaining to your circumstance entirely.
The law is very literal, especially when vested interests want it to be.
The speed limit is 60 kph in many places. To be sure, the police may not bother until you exceed that limit by at least 5 kph, but that does not change the law. Trying to change the law itself is very very hard: better to resist its imposition in the first place.

Not sure how this related to the form I spoke of. Yes the law is literal but the form was not intended to be so.

by showing you are a little more flexible makes others in the debate see you as conciliatory
You think I should roll over and let myself be just a little shafted then?

By all means get bogged down in pedantic rants on every little point. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reject it entirely. I see a better way to achieve and acceptable outcome is to accept some things have value or are inevitable then concentrate on the core problems. It is your fight. You do it your way. Personally I think those who demonstrate they are not willing to negotiate will just be shut out. It is too late anyway. The standard already applies so you are in fact fighting to have it withdrawn.

Politicians do respond to public anger when it gets sufficiently noisy. I would like everyone to make enough noise about this matter that the politicians see that the public is not on-side over it, and that they (the pollies) would be well advised to drop the subject. This will only happen when enough people get very emotional about it: to do otherwise is to acquiesce and submit. So I am happy to be told I am irrational and emotional about this.

Go for it Roger. Did I say it was already too late and the standard already applies and has done for a long time. Yes, several times. I see no need to repeat myself further and have said all I need to regarding this matter. It is your fight and the outcome will have no affect on me. I do hope there is an acceptable outcome for clubs in the end. The support you feel you have may be wavering to the more moderate stance.

[rcaffin]

Yes the law is literal but the form was not intended to be so.
There is the problem. How often have we been told that the extra powers the Police want will never be abused to shut down political protest? And yet, 6 months later ... Once there is an official form, bureaucrats will start to demand that every box be filled in.

Have you read about the SAT exams they are putting 4th formers in the UK through? In one question in the English test the kids have to pencil a semi-colon into a pre-typed sentence. Some kids who obviously know exactly how to use a semi-colon are being failed because they made the semi-colon larger than the letters or drew the comma the wrong way. Never mind that they put a semi-colon in the right place, the appearance just did not conform to what some bureaucrats wanted. The outrage is so intense (emotional and irrational?) that the pollies are now making the SATs optional - and parents are withdrawing their kids from them in bulk.

As for worrying about the support behind me - I don't. I am not dependent on the support of others for my opinions.

Cheers

[legend]

I am against such 'rules' for bushwalking clubs. My club, the Victorian Mountain Tramping Club has been in existence for almost 70 years. We have contributed greatly to the Bushwalking & Mountaincraft Leadership Course (BMLC) from its conception to its demise, having trained many thousands of people during its time. We are also heavily engaged in the volunteer Bushwalkers Search & Rescue.

The BMLC was in existence before Universities ran Outdoor Education courses. It set the standard for leaders to take children, students and communities into the bush safely with a sound education of all aspects of bushwalking (preparedness, weather, medical emergencies, fire, crossing rivers, navigation, etc).
The leaders came from bushwalking clubs and also trained the Vic Police Force S&R members.
Several people then developed courses for Universities using this information and became 'experts' but lacked real experience of really understanding the outdoors.
(I took two such skilled educators into a bad blizzard one QueensBirthday w/e. They lost a tent, dug a snowcave that collapsed, then came into our tents (funny how a tent can always accomodate one extra in an emergency). One instructor thought he might not survive the w/e, but with knowledge, teamwork, etc he came through and hopefully with a bit more knowledge on how to enjoy a good storm).

Members of bushwalking clubs use the knowledge of the older experienced leaders and learn much about the outdoors, similarly to what the old BMLC did when training teachers, etc. They learn many things enjoy the bush in all conditions, this includes weather, navigation, party morale, selection of campsites, equipment and even what food can be taken.

Most of our members have many years of expertise & experience in all kinds of walking terrain and extremes of weather.
The leaders are all carefully chosen and volunteer to take both members and visitors to all states and other parts of the world.
The proposed AAAS for bushwalking just puts extra burden onto the bushwalking clubs and doesn't 'raise' the standards of safety or community involvement.

I also want to know what happens to the thousands of non-club bushwalkers that are out there every day somewhere in the bush - and maybe NOT doing the right thing due to laziness or ignorance.
The so called standards do NOT affect them at ALL, and these are the ones who need to be taught bush etiquette, hygiene and safety appraisals. Most have no knowledge of the essentials (navigation, determination of the terrain, equipment, weather, first aid, etc) and go off blindly into the 'wilderness' after reading something in the newspaper or internet. They see a sign 'Frenchmans Cap' three days return and make a go for it, but have no knowledge of the terrain, weather possibilities or the fitness required to climb it. After a walk around the 'Prom' with signs everywhere, they head off expecting the same. Mostly they can get away with 'luck', but every now again this go seriously wrong.

As a past member of the Bushwalkers Search & Rescue, we often had to look for these people. The media report these as 'experienced bushwalker missing'.
In my 30 odd searches over 30 years, I have never been involved or known from a club to be missing for more than an hour or two. Sadly for the families, I have found three deceased persons during my time with BSAR, all due to lack of knowledge, skills or preparation.

[Bushwalking Victoria]

We don't agree with Andrew Knight (CEO of Outdoors Victoria) recent statement:

Chief executive Andrew Knight said the standards had been developed over a number of years and were something to celebrate, because they will "harmonise eight separate state and territory standards" to make compliance simpler.
"This will make things very straight-forward for bushwalking groups," he said.

Outdoors Victoria have drafts out for “AAAS Core Standards” (64 pages), “Bushwalking Standard” (17 pages) and “Camping Standard” (11 pages)

These "standards" all contain links to many more pages of “National Units of Competency” such as “SISXOHS402A Implement and monitor occupational health and safety policies.” (already published online)

This will make things very complicated for bushwalking groups.

Much of this content is clearly not relevant to volunteer bushwalkers and should not be imposed upon them.

We don't agree with John Eren's (Vic Minister for Sport) statement either:

The Andrews government supports the new standard, which it says will help outdoors groups establish whether they have a duty of care and what they need to do to honour that. "We want to see more Victorians enjoying the great outdoors and doing so safely," a spokesman for Minister for Sport John Eren said. "That's what these voluntary guidelines are all about – making sure people are prepared and have the right safeguards in place to enjoy themselves."

He says they are "guidelines" yet they are published as "standards". He says the "duty of care" is important when it actually the standard of care provided that is the issue.

If compliance with these commercial-level standards is forced on volunteers this will have the perverse effect of making bushwalking less safe - if the bar for compliance is too high, volunteer bushwalkers will walk under or around it.

We think we will see a repeat of what happened in early 2000s during the “outdoors insurance crisis” when clubs stopped holding formal trips and continued bushwalking informally with no designated leaders.

Bushwalking clubs have safely managed their bushwalking activities since the late 19C using experienced-based training and processes and resources developed by and for volunteer bushwalkers.

Hopefully this drastic overreach by government and ridiculous red tape will be avoided.

Peter Campbell
President, Bushwalking Victoria

[rcaffin]

Could be a bit hard applying the AAAS to volunteer Bushwalking clubs and their members. Consider the following bits from the 'Wrongs Act 2002'.

(NSW) Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22
Section 61
Protection of volunteers
A volunteer does not incur any personal civil liability in respect of any act or omission done or made by the volunteer in good faith when doing
community work:
(a) organised by a community organisation, or
(b) as an office holder of a community organisation.
Comment: I think any Incorporated Bushwalking Club would be such a 'community organisation'.
A bunch of friends would be even more immune.

5L No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities
(1) A person (the defendant) is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person (the plaintiff) as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff.
(2) This section applies whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the risk.
Comment: a useful note, but I suggest that it might be difficult to claim that bushwalking is a 'dangerous' activity. Look at the statistics for Clubs.

5M No duty of care for recreational activity where risk warning
(1) A person (the defendant) does not owe a duty of care to another person who engages in a recreational activity (the plaintiff) to take care in respect of a risk of the activity if the risk was the subject of a risk warning to the plaintiff.
Comment: my understanding is that a 'risk warning' is given at the start of every bushwalk run under the auspices of most any club.

4 Miscellaneous provisions
...
(2) Regulations
The Governor may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, for or with respect to any matter that by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed or that is necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.
Comment: basically, this means that the AAAS can NOT over-ride this Act.

Eh, it could all be a bit of a Furphy in NSW.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

Certainly I feel some of Peter's concerns are justified, specifically that every aspect of the guidelines or standards should not apply to community or volunteer groups and that is where clarification needs to be sought. O.H.&S is one area I see not relevant and not applying. There could however be another insurance crisis looming and there is a need for clubs to prepare. Peter also states BW clubs have been safely managing activities since the 19th Century. Does that mean there have been no 'accidents' so to speak involving clubs in that time? Roger says to look at the stats but this statement seems to be unsubstantiated with evidence. I have personal knowledge of 2 incidents involving clubs. One involved unchecked reckless behaviour which continued to the point it caused the death of a person and another where a member of a party was left with a serious eye injury to mind the packs while the rest of the party headed off on a side trip for half a day. I am sure there are many other incidents involving clubs.

Roger quotes legislation but does not go further into the interpretation of this. The significant reading I have done on this topic with regard to legal aspects tells me the Wrongs Act does not absolve clubs or volunteers entirely and there is some variance from State to State with NSW and QLD difference with the respect of vicarious liability. The legislation should be read in context and I found this http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/S ... 016/7.html
useful with regard to discussion about acting in good faith. And this which discusses the issue directly regarding volunteers https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/ ... y_2010.doc
When vicarious liability applies, as I read from discussion in this paper, it is important for volunteer organisations to properly train and equip their leaders. Although some aspects have not been tested in law, I would suggest the Wrongs Act does not prevent action being taken against a volunteer or the organisation they belong to. Instead I would suggest that it would be up to the organisation or volunteer to satisfy the court they were acting in good faith and were not negligent. If the legislation does not prevent action being taken then it stands to reason legal representation for the defendant would be required so a defense can me made. Who is going to pay for this? That is why clubs carry insurance. So in the end it will be the insurance companies who decide whether they want to continue insuring clubs. After reading the 4 articles published in the latest e-mag I would suggest Mat's point about being part of the process is most relevant.

Roger, please provide the statistics you rely upon to satisfy your argument.

[rcaffin]

Hi Xplora

Both the references you quoted are opinions; they are NOT legislation. The first one is not really relevant to Bushwalking Clubs. The second one is at odds with the Wrongs Act of NSW, and can be ignored. Legislation will always over-ride any academic opinions of course.

I would suggest the Wrongs Act does not prevent action being taken against a volunteer or the organisation they belong to.
Technically correct: you can always lodge a claim against someone.
But the Wrongs Act in NSW is very clear in its provisions, and any claim which ignores the Act may not even reach the Court. All the Club or the trip leader (if there was one) would have to do would be to quote the clauses in the Wrongs Act, and confirm (for instance) that the Club Risk Warning (probably approved by the insurance company) was read out.

For formal statistics you would need to ask the relevant insurance company. I do not have any figures to hand, just the knowledge of the negotiations between the old Confederation and the insurers.

Cheers
Roger

[slparker]

It does trouble me that a bushwalking club leader can act negligently, harming those who he is leading, and not be subject to sanction because of the Wrongs Act.

The arguments above seem to absolve walk leaders of any legal or ethical duty of care over fellow walkers. This is an abrogation of responsibility. If you are leading a walk there is an immense responsibility to practice sound decision making. If you agree that there is a responsibility you must agree thst there is a duty of care.

I would not want to be part of a club that denied a duty of care of leaders over the led. They are dependents, even if they do not fit the commercial definition.

An argument that, in a led walk, that there are no dependents is contradictory. Clubs are best off admitting the reality that there is a duty of care owed to the led, which might not be legal, but sure is moral. What sort of walk leader would attempt to wash their hands of that?
This 'all care no responsibility' attitude makes me think that the proposal is not such a bad idea after all.

[rcaffin]

The arguments above seem to absolve walk leaders of any legal or ethical duty of care over fellow walkers.
Setting aside the fact that the Wrongs Act does shelter a volunteer who acts in good faith, it might be more to the point to ask whether the senior members of any Bushwalking Club would ever anoint someone as a 'leader' if they showed any signs of irresponsible behaviour. Nor would Club members follow such a person.
Bit of a straw man imho.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

It does trouble me that a bushwalking club leader can act negligently, harming those who he is leading, and not be subject to sanction because of the Wrongs Act.

The arguments above seem to absolve walk leaders of any legal or ethical duty of care over fellow walkers. This is an abrogation of responsibility. If you are leading a walk there is an immense responsibility to practice sound decision making. If you agree that there is a responsibility you must agree thst there is a duty of care.

I would not want to be part of a club that denied a duty of care of leaders over the led. They are dependents, even if they do not fit the commercial definition.

An argument that, in a led walk, that there are no dependents is contradictory. Clubs are best off admitting the reality that there is a duty of care owed to the led, which might not be legal, but sure is moral. What sort of walk leader would attempt to wash their hands of that?
This 'all care no responsibility' attitude makes me think that the proposal is not such a bad idea after all.

Have no fear. Roger is completely wrong in all but my references not being legislation. They are opinion and written by people with a far greater understanding of law as it pertains to volunteers and with respect to the question of 'in good faith'. Roger has offered his opinion which he thinks is correct based on his reading but it shows he has little understanding. There are aspect in both documents which are pertinent to clubs. Regardless of what Roger or others of that view believe, the duty of care will from time to time exist within clubs. Clubs can be vicariously liable and people found to be negligent can have civil and criminal action taken against them and the Wrongs Act does not protect them. It stands to reason that clubs should select, train and equip leaders for the task. To suggest they are not doing this would be reckless. In a civil matter, the question of wrong (tort) can only be decided by the judge hearing the matter. Arguments against the action may include citing of the legislation and followed by an interpretation of it as a defence as it pertained to the circumstance. I know Roger will never accept this but that really does not matter in the end. He is entitled to his view.

For formal statistics you would need to ask the relevant insurance company. I do not have any figures to hand, just the knowledge of the negotiations between the old Confederation and the insurers.

YOU need to ask the relevant insurance company as it was you who asserted these facts. Much of what you say in support of your argument is supposition or assumption with little basis in fact. Possibly some anecdotal evidence. If you say the statistic will prove your argument then you should provide them.

[rcaffin]

I agree that I tend to go by the black letter of the law. My experience has been that if you can quote the exact section of an Act, the judge will follow that law.
Been there, done that.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

I agree that I tend to go by the black letter of the law. My experience has been that if you can quote the exact section of an Act, the judge will follow that law.
Been there, done that.

Cheers
Roger

It does not always work this way. Given the legal team for the plaintiff would have an understanding of the Wrongs Act and they believed a case was there, it is up to the defendant to put forward a defence to counter. Simply quoting the written text of the legislation does not in itself provide a defence. For instance, the plaintiff alleges the defendant acted outside their defined parameters so they were no longer acting in good faith or the defendant's motives for their action were mixed and again were not acting in good faith. If you need I can provide some hypothetical examples to help you understand. Each circumstance is different and has to be taken on its own merit. Perhaps the person I came across, abandoned by his other club members, in serious pain and in need of urgent medical attention belonged to one of your groups where people are only accountable and responsible for themselves. Even when no leader is appointed there are times when clear leadership is needed and decisions have to be made. In this instance either the group or the group leader did not have the welfare of the injured person as their first consideration. They may have felt the injury was not serious enough to warrant immediate evacuation and in good faith left the injured person on his own with instructions to look after the packs but were their motives more selfish?

I provided the links above in the hope you would see how other learned people view they way things are and how they are going. It is not just my assessment of things but you seem to simply ignore those parts which do not fit your view. Your understanding of the law is quite simplistic at best and the law is anything but simplistic. Please remember, I did not create this and I may not agree with the way the law is impacting on every aspect of our lives but there are some things we cannot change. I do admire your persistence though and I certainly wish we had simpler times.

I don't think Mr. Parker is alone and likely many other ordinary club members would be quite disturbed to hear their leaders do not feel they have a duty of care to them. Personally I would have thought a peak body with many affiliated clubs could have been a bit more proactive and shut the gate before this horse bolted. Simply put, Bushwalking Australia could have put forward its own guidelines to address legal matters which arise from risk. It could address the training, equipping and choosing leaders, duty of care and where it applies and so on. You could have done it on your own terms and in your own language but then put it out for all affiliated clubs to comply with. Other organisations have done this and when clubs become a member they agree to the terms and can receive insurance which is sourced by and through the peak body organisation. Perhaps it is not too late. Insurance companies are really only looking to see those they cover have a complete understanding of the risks and how to mitigate, minimise and not escalate. I am sure it would not be difficult to explain how much more valuable years of learning in the field is compared to a TAFE course. Remember too that the majority of people doing outdoor guiding courses at TAFE are young and do not have those years to fall back on. I do however know to older instructors for one TAFE module who have only their years of experience which has been accepted as suitable to teach. Leadership is most important when trouble strikes and I have seen first hand how someone who has the skills to lead when things are going well cannot manage a crisis so leadership training and selection in my view is most important with this in mind.

[rcaffin]

Simply quoting the written text of the legislation does not in itself provide a defence
Really?
I represented an organisation in arbitration at the NSW Supreme Court level, against a lawyer. I quoted the law. Granted, I quoted it several times, but the relevant Act was our entire defence. We won, very clearly.

Your understanding of the law is quite simplistic at best and the law is anything but simplistic.
Probably, but I studied law for a while and got good marks. At the least, I learnt how to read the law.

Simply put, Bushwalking Australia could have put forward its own guidelines to address legal matters which arise from risk. It could address the training, equipping and choosing leaders, duty of care and where it applies and so on. You could have done it on your own terms and in your own language but then put it out for all affiliated clubs to comply with. Other organisations have done this and when clubs become a member they agree to the terms and can receive insurance which is sourced by and through the peak body organisation.
Bushwalking Clubs in NSW have been doing this for decades. In fact, the whole reason for the existence of the Confederation of Bushwalking Clubs NSW, now known as Bushwalking NSW, was to negotiate terms with an insurance company for all clubs in NSW. Been there, done that - ages ago.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

Really?
I represented an organisation in arbitration at the NSW Supreme Court level, against a lawyer. I quoted the law. Granted, I quoted it several times, but the relevant Act was our entire defence. We won, very clearly.

And this now tells you that in all other matters you can do the same and get the same result. Serious? If I as the plaintiff argued you as the defendant was not acting in good faith because you did not want to disappoint the rest of the group members by evacuating me to hospital and in doing so I lost the sight of my eye because of the delay then you would have to say more than repeat the words of the text to justify your position. "But Judge, the Wrongs Act says that because I was a volunteer I could do no WRONG" If your arguments in court bear any resemblance to those you have here or in your published article then I would not bother hiring a solicitor to take action against you. I too have court experience and considerably more than one.

Probably, but I studied law for a while and got good marks. At the least, I learnt how to read the law.

It appears you have learnt how to read it out loud.

Bushwalking Clubs in NSW have been doing this for decades. In fact, the whole reason for the existence of the Confederation of Bushwalking Clubs NSW, now known as Bushwalking NSW, was to negotiate terms with an insurance company for all clubs in NSW. Been there, done that - ages ago.

So standards, guidelines and compliance is already in effect as controlled by Bushwalking NSW? Could you provide them please? If these standards are acceptable to the insurance companies then why all the fuss?

[rcaffin]

So standards, guidelines and compliance is already in effect as controlled by Bushwalking NSW? Could you provide them please? If these standards are acceptable to the insurance companies then why all the fuss?
I'll let you chase them up.
But yes, they are acceptable to the insurer - so we don't need Outdoors Vic trying to impose their AAAS on us.

As to the legal issues - boring. We won.

Cheers
Roger

[Xplora]

I'll let you chase them up.
But yes, they are acceptable to the insurer - so we don't need Outdoors Vic trying to impose their AAAS on us.

As to the legal issues - boring. We won.

Again Roger you do not come forward to substantiate anything you say with fact. You want me to do it all for you. No statistics which you so heavily rely upon and no guidelines you say are already in place. You cannot blame me for being skeptical about whether these would support you. Given the AAAS is a guideline, not compulsory and you supposedly have measures in place already which offset these involuntary standards which are in fact not imposed on clubs, then you really have nothing to worry about. That is of course if you are right. I think most forward thinking people will go with Matt's view. His view is certainly in opposition to yours and he has significant involvement with clubs. I do however respect your right to an opinion which is contrary to mine. It is not personal with me and I would not want to take away anything from your many other contributions to bushwalking. Best of luck with your quest.

[rcaffin]

I think the only 'quest' I have is to keep political interference OUT of Bushwalking.

Cheers
Roger

[Bushwalking Victoria]

Given the AAAS is a guideline, not compulsory and you supposedly have measures in place already which offset these involuntary standards which are in fact not imposed on clubs, then you really have nothing to worry about.

The last letter of "AAAS" is for Standard. Calling them "guidelines" is misleading.

The contentious AAAS will be "compulsory" if they apply to volunteers as is currently the case, and Outdoors Victoria's stated intention. If courts and insurers deem non-compliance for volunteers there would be serious negative consequences.

Land managers could require compliance as a condition for access to public land - as they currently do in Victoria for commercial operators and some volunteer groups.

80% of the proposed competency standard performance criteria in the ""AAAS Core Standards" have either no relevance to or are excessive for volunteer leaders. Its clear that these contentious "standards" should not apply to volunteer bushwalkers, as is the case in Ireland, New Zealand and Great Britain.

However, it seems Outdoors Victoria is forging ahead acting as both industry lobbyist and author, and has the ear of some state governments.

Agreeing to standards means someone in the future is going to want to see documented compliance.

The standards are impossible for volunteer bushwalkers to comply with, but any accident can almost certainly be linked to non-compliance.

The AAAS are not technical documents prepared by an expert committee looking at actual evidence about (a) how to make bushwalking safe and (b) what you can and can’t do via standards.

The content of the Bushwalking AAAS is unsupported by any reasons or evidence of accident prevention.

Its fine for governments to agree on a single set of standards to "ensure outdoor professionals are pooling their expertise and experiences at a national level, resulting in higher quality standards and less chance of confusion" but not if they compromise volunteer bushwalking with red tape.

[rcaffin]

I wonder where 'they' are going to draw the line - between a bunch of tourists walking down the concrete track to the Three Sisters at Katoomba, going down the Giant Staircase and around to the bottom of the Scenic Railway, and a hardcore group of bushwalkers traversing the Kanagra-Boyd Wilderness? Or between some cross-country skaters doing the loops at Perisher and a hardcore group skiing across the Kerries to Jagungal? There are NO clear borders - until money changes hands or you accept responsibility for a whole bunch of minors.

I don't know what will happen in other States, but I can make a very good guess for NSW. NOTHING. Because it would be a physical and legal impossibility.

Cheers
Roger

[tom_brennan]

I do feel like the AAAS are a solution in search of a problem. If there was an epidemic of serious incidents from bushwalking clubs, then perhaps there would be some argument for changing standards. But I haven't seen one.

When I read through some of the items in the NSW AAS, they bear little or no resemblance to the differences between commercial and volunteer organisations in the real world. For example, from the NSW Canyoning AAS
"5.5. USAGE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR CANYONING
A system for the regular cleaning and sterilisation of group food preparation and storage equipment is established and maintained"

Seriously? Why is this in a "Standard"? As a canyoning leader for a large Sydney-based bushwalking club, I am going to tell participants to "bring morning tea, lunch and snacks". I'm not going to be packing in hygiene equipment etc.

Similarly, every member of our club is expected to bring their own first aid kit on all club activities - it's not my job as a leader to bring a first aid kit that will cater for the whole party.

Or:
"5.6. STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FOR CANYONING EQUIPMENT
Vertical rescue, PPE and Abseiling equipment is stored according to the manufacturer’s recommendations
If no manufacturers recommendations exist, Canyoning equipment is stored clean, dry and free from degrading influences (eg
environmental exposure, vermin, extremes of temperature or damp conditions)
A system for periodic checking and maintenance is maintained
A system for monitoring the condition, reporting and removing damaged equipment is established and maintained"

On club trips, every participant brings their own PPE - whereas in a commercial organisation, it's supplied by the organisation. So neither the club nor I as leader can know how someone else's gear has been stored.

I could go on.

It's these sorts of things that distinguish between a commercial leader/organisation and a volunteer leader/organisation. The NSW AAS fails to differentiate, and I imagine the new AAAS will similarly fail.

[rcaffin]

Hi Tom

Yeah, but no-one takes any notice of the AAS anyhow. Stupidity gets ignored.

Cheers
Roger
PS: on Club trips there is NO 'group food preparation'. Can you clean zero?

[Xplora]

Given the AAAS is a guideline, not compulsory and you supposedly have measures in place already which offset these involuntary standards which are in fact not imposed on clubs, then you really have nothing to worry about.

The last letter of "AAAS" is for Standard. Calling them "guidelines" is misleading.

The contentious AAAS will be "compulsory" if they apply to volunteers as is currently the case, and Outdoors Victoria's stated intention. If courts and insurers deem non-compliance for volunteers there would be serious negative consequences.

Land managers could require compliance as a condition for access to public land - as they currently do in Victoria for commercial operators and some volunteer groups.

80% of the proposed competency standard performance criteria in the ""AAAS Core Standards" have either no relevance to or are excessive for volunteer leaders. Its clear that these contentious "standards" should not apply to volunteer bushwalkers, as is the case in Ireland, New Zealand and Great Britain.

However, it seems Outdoors Victoria is forging ahead acting as both industry lobbyist and author, and has the ear of some state governments.

Agreeing to standards means someone in the future is going to want to see documented compliance.

The standards are impossible for volunteer bushwalkers to comply with, but any accident can almost certainly be linked to non-compliance.

The AAAS are not technical documents prepared by an expert committee looking at actual evidence about (a) how to make bushwalking safe and (b) what you can and can’t do via standards.

The content of the Bushwalking AAAS is unsupported by any reasons or evidence of accident prevention.

Its fine for governments to agree on a single set of standards to "ensure outdoor professionals are pooling their expertise and experiences at a national level, resulting in higher quality standards and less chance of confusion" but not if they compromise volunteer bushwalking with red tape.

This is arguably the first intelligable comment (argument) on this thread from someone opposed to the AAAS and I do agree mostly with the sentiments. I agree that a high percentage of the AAAS does not apply to volunteer groups and therefore there is no need for compliance with that. If I accept that to be 80% then Bushwalking Vic should accept 20% is relevant to volunteer groups. That would be the converse of the statement. Given BV is a peak body then it should not be ignored and they should demand a seat at the table to help formulate the guidelines so it is clear when and how they relate to volunteer groups. If OV is the sole author then it could also be possible to reject it and have your own guidelines which are specific to volunteer groups, written in collaboration with each of the other states and acceptable to insurers and land managers alike. Roger said this has been done but cannot provide it. I suppose my comment which is quote in your post was merely a reference to Roger's attitude on the matter. Getting all worked up about something you are going to ignore seems a little silly. I don't think ignoring is the answer as it will bite you on the bum when you head is in the sand.

I do feel like the AAAS are a solution in search of a problem. If there was an epidemic of serious incidents from bushwalking clubs, then perhaps there would be some argument for changing standards. But I haven't seen one.

I mentioned 2 previously which I have direct knowledge of. It may not be an epidemic but neither would incidents in the commercial version be of that magnitude. It doesn't have to be serious enough to make headlines for it to be an issue with safety.

When I read through some of the items in the NSW AAS, they bear little or no resemblance to the differences between commercial and volunteer organisations in the real world. For example, from the NSW Canyoning AAS
"5.5. USAGE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR CANYONING
A system for the regular cleaning and sterilisation of group food preparation and storage equipment is established and maintained"

Seriously? Why is this in a "Standard"? As a canyoning leader for a large Sydney-based bushwalking club, I am going to tell participants to "bring morning tea, lunch and snacks". I'm not going to be packing in hygiene equipment etc.

Similarly, every member of our club is expected to bring their own first aid kit on all club activities - it's not my job as a leader to bring a first aid kit that will cater for the whole party.

Or:
"5.6. STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FOR CANYONING EQUIPMENT
Vertical rescue, PPE and Abseiling equipment is stored according to the manufacturer’s recommendations
If no manufacturers recommendations exist, Canyoning equipment is stored clean, dry and free from degrading influences (eg
environmental exposure, vermin, extremes of temperature or damp conditions)
A system for periodic checking and maintenance is maintained
A system for monitoring the condition, reporting and removing damaged equipment is established and maintained"

On club trips, every participant brings their own PPE - whereas in a commercial organisation, it's supplied by the organisation. So neither the club nor I as leader can know how someone else's gear has been stored.

I could go on.

It's these sorts of things that distinguish between a commercial leader/organisation and a volunteer leader/organisation. The NSW AAS fails to differentiate, and I imagine the new AAAS will similarly fail.

.

Exactly the sort of things which need clarifying. I would suggest common sense should prevail and if it does not apply then you cannot be held to that standard. I would think it unlikely everyone will bring their own ropes so it would be important for these to be cleaned, stored and checked appropriately. So in that case there would need to be some compliance for safety. I am sure you will do that as a matter of course. If the ropes belong to the club then it be the responsibility of the club to ensure its condition and records should be kept. While I can see clearly the areas where these guidelines do not apply it seems those opposed only want to quote these specific circumstances and not look at the areas where it does or may apply. Perhaps Roger is right to say ignore those things but not all things are stupid in the AAS or the AAAS.

[tom_brennan]

I do feel like the AAAS are a solution in search of a problem. If there was an epidemic of serious incidents from bushwalking clubs, then perhaps there would be some argument for changing standards. But I haven't seen one.

I mentioned 2 previously which I have direct knowledge of. It may not be an epidemic but neither would incidents in the commercial version be of that magnitude. It doesn't have to be serious enough to make headlines for it to be an issue with safety.

Agreed, but regulation needs to be weighed against the cost of that regulation. We don't wear 5 point harnesses and don full face helmets when driving standard cars, even though that would certainly reduce the road toll.

Regulation should be in response to an unacceptable level/severity of incidents. Which I'm not seeing in bushwalking clubs, the two incidents you mention notwithstanding.

[tom_brennan]

Perhaps the first thing should be a change of name from AAAS to AOAG (Australian Outdoor Activity Guidelines).

I don't really understand the reason for including Adventure in the title, particularly for things like Archery, Bushwalking or Snorkelling! Outdoor Activity is more widely descriptive.

And if they are just guidelines, then they should be titled as such. A Standard is something that must be adhered to. A Guideline is not.