House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Royal Life ROYAL LIFE Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:21): On Saturday night, I attended the 95^th Annual General Meeting of the Royal Life Saving Society Australia, South Australian Branch. It is a proud association with a distinguished history, and it has a number of fine missions and objectives, including to prevent the loss of life in the community with an emphasis on the aquatic environment. Its motto is: 'Whomever you see in distress, recognise as a fellow person.' I was interested to read the report of the chairman, David Dewar, which stated, in part: In many states of Australia, most government and non-government schools benefit from our programs, but in South Australia children only have access to our programs via VACSWIM, RLSSA clubs and centres, and some private schools. Reportedly, some schools no longer provide swimming instruction at all, which is a big worry. The drowning rates for children in South Australia have been the lowest in the world, due to swimming and water safety classes offered in all schools and extensive aquatic programs. A significant address was presented on the evening which outlined a number of statistics, some of which were quite alarming, particularly the fact that 27 young children under the age of five drowned in 2007-08. He also told us that 66 Australians over 55 years of age drowned in 2007-08. Even more alarming is immersion, which is a near drowning; the person does not die but suffers a very significant and sometimes horrific outcome. What I want to address today is the alarming information that was provided. Whilst it has a significant message, always the key areas of its work are to keep watch, to ensure the fencing of pools, which sadly are the site of a significant number of drownings and, importantly: …to ensure that the community has access to low cost, effective and appropriate personal water safety, swimming and resuscitation training so that everyone is a lifesaver. He then described what had happened with the VACSWIM program, which historically has been in our schools and in the public sector, as follows: The internationally accredited and applauded RLSS Swim and Survive program has been removed from the SA Government annual VACSWIM program in the community and replaced by a program constructed by the SA Government's contracted service provider, LeisureCo. Members might recall that just a couple of weeks ago the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing reported to the house new initiatives in relation to water safety and outlined, with the launch of a water safety plan, the very important aspect of ensuring that we continue to educate the community so that we save lives. The report presented at the AGM went on to say: This removal was done without consultation with any of the National Water Safety bodies and without community consultation. In fact it was SA Government policy that RLSS (either in SA or nationally) NOT be involved in any review, despite RLSS being acknowledged by the international leaders in water safety education. The RLSS Australia has examined the replacement Vacswim 2009 programme and has very serious concerns about the programme content and hence the skills to be acquired by participants. He went on to state that the VACSWIM 2009 program, in their assessment, was 'potentially dangerous' and omitted 'key water safety and survival skills' that were so critical to children being able to protect themselves. He gave the following example: At level [year] 3, children should be able to swim further than 20 metres freestyle. But the RLSS requires 50 metres. He continues: There is a large gap between the VACSWIM 2009 level 7 (75 metres) and RLSS Swim and Survive level 7 (300 metres). These are fundamental differences of standards that are expected. Some of the deficiencies he outlined at the annual general meeting included being forced under water—this is for children in training—for a set time period, which he claimed in its assessment had been known to be a dangerous act. He states: There is a very real risk of hyperventilation and asphyxiation as a result of this activity. The content of this program now contracted by the government is clearly dangerous. He went on to state: There are a number of deep water skills completed in the early levels without a requirement to teach sculling or techniques for treading water. Again, an extraordinarily high degree of risk for students in the program. He outlined that the training provided no contribution on the personal flotation devices (lifejackets). This is a dangerous and dumbed-down program. Time expired.