House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Civil Liability (Recreational Services) Amendment Bill CIVIL LIABILITY (RECREATIONAL SERVICES) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 30 October 2008. Page 733.) Mrs GERAGHTY House of Assembly Torrens Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:26): The Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act 2002 was introduced to allow recreation providers to modify their duty of care to consumers without compromising safety standards. It was intended that the act would make it easier for service providers to meet their obligations and make public liability insurance more accessible and affordable. The act was developed in consultation with sporting and recreation groups and came into operation on 1 July 2003. Experience has shown that safety codes under the Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act are difficult to draft and have not been widely adopted. The government has listened to the concerns of recreation providers and has responded by introducing, in the other place, the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Fair Trading) Bill 2008. The government's bill will repeal the Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act and replace it with a scheme that does not require service providers to develop and register safety codes. This will not excuse service providers from having to put safety measures in place to protect consumers. Under the government's bill, recreation providers carrying on business will be required to supply services with due care and skill and will not be able to escape liability for reckless conduct. The reforms proposed in the member for Davenport's bill fail to protect consumers. Even service providers who ignore known safety risks may not be responsible for the death or personal injury of a consumer. Consider a business that provides rockclimbing tours, and I have a rockclimbing business in my electorate, so I will use that type of business as an example. If a tour member is injured when equipment provided by the company fails and the company knew that the equipment was defective but used it anyway, the service provider may not be liable for injuries that result from the use of the defective equipment. Given that the member's bill does not cover that area, and it is certainly not in the interests of public safety, the government opposes this bill. Dr McFETRIDGE House of Assembly Morphett Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:29): I rise in support of this legislation. I remember when the original legislation was passed in this place. It was a result of the collapse of HIH and a number of other insurance companies and the blow-outs in public liability insurance costs. The need to put in place codes of conduct so that organisations could reduce their public liability insurance premiums was paramount. I think we ended up with one for miniature ponies and one for watching dolphins. It was an absolute— The Hon. I.F. Evans House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. Evans: No: one for miniature ponies. Dr McFETRIDGE House of Assembly Dr McFETRIDGE: One for miniature ponies, the member for Davenport tells me. That was all, and it was going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars for these organisations to develop these codes of conduct. It was a disgrace that the government came out and used this sledgehammer approach that had no benefit to the sporting, recreation and other volunteer groups in this state. Then when the Masters Games came, we had this mistake so we had to go back and review the legislation and bring in an exemption so that we could then have a waiver signed by people who were competing in the Masters Games. It was an absolute mess. Debate adjourned.