HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CIVIL LIABILITY (RECREATIONAL SERVICES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Civil Liability Act 1936 and to repeal the Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act 2002. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The reason I move this particular bill is that the current system of recreational codes required under the recreational services act simply does not work. Members will recall that in 2002 when there was a public liability crisis for insurance throughout Australia parliaments all around Australia made a legislative change in an attempt to restrict liability and therefore bring down insurance premiums, particularly public liability premiums. This was subject, in part, to an inquiry by this parliament's Economic and Finance Committee in the last three or four years.

This act requires recreational groups such as horse riders and parasailers, etc., to register a code with the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs to give their participants protection. The reality is that, after six years of operation of this act, just one code has been registered, and that is for miniature ponies. So those who are involved in the miniature pony industry are covered, but every other recreational group out there is not covered. Hundreds of thousands of people are not covered.

We cannot blame just the recreational groups for this, because some of them have attempted to register codes. There are five codes that have been with the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs for two or three years now that cannot get registered. A code for tennis was lodged in October 2006, a draft code for rock climbing was lodged in March 2007 and for lacrosse in October 2006. There is a draft code lodged for the City-Bay Fun Run, and there was a draft code lodged in March 2006 for the gliding industry. So the recreation groups, in part, have tried to do the right thing.

For those four or five groups, it has cost something like $7,700 each to have the codes drafted. The office of consumer affairs and, indeed, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, is so disinterested in this topic that these codes have sat there for two and three years and not been approved. So, after six years of operation of this act, we have one recreational code approved, and that is for miniature ponies. I am told the cost to that organisation of registering that code was $35,000. That is $35,000 so that kids can ride ponies. It is a joke.

So, let us look around Australia and see what happens. South Australia is the only state that has adopted a system of requiring codes to be registered and, clearly, the system does not work. Football does not have a code, cricket does not have a code, tennis does not have a code, horseriding does not have a code, trail riding does not have a code, and motorbike riding is the same. There are literally hundreds of thousands of recreational users who are not covered by the codes. This system does not work.

My bill says: repeal the bill and introduce provisions that are now working in New South Wales. The New South Wales provisions say that parents and adults can sign waivers so they can limit their liability if they wish to undertake risky recreational activity. If someone wants to go bungee jumping and they sign a waiver, then ultimately they have made a judgment about the risk and they should be free to do that. The reality is: what we have done in South Australia is introduced an over bureaucratic system, a highly expensive system, a system that does not work and a system that does not offer the consumer any greater protection.

It was introduced probably on the best advice available at the time, but we are the only state with this stupid system. It should be repealed, and the most logical solution is to adopt a model that works interstate. The reality is that all these other sports are covered interstate because parents and adults can offer waivers so that their children and they as adults can participate in the recreational activity of their choice.

What has been the impact in South Australia of this stupid legislation? The effect is best illustrated by the horse industry. I know this will stagger the member for West Torrens (a future minister for recreation and sport), because he has a strong interest in the horse industry. Here are the statistics. Since the introduction of Labor's Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act, the horse industry, for example, that offered dressage schools, equestrian schools and learn-to-ride schools, has collapsed in South Australia from 34 to 14. The reason they have collapsed is that their insurance and their lawyers are saying to them, 'Close up and move interstate because the South Australian law does not offer you the appropriate amount of protection.' We have had a significant collapse of industries such as the equestrian industry, dressage and that sort of industry.

Only about a month ago, the government finally opened the Kidman Trail. I say 'finally opened the Kidman Trail', because, as minister for recreation and sport some seven years earlier, I gave the money to the recreation industry to develop that trail. Under this government, it has taken seven years to develop the Kidman Trail. But guess what? There will not be the opportunity for local South Australians and tourists to rent or hire a horse to ride on the Kidman Trail, because this particular act about which I am talking (Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act) does not offer protection for trail riding because the trail riding code has not been approved by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs.

I say to the house that what we did in 2002 was a good attempt, but the reality is that it does not work, and the proof is in the pudding. After six years only one recreational code is registered, namely, miniature ponies. With no disrespect to the miniature pony organisation, it is not the highest participation recreation in South Australia. All the major recreational groups want this bill abolished. They want it abolished and repealed, and they want a system of waivers reintroduced. You can get no better evidence than the government itself. When the government was running the Masters Games and it needed to introduce a recreational code. It could not do it, and so it came to the parliament and said, 'Hey, the recreational code is all a bit hard, it takes too long, so what we will do is amend the Recreational Services (Limitation of Liability) Act so that the Masters Games can get an exemption and offer waivers.'

The government itself could not even produce a recreational code under this legislation. Then, as a sign of great incompetence, the minister responsible says, 'Well, the government has basically got a get out of gaol free card. We have just exempted ourselves so that the Masters Games can go ahead.' It has done nothing at all to try to fix the problems for horse groups, trail riding, gliding, football, tennis, cricket or lacrosse. None of those groups get exemption, just the government's own Masters Games.

I say to the house that we should simply adopt the New South Wales' system, and to do that we repeal the Recreation Services (Limitation of Liability Act) and introduce a system of waivers so that community groups can have certainty, those in the recreational industry who want to run their businesses can have legal and insurance certainty and parents can make a decision about what activities their children are involved in, and if adults want to be involved in a risky activity, then there is a form for them to sign to say that they have made the decision of their own free will.

What is the government and the parliament doing interfering in that simple decision? We do not need to. For instance, in New Zealand, there is bungee jumping, whitewater rafting and all these high risk recreational pursuits. They do not exist in South Australia because you cannot get a recreational code approved by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs. It is just too hard. The consumer affairs department is simply not interested. How can you have five or six codes sitting there for three or four years and not be approved? How can that happen? I tell you how it happens: it happens when you have a department and a minister who are not interested and when the legislation with which you are trying to work is dead set dumb.

I put to the house that this bill fixes that problem and will reinvigorate the recreational industry in South Australia. I think we have a duty as a parliament to say that we got it wrong in 2002. Let us correct it and allow the community to get on with its business of providing recreational services and enjoying recreational services with legal and insurance certainty. I look forward to the support of the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT