 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
BREAKING NEWS - see also the latest Adventure Victoria Updates available on our resources page.
ORC acknowledges the death of AAS - Snow (Resort), albeit a more agonising one than previously thought.
01/05/06 In its most recent newsletter, the Outdoor Recreation Centre (ORC) has acknowledged that the AAS - Snow (Resort) is as good as dead. While admonishing Adventure Victoria for publishing its well sourced information that AAS - Snow (Resort) had been rejected by the ski industry, the ORC has revealed a plan to resurrect it in a form which contains only "the availability of patrols, first aid, lifts and many other useful resources". It is apparently not going to contain the so-called "standards" that are implicit in the term "Adventure Activity Standards". Until now the ORC has refused to depart from the ill-conceived template that has made the project so objectionable to Adventure Victoria.
Adventure Victoria applauds the ski industry's achievement in keeping the Adventure Activity Standards at bay and encourages the ORC to replace other Adventure Activity Standards with information packs, which though possible to produce less expensively than through the ORC's Adventure Activity Standards process, will at least be harmless.
Submission to the Licence Review Project
29/03/06 Adventure Victoria has made a submission to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. We have objected to:
- Inclusion of clubs and societies in the scope of the commercial licence review, specifically the requirement for them to be licensed
- That access to public land for amateur recreation will be subject to unspecified exemptions
- Statements to the effect that clubs and societies should have equal status to commercial operators
- The continuing use of the Adventure Activity Standards as a regulatory/advisory instrument
- The commercial loading of the Project Steering Committee and the Reference Group in view of the review now extending beyond commercial matters.
Our submission is available here.
Confirmation re removal of licensing for clubs and societies
21/03/06 The Department of Sustainability and Environment has confirmed in its publication Update 3 that it does not intend to require licensing of clubs and societies in its final policy.
We will be making our submission to the Licence Review Project on the basis of the proposed policy as published in the recent directions paper and drawing attention to other unsatisfactory matters in the paper.
Assurance re licensing for clubs and societies
24/02/06 The Department of Sustainability and Environment has assured Adventure Victoria that the clause in its recent directions paper that included clubs and societies in commercial licence will be reworded to exclude them.
We urge members and others with an interest in open access to public land for recreation to make submissions regardless.
Sport and Rec backs down in face of VCAT scrutiny
17/02/06 SRV capitulated shortly before today's preliminary VCAT hearing, unconditionally* offering Adventure Victoria certain documents that it had previously withheld.
No explanation was given. SRV appears to have decided that its previous three decisions to withhold them would not bear external scrutiny.
* except that it be permitted to delete personal identities from the documents, which was never in dispute.
Adventure Victoria has not yet received the documents.
DSE’s Licence Reform Project: Be confused and, yes, still alarmed.
06/02/06 The Department of Sustainability and Environment has finally issued the directions paper originally scheduled for July 2005 on the subject of issuing licences for permission to conduct activities on public land. Remember that this has implications for the wider community because of pressures brought upon the Department to apply licence conditions to community groups, eg bushwalking clubs.
It is many months since Adventure Victoria brought the recreation community's attention to the implications of this project and protested on their behalf to Minister Thwaites. The Department implied that we would be able to take comfort in the directions paper when it finally came out.
The directions paper commences with reassuring words from the Minister about; “maintaining the fundamental right of all Victorians to access and use our spectacular parks, forests and reserves for their own personal recreation and enjoyment”, a sentiment that is re-iterated throughout the paper.
But is it a freedom that requires a licence? Yes, if you are involved in an association of some kind, apparently it is. And what are the licence conditions? Start with compliance to the Adventure Activity Standards (AAS). Those people who accepted all those claims about the AAS being a 'voluntary' code might need to think again.
More: The paper, the definition, how to respond.
Adventure Victoria takes Sport and Recreation Victoria to VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal)
25/01/06
A directions hearing date has been set for Adventure Victoria’s appeal of the SRV decision to withhold certain documents related to the Adventure Activity Standards under Freedom of Information legislation on the basis that "it would lead to unnecessary debate" and would therefore be "against the public interest".
Whether the papers contain matters of material interest is of course something we can't judge without seeing them, but save to say that they were exempted from a set of papers that were otherwise very revealing.
Latest on DSE’s Licence Reform Project and The Nine Point Plan (a threat to impose limitations on access to public land for clubs and associations)
(Click for Adventure Victoria Update 10 for background)
11/12/05 The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) had indicated that a “discussion paper” relating to the contentious Nine Point Plan would be released in June/July. There is still no paper publicly available.
Some months back DSE indicated that we might expect some backing off, but until the discussion paper is released, we won’t really know. Naturally we are becoming increasingly concerned that matters are progressing behind closed doors when so much time has passed without explanation.
Incidentally, the Victorian National Parks Association, in its August newsletter, picked up on much the same concerns that we expressed in Update 10.
10/12/05 Wild continues to give the Adventure Activity Standards issue coverage, which is always good to see. Unfortunately the latest issue of Wild gives the impression that Adventure Victoria supports the Adventure Activity Standards and its encroachment interstate. Don't be alarmed. We haven't changed horses. It is just a misunderstanding or, more likely, an unfortunate choice of words.
8/12/05 Sadly the Adventure Activity Standards has begun to progress after resistance caused long delays. Recreation South Australia (RSA), the SA version of the Victorian ORC, continues to push ahead with the Victorian model that captures recreation an industry dominated process. Delays have been caused by strong resistance from some quarters including the Walking Federation of South Australia but ultimately to no avail.
We note three particularly unsettling issues in the minutes of the RSA Steering Committee..
1) The RSA Steering Committee and the National Parks delegate have twice avoided responding to questions about the likely impact of the Adventure Activity Standards on land access. (We know the answer in Victoria from our direct correspondence. No guarantees they won't be used. And from other published documents that they are already being considered for application.)
2) RSA gave an assurance to community groups that they will be safer from liability if they endorse the Adventure Activity Standards than if they don't. This despite the well circulated existence of senior legal advice to the contrary.
3) We have often reported on the free and easy use of other people's reputations here in Victoria by way of unauthorised endorsements. Now RSA plans to issue its own Adventure Activity Standards bearing the names of Victorian endorsees – not even just endorsees but anyone who participated, many of whom would not have been happy with the outcome.
5/12/05 TasORC has upset the apple cart by taking slabs of material from the VicORC Adventure Activity Standards and substituting various combinations of words like best practice, accepted industry standard, common standard in place of the term 'minimum standards' that VicORC eventually and emphatically decided to apply to the Adventure Activity Standards. Whether this reduces some of the harm in the Adventure Activity Standards or makes it worse, remains to be seen.
10/11/05 The ORC recently resurrected the draft AAS - Snow (non-resort), but remains conveniently silent as to the fate of AAS - Snow (resort). The ORC now links the delay to AAS - Snow (non-resort) with the late publication of the AAS - Bushwalking. We know this not to be true.
Two proposed Adventure Activity Standards, Snow (resort) and Snow (non-resort) disappeared over 12 months ago. The Outdoor Recreation Centre avoided explaining why at the time, and indeed ever since. We know that the reason for their withdrawal was that the ski resort industry had applied an unofficial veto. The resort industry simply refused to tolerate what it saw as another layer of regulation. (The option of saying no to the Adventure Activity Standards does not extend to the recreation community, of course; otherwise you would not need to be reading this.)
Click here for more.
DSE Licence Reform Project back off the rails
29/09/05 In today's Update 2 of the Tour Operator Licence Reform Project, we find that the six project 'aims' listed in April’s Update 1, have morphed into six 'objectives'. They are different to the 'aims', with no explanation. A new objective is; “To manage all organised groups in an appropriate and equitable manner.” We await the discussion paper to see if the meaning of “appropriate and equitable” gets spelled out. It sounds like some kind of human right, but in the context of this debate we know already that this is double speak for: applying commercial licence requirements 'equally' to community groups.
This is disappointing indeed because this is precisely what we objected to in our recent correspondence with DSE. In reply to our objection to "compliance and enforcement" of commercial conditions on community groups, DSE disowned its own published policy and asked us to wait for a Directions Paper due out in August. According to Update 2, that paper is still unpublished and it looks as if DSE intends to go ahead as planned.
Click here for more comment.
VTOA continues push to restrict community access to public land
19/09/05 The Victorian Tour Operators Association (VTOA) has submitted comment to DSE on the Tourism Operator's Licence Reform Project. Comments include:
“Regular users, whether they be commercial tour operators, not-for-profit operators or community groups should be licensed to ensure that they are aware of and are able to meet conditions imposed by the relevant authorities.”
So, commercial operators continue to advocate the extraordinary proposition that community groups be licensed in order to visit public land.
However in reply to our objection to DSE's plan to apply these kinds of measures, DSE disowned its own published policy and asked us to wait for a Directions Paper due out in August. That paper isn't out yet, but we trust that DSE won't yield again to the VTOA.
VTOA goes on to suggest how licensing can be the means by which exclusive use of public land/National Park is granted to a commercial operator.
“If a commercial operator has won a tender … to gain access to a site, does this confer priority over non-commercial users? Will some sensitive sites become ‘guide only’ in response to the pressure of use?”
The VTOA submission also includes some surprising lack of confidence in the Adventure Activity Standards.
Click here for more comment.
South Australia - history repeats itself
01/09/05 South Australia is well on the way to replicating Victoria's folly following a remarkable presentation by the Victorian Outdoor Recreation Council that made no mention of ongoing discontent in Victoria.
An organisation, Recreation South Australia, has taken the ORC role there and its website repeats much of the finely honed Victorian spin verbatim. Note in particular the prominence given to the recently adopted stance of the Vic ORC, that the Adventure Activity Standards do not apply to informal or peer groups. The irony is that the Victorian ORC has steadfastly refused to adapt the Adventure Activity Standards to achieve the effect it claims, at the same time as it gives ever increasing prominence to that claim. RSA is now making the same claim without making any attempt to address the problem.
More importantly, the RSA is also including non-commercial activity in its campaign, presumably on ORC advice (or on the advice of the intergovernment committee which decided to push the project, also based on advice of ORC origin.)
AAS - Bushwalking Edition 2 released, kind of..
24/08/05 Edition 1 of AAS - Bushwalking has just been replaced with Edition 2, without notice or comment. This only becomes apparent if a copy is downloaded from the ORC website. So how can anyone who is still taking this process seriously know: 1. that an AAS has been replaced with a new version, and 2. what content has changed, without going through line by line. We ask again if this is the way for any body to keep standards, standards which its keepers claim will have such an effect on our lives.
The Smoking Gun
04/08/05 Through Freedom of Information we have been able to access the report of the AAS Pilot study. Our interest in it has been driven by our long and fruitless search for some definitive aims for the Adventure Activity Standards project and by the unwillingness of the authors and the government to release it.
This report contains the case to government for funding roll out of the project. A 'key' conclusion is "There is currently a requirement for commercial operators to obtain a permit to conduct group activities on public land, while no such requirement is placed on other groups. Representatives from the ORC Committee have expressed support for the need for all groups accessing public land to adhere to and be assessed against the same minimum standard of operation."
Read more here.
Correction to Update 9
11/07/05 In Update 9 dated 24/6/05, we mentioned in passing that BMTAB has joined VicWalk. It has been drawn to our attention that this is not correct. The agreement is not yet complete. The error came from a VicWalk publication, but we apologise for any embarrassment that it may have caused. Readers will be aware that this error is immaterial to the views expressed in the article.
The following update, Update 10, dealt with the current public land activities licensing review. One of our readers pointed out a reference that is consistent with our observations but that we had missed: "Parks Victoria has made compliance with the government funded and industry-endorsed Adventure Activity Standards (AAS) a condition of all Tour Operator Licences. Over a three-year period it is envisaged that AAS will be developed for all licensed adventure activities and apply to both commercial and non-commercial groups." - annual report of Parks Victoria 2003/04.
Licensing review looks like a serious threat
10/06/05 You might think that a May 2004 document is hardly breaking news. Well it is news to us and it is news to you, so that's good enough.
Below we referred to a circular we found that stunned us by referring to enforcement and compliance of commercial license requirements on community groups. Further research has uncovered an earlier document which is public but virtually unknown. It is a Dept of Sustainability and Environment document dated May 2004. It is headed "The Nine Point Plan".
The Nine Point Plan is Victorian government policy that has been devised by the Victorian Tourism Operators Association and three government departments. It provides sufficient supporting material to confirm that the impression created by the DSE circular (see 04/05/05 below) is absolutely correct.
The Nine Point Plan refers consistently to the Adventure Activity Standards as the relevant benchmark for public land access requirements. It accepts as if legitimate, the tourism industry's pressure to capture 'unlicensed' community groups in compliance.
It is interesting to note that the Victorian Tourism Operators Association also held the chair of the Adventure Activity Standards Steering Committee until early 2005 and that the ORC was also participating in the plan's reference group. All this at the same time as we were being assured that the Adventure Activity Standards would not have any regulatory implications for recreational groups.
You can find the Nine Point Plan here .
You can find the April 05 DSE circular here .
The next thing to worry about - licences
04/05/05 We recently received a denial that there were any plans afoot to require community groups to get licenses as conditions of access to public land. Licenses?!!
Because this denial was completely unprompted, we immediately took an interest. Then we found these words in a circular from the Department of Sustainability and Environment... "Different rules for non-commercial organisations – an issue that has been raised by many licensed operators is that schools, clubs and other ‘non-commercial’ organisations don’t have to abide by the same conditions as commercial operators." We already knew that this attitude is an influence in the Adventure Activity Standards process because we had heard these kinds of views being expressed at the Adventure Activity Standards Forum in February, but we didn't know that their hopes for roping in recreation extended to licensing. (We must also acknowledge speaking to one commercial operator who disagreed with the concept.)
The circular goes on to say, "The project is seeking to address this through a range of initiatives including: [three dot points omitted] • looking at new models for education, enforcement and compliance."
Not entirely comforting. We don't want to inflame this argument unnecessarily but we have noticed that the working group that has been formed to examine this is dominated by the commercial interests, including the ORC, with only VNPA in there to represent general park users.
Remember, the Adventure Activity Standards was just supposed to be for commercial operators initially. And the entire proposition of establishing guidelines for safety, environmental protection and consideration of other visitors all sounds so reasonable - just as it would have when the Adventure Activity Standards started.
So there is a terrible sense of deja vu. Adventure Victoria will watch and report developments to you.
More Adventure Activity Standards released: AAS - Canoeing and Kayaking, AAS - Snorkelling
26/4/05 And it just keeps getting worse. The clangers count grows.
The Snorkelling AAS repeats, yet again, the now standard AAS version of the fire regulations that is incorrect and illegal. See our “Fire Regulations” page.
Let's be clear. Adventure Victoria has no position one way or the other about whether campfires are good per se. But the fire section of these documents illustrates some the problems with the project.
A real howler is the Canoeing AAS on campfires. It is different to all the other AAS – so much for the Adventure Activity Standards being the environmental benchmark.
This latest version says no pit and no ring of stones. This is admirably consistent with minimal impact principles, but is in conflict with the fire regulations. Then it tells the reader, a Victorian canoeist, to contact the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for total fire ban information!
But the special requirement is “Do not collect wood for fires”. A fire with no wood is a puzzle. Or how will an Eskimo roll go with a bag of wood strapped to the deck?
Once again, what we see here is evidence that the endorsees of these documents – from government departments down to tour operators – have not actually read the documents they have endorsed.
As for the weasel words.. click here.
Commercial operators push for restricted land access.
19/2/05 At the Adventure Activity Standards February Forum, there was strong majority support among participants to have land managers apply the Adventure Activity Standards as a requirement of access to public land. Details will follow when the following item is posted.
Report on Adventure Activity Standards Forum 19/02/05
19/2/05 Adventure Victoria attended in observer capacity. See report.
ORC holds Adventure Activity Standards forum
15/2/05 We have become aware that the Adventure Activity Standards project managers (Outdoor Recreation Centre Inc) are to hold a forum of "stakeholders" Saturday 19 February to discuss the future of the Adventure Activity Standards, in particular matters raised by Adventure Victoria.
This may well be a step forward, depending on how open the forum truly is and how willing the ORC is to accept reform. Our doubts our raised because the forum does will not address the major issues, has not been advertised on the ORC website, and Adventure Victoria was not notified or invited. This despite correspondence to invitees dating back to early January in which Adventure Victoria's president was named as one of three subjects of the forum.
The final agenda consists of
•Whether to rename Adventure Activity Standards (AAS) to Guidelines (AAG)
•The relationship between AAS and the DET Guidelines (see Schools in, schools out
•Voluntary Activity Audits
•AAS and Public Land Access (Commercial, Education, Community, Private).
(see What's wrong with the AAS
•The Review Process (Technical Committee) (see What's wrong with the AAS
Three, perhaps four, of these issues are among those raised by Adventure Victoria from mid 2004 and which the ORC refused to consider at that time.
On 11 February, Adventure Victoria notified the ORC that Adventure Victoria will be attending and asked to have two items added to the agenda. (Invitees were asked to suggest additional items but apparently none did.) Those items are
•"That recreational activities (as opposed to commercial) be removed from the scope of the AAS" and
•"Update on the status of AAS Snow (Resort) and AAS Snow (Non-resort)"
The ORC has rejected these agenda items.
National Adventure Activity Standards one step closer
24/12/04 Sadly, we have received notice from the national Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport (SCORS) (see our links page) that the committee has decided to recommend national implementation of the Adventure Activity Standards.
This is alarming but not unexpected. We believe that the committee has not been made aware of opposition to the Victorian Adventure Activity Standards prior our making contact co-incidentally on the very day of the decision.
One aspect that is of continuing concern is that the SCORS correspondence repeats the false claim that in Victoria "a forum of bushwalking clubs have supported the process". This is a claim that Victoria's Minister of Sport and his department have also made. We are sure that all those claims have been made in good faith, but all those involved know that the only such forum expressed furious opposition to the Victorian Adventure Activity Standards.
We will continue to clarify this whenever the opportunity arises. But it does highlight that the decision has been made on the basis of incomplete information. We will do our best to remedy that and we will encourage our friends interstate to ensure that their own state governments are kept appraised as their own Adventure Activity Standards projects get underway.
QC's Opinion
24/11/04 With thanks to Mr William Houghton QC and VicWalk, we are now able to show you the text of Mr Houghton's advice to VicWalk.
The gist is that an organisation that gives authority to the Adventure Activity Standards will increase it's members' exposure to litigation.
He also flags the very issue we have been raising all along: that you can't bundle professional responsibilities and the responsibilities of other citizens into one set of standards, because they are, simply, different.
How exactly a project can continue without drawing breath in face of this advice, we can't hope to know.
But you should read his opinion verbatim rather than accept our unskilled summary. See QC's opinion
ANTA Disbanded
08/11/04 According to today's Education Age, the Australian National Training Authority has had its funding withdrawn and will be disbanded.
One of the aims claimed for the Adventure Activity Standards was as vehicle for applying ANTA to outdoor recreation. So that purpose is now meaningless. Ironically that is a good thing. The rigid commitment of the ORC to incorporating ANTA in the Adventure Activity Standards created many absurdities.
Undoubtedly, the ORC will find a way to spin this in support of the Adventure Activity Standards, but there is no positive. ANTA has been abandoned precisely because the inappropriateness of nationwide educational standards was recognised.
None of this has any bearing on our central concern, the unacceptable application of the standards to recreational participants.
Ongoing Revisions - achievement no 2 for Adventure Victoria
30/10/04 The ORC has announced that it will revise section 1 of all Adventure Activity Standards documents. We are expecting the revision to correct the failings we have been pointing out throughout the year. You will recall that this was a legal opinion that was unattributed - in fact the ORC told us that it was written by an unqualified member of staff - and most endorsees did not know they had committed their names to it.
The ORC claims legislative changes are the reason for the change, but we look forward to seeing the revision. We expect to find that the problems with that section are addressed now that, and only now that, we have made our long standing criticisms in a public forum. This looks like being our first tangible achievement.
Latest FoI
20/10/04 We have received another FoI response. The response is very surprising. See Governance.
QC's opinion
19/10/04 Today we have sighted a QC's opinion on aspects of the Adventure Activity Standards.
The major point he makes is that, in his opinion, a body which endorses an Adventure Activity Standards document will increase its exposure to litigation. The reasons are close to if not identical to those we have speculated on in this website (see Arguments in Favour of the Adventure Activity Standards and Why They are Wrong and Is Adventure Activity Standards a Liability?).
He has independently observed that applying the same standards to commercial and non-commercial groups is at odds with their relative legal obligations, a point which Adventure Victoria has been making here, to SRV and the project managers for months. It is one of the reasons that Adventure Victoria's contends that recreational groups should be removed from the scope of the project.
He also states, in the course of making another point, that a set of standards is likely to be used by a plaintiff to point to failures on the part of a defendant. Proponents of the Adventure Activity Standards have always emphasised the reverse, as if a coin has one side.
This opinion strengthens our view that the Adventure Activity Standards presents many threats to outdoor recreation, many of which remain unrecognised.
Because it was not Adventure Victoria that commissioned this legal opinion, we are not able to make available (or take the credit for it).
...................................................................................................................................................