Isn’t it amazing that people make a living restricting the freedom of others.
Once upon a time people took the reesponsibility for their own safety. Captain Cook and Mawson and my parents took risks without the benefit of the bureaucrats and others deciding what was safe. Accidents happen and we should certainly seek toprevent them but there is a point where the benefits of safety are less than the benefits of freedom. Otherwise we would never drive. This discussion shows illustrates that we have well and truly passed the point of benefit of more regulations.
If the best argument for rules is to prevent the legal system from employing itself harrassing us, we should protest and get the lawyers to move on to work with a public benefit. If the law is wrong we should change the law.
Those who benefit from our continuing acceptance of their right to rule our lives will not give up easily. The lawyers and OH& S officers make a nice living at this. We are presently giving evereythiong up as a “safety” issue and moving beyond the Americans in suiing each other.
Any landowner has the right to refuse access of course. If the public authorities wish to do this, they can. And we, as the owners, then lobby our representatives for the return of access. Perhaps some signs could solve problems? But let’s not just give up for a vision of a risk free future and the domination of the lawyers and experts.
Reg Lawler
To: “Ross Macfarlane”
Ross,
Glad to hear that NTP&W will wear the public liability for visitors at Leanyer.
I also heartily agree with your comments about people being smart about safety. I have seen birders do some pretty dumb things, just so they can get a good view of a bird. Fortunately, the worst accident I have seen was $2000 odd of binoculars bouncing down a canyon when the owner lost his grip while hanging over a guard rail, while trying to get a better view of an American Dipper.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 23/09/2011, at 11:40 AM, Ross Macfarlane wrote:
Carl,
NTP&W not only has the right, they have the legal responsibility under work health and safety laws to restrict access to their sites by people who haven’t been inducted and had the hazards at the site explained to them. It’s actually the other way around from what you describe: they are legally responsible from a public liability standpoint for visitors (unlike commercial contractors.) But you are right that if as an inducted person you take an un-inducted person into the WTP, you would have a responsibility to ensure they obey the rules and don’t get hurt.
I’m a health and safety consultant by profession, and I’ve also been the volunteer safety officer for the Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group for over 10 years. We take a strenuously professional approach to safety – all our volunteers have to be trained and all have to make daily scheduled call-ins to safety officers when in the field, otherwise we ask Parks Victoria rangers to go out and check they’re OK. Taking safety seriously has been really important in keeping ongoing support (including financially) from PV for our work.
I really encourage all volunteer conservation groups to get smart about safety. If you behave responsibly and professionally TPTB* will support you. If not, they can make life hard, because you make their life hard.
Cheers, Ross Macfarlane
*-he -owers -hat -e
Reg,
It is all fun and games till someone gets hurt, then peoples’ ideas of self responsibility tend to be forgotten.
As for Lawyers, well they only take action when their clients ask them. Lawyers do not run around looking for people to sue. Also, laws are not made unless there is sufficient pressure from voters.
And as for OH&S officers making a nice living, a nice idea, I wish it was so. I was the OH&S officer for my Department’s regional office, as well as first aid officer. I received an extra $5 a fortnight for the first aid duties (I had to pay for the refresher courses out of my own pocket and take annual leave to do them, though). For the OH&S officer job, I received zilch. Both roles were on top of my normal duties. I think you will find that this arrangement is not uncommon.
I agree with you that people should take responsibility for their own behaviour, but these days there is a growing attitude in our society that everyone else is responsible for an individuals safety and welfare. What the answer to that is who knows, I don’t.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
Isn’t it amazing that people make a living restricting the freedom of others.
Once upon a time people took the reesponsibility for their own safety. Captain Cook and Mawson and my parents took risks without the benefit of the bureaucrats and others deciding what was safe. Accidents happen and we should certainly seek toprevent them but there is a point where the benefits of safety are less than the benefits of freedom. Otherwise we would never drive. This discussion shows illustrates that we have well and truly passed the point of benefit of more regulations.
If the best argument for rules is to prevent the legal system from employing itself harrassing us, we should protest and get the lawyers to move on to work with a public benefit. If the law is wrong we should change the law.
Those who benefit from our continuing acceptance of their right to rule our lives will not give up easily. The lawyers and OH& S officers make a nice living at this. We are presently giving evereythiong up as a “safety” issue and moving beyond the Americans in suiing each other.
Any landowner has the right to refuse access of course. If the public authorities wish to do this, they can. And we, as the owners, then lobby our representatives for the return of access. Perhaps some signs could solve problems? But let’s not just give up for a vision of a risk free future and the domination of the lawyers and experts.
Reg Lawler
Cc: “‘Birding-aus'” Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:59 AM LeanyerSewageFarm, NT
Ross,
Glad to hear that NTP&W will wear the public liability for visitors at Leanyer.
I also heartily agree with your comments about people being smart about safety. I have seen birders do some pretty dumb things, just so they can get a good view of a bird. Fortunately, the worst accident I have seen was $2000 odd of binoculars bouncing down a canyon when the owner lost his grip while hanging over a guard rail, while trying to get a better view of an American Dipper.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
Carl,
NTP&W not only has the right, they have the legal responsibility under work health and safety laws to restrict access to their sites by people who haven’t been inducted and had the hazards at the site explained to them. It’s actually the other way around from what you describe: they are legally responsible from a public liability standpoint for visitors (unlike commercial contractors.) But you are right that if as an inducted person you take an un-inducted person into the WTP, you would have a responsibility to ensure they obey the rules and don’t get hurt.
I’m a health and safety consultant by profession, and I’ve also been the volunteer safety officer for the Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group for over 10 years. We take a strenuously professional approach to safety – all our volunteers have to be trained and all have to make daily scheduled call-ins to safety officers when in the field, otherwise we ask Parks Victoria rangers to go out and check they’re OK. Taking safety seriously has been really important in keeping ongoing support (including financially) from PV for our work.
I really encourage all volunteer conservation groups to get smart about safety. If you behave responsibly and professionally TPTB* will support you. If not, they can make life hard, because you make their life hard.
Cheers, Ross Macfarlane
*-he -owers -hat -e