I emailed the DPTI in regards to the changing of the nanny law of wearing a PFD whilst WS.
The plan is to follow this up further with the local MP and a few other contacts. Im not sure if anyone else is doing any work to get the legislation changed, maybe if everyone makes a noise and a petition is submitted through the WSSA. or is this already getting done?
below is the outcome from the email sent:
Comments/Enquiry:
Hello,
I am contacting you in regards to the legislation that relates to Marine safety. I have attached the web link for your reference. (http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport%2C+travel+and+motoring/Boating+and+marine/Boat+and+marine+safety/Marine+safety+equipment/Carrying+suitable+safety+equipment)
I am interested in the required process by government for the alteration of part of this legislation
Thankyou
Hello,
The safety equipment requirements for recreational vessels in SA are set out in Schedule 9 of the Harbours & Navigation Regulations 2009.The regulations are reviewed from time to time, the most recent being that which was completed in 2009. At other times when there is a recognised need for alteration, a submission must be made to cabinet via the relevant department and its Minister. A regulation may become dated due to changes in technology, community attitudes or other reasons.The initial idea may come from a member of the community, the public service or a member of parliament.
If you have constructive ideas about alterations to safety equipment regulations for recreational boats in SA, you can submit your ideas to this department in writing, either personally or through an industry or sporting association, or through your local member of parliament.
The Boating Industry Association of SA, RecFish SA or Yachting SA may be interested in supporting your submission if they consider it relevant to their membership.
If your idea is seen to have merit, DPTI will make a cabinet submission which sets out the suitable alteration. Upon cabinets approval, the alteration can be facilitated.
I hope that this is helpful.
Boating Safety Team
New Feedback has been submitted to sa.gov.au.
Subject: Marine Safety Equipment
URL: http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport%2C+travel+and+motoring/Boating+and+marine/Boat+and+marine+safety/Marine+safety+equipment/Carrying+suitable+safety+equipment
Nice work Cain,
Here is what I know.
Harry knows someone high up in Transport SA and has requested a meeting.
There is a document I've prepared outlining the issues and trying to clarify what we are asking for - I think we need to be clear and united [as far as possible :-) ] on this before we approach them and/or ministers etc. Harry is looking at this document at the moment.
I'll email this document to you later today for comment.
I will also circulate to WSA members later today as well.
Anyone else not in WSA who wants me to email it to them, PM me and I will oblige.
Cheers, Richard
Do you think it would be good to talk with SAKSA as well as they are having similar problems
A combined front could be more powerful
if they dont change the law you could all move down here, most beach goers dont venture out of their cars due to the cold lol, and we all know how small things shrink up in the cold dont we pat
pat sparks wouldnt cope so well with the lack of respect for authority down at carpenter rocks
he might even go missing
he might even go missing
Fair call boys, just my poor sense of humor. Just wondering have you's two fellas been pinched? Lol.
I guess a low profile might help your case.
Sorry.
Hope the long arm of the law doesnt stretch down too far south or I could be eating my words.
Good luck with your actions btw.
Fortunately I have had not been approached on this Pillly and not sure how I would respond if cornered but I know I too wouldn't be happy.
They must have overhauled the legislation because of the overwhelming amount of wavesailors that have drowned in the surf In SA in the past 30 years.
No point going to the boaties. They have no interested and would not understand. We need to leverage from the legislation in other states and overseas and any research on injuries or deaths relating to windsurfing to win this one I think. It would help to know how they approached in in Vic (I think it was Vic where they recently got it changed).
I have been doing a bit of reseach into the legal system for an unrelated matter.
I found that in NSW and Victorian legislation they have a statute called "Defence of Necessity" which means people are not compelled to follow laws when doing so would put their lives in danger.
It has been used successfully in the defence of bicycle helmet infringements and other nanny state offences in these states.
It would not at all be difficult to apply this to PFD offences.
Unfortunately I can not find such a statute in South Australian legislation.
In my experience it is extremely difficult and time consuming to form lobby groups to repeal legislation such as PFD's for sailboarders and kiters. The people who dream up and enforce these laws are driven by ego, they will only back down when faced with opposition with the power to publicly humiliate them. In other words, a lobby group who can use the media to its advantage.
I don't see a sailboarder/kiter collective achieving the influence necessary to acheive this. I hope I'm wrong.
I reckon it would be easier to find and exploit a loophole such as "Defence of Necessity." If something like this does not exist in SA then we could join forces with other interest groups grovelling with nanny state laws and form a much more formidable group. This way could kill several birds with one stone.
Imagine being able to sail in waves without a cumbersome PFD, AND being able to ride your pushbike through the park to the shop without a helmet.
Of course the law would still stand, you would however be able to impress opon the likes of MR Sparks the folly of his bullying tactics and present him with your extended middle finger, Knowing full well your actions are 100% defendable in the magistrates court should he be stupid enough to issue an infringement under those circumstances.
Just putting this out there as a thought. What do others think?
Very sad to hear about the man injured in the surf over in Adelaide last week. Hope he is recovering well.
Gwendy, Not sure if trying to link the requirement to wear a PFD in the surf to the requirement to wear a Bike Helmet cause is a well thought through one.
Acquired brain injuries as a result of bike accidents, or more to the point, prevention of acquired brain injury due to the wearing of a helmet is fact.
There is wide ranging support for the requirement to wear bicycle helmets to prevent brain injury which is backed by scientific evidence.
No such evidence stands over the safety 'associated' with wearing a PFD in the surf, in fact Harry's recent injury (broken neck) as a result of wearing a PFD in the surf while wave sailing disproves the suggested safety benefits.
I think the use of the 'Defence of Necessity' as you outlined, where wearing a PFD in the surf is concerned, could be a solid approach, if an associated South Australian legislation can be located or linked to it.
Labelling the forced use of bike helmets and the recently enforced use of PFD's for wave sailors in South Australia into the same argument against Nanny State legislation is counterproductive based purely on the community perception of the benefits of one validating the other.
Helmets prevent injury, PFD's prevent drownings... so they must be a good thing to enforce.
Another way to look at it... Wearing a bike helmet does not place a rider in any danger... the same cannot be said for the wearing of PFD in the surf.
Two very different arguments when the issue of 'choice' is removed from the equation which is where the connotation of Nanny State actually lies.
Just my 2 cents !
Get a 'powerful' MP on to it. A couple of years ago Vic was about to have laws introduced that restricted distances from shore depending on boat length. Local sessions were held & I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to speak with an MP through a business contact, (whom also was the deputy premier). He spoke very intelligently & the Marine board had no replies to many of his questions - end result, the proposed laws were thrown out.
