Yuku free message boards

Scott, Karl and Elizabeth - thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

Come on, the rest of you! We want to hear what you think, or at least to hear
that you're there!

I said I'd try to crystalise out some of the main points, in preparation for
the meeting with the Minister for the Environment on May 30th. This turns out
to be more difficult than I'd expected. What I'll do instead is to pull some
of the main points out of the discussion, and chip in with a point of my own.

The discussion has mainly been about compensation - whether the law should
be changed so that people can't sue the government when they fall off a
rockface in a national park.

Scott Fraser thinks people should have the right to sue. But he also thinks we
shouldn't get entangled in this issue, (a) because it'll be divisive within
our own community, (b) because the only way to open Crookneck is to put
pressure on the politicians. He says that no matter how good our arguments
are for opening Crookneck, QPWS won't listen, or will come up with other
pretexts. He also suggests that lobbying for a change in legislation can be
caricatured as "Climbers's Lobby to Remove Compensation Rights for
Quadraplegics".

In support of Scott's position, John Gardner says that changing the law isn't
a practical possibility because the public and the legal profession will see
it as a removal of our common law right to sue the government.

Against Scott's position, Karl Palsson says that QWPS closed the park because
they can't afford to pay compensation. Ursula Gardner apparently found this
out from their internal memos, which she got under Freedom of Information. The
Workplace Health and Safety Act (1995) makes QWPS liable for all accidents in
National Parks. This, says Karl, is why they closed it, so the law has to be
changed. (Scott says that QWPS wanted to close it, and this was just an
excuse. Scott, how do you know this? Are you saying that compensation isn't
a genuine problem for QWPS? Why else would they have closed it? And even if
they do have some other reason, why shouldn't we remove their excuse?)

Elizabeth Ashmore adds that the compensation issue doesn't only
effect rockclimbers:

>fear of litigation has resulted in many restrictions to use in
>Queensland National Parks, and State Forests. These closures have caused
>major problems for EVERY outdoor recreation activity - including mountain
>bikers, horse riders, 4WDers, bushwalkers, and even bird watchers. So the
>litigation issue effects more groups than rockclimbers (and incidentally
>cost QPWS $19M out of the pathetic budget they got from the State Government
>last year). Accepting personal responsibility for your personal safety when
>engaged in a "risky" (depending upon perspective of course) activity is
>something all these group would like to do.

Here's my contribution.

Which is the greater violation of our rights?

(a) Removing the right to go into a National Park and sue the government if
you break a leg.

(b) Removing the right to go into a National Park AT ALL.

Obviously, (b). Let's get real! If the public and the legal profession
aren't going to like (a), they'll like (b) even less. If Jack and Dianne and
their 2.3 kids are going to get upset about removing rockclimbers' rights to
sue the government if they fall off Crookneck after due warning, they'll be a
lot more upset about having *their* rights removed to climb in the park, walk
in the park, screw in the park, or just have a nice picnic in the park. Saying
that we can't go into a national park at all is a greater violation of our
rights than saying that we can't go in, break a leg and sue the government.
In a complex situation, this is a simple verity we can hang onto.

And we can use it.

Part of me agrees with Scott's political cynicism. The power lies with the
pollies, and they're more inclined to listen to votes than to arguments.

But if our arguments don't work on the politicians, we can use them on the
electorate. Better, we can use them on the politicians by telling them that
we're going to use them on the electorate. It might all come down to political
power in the end, but arguments can have political power if they're properly
directed. And here's an argument: if the public (and the legal profession)
don't like option (a) above, then they'll REALLY object to option (b) when
it's spelled out to them. Trying to retain the right to sue REMOVES the right
to sue (because you can't go into the park in the first place) AND it removes
other rights as well. On the other hand, if the public and the legal
profession don't care about (a) then there's no reason why we shouldn't lobby
for a change of legislation.

Scott told us some interesting stuff at the last meeting about Welford being
in an insecure seat. (Scott, do you want to mail that info to the group?)
Couple this with Elizabeth's point that we're not alone ...

Does anyone know what happens under present legislation if someone
falls off Crookneck? I'm wondering if they can sue anyway. If they can sue
anyway, that would put a different complexion on things. Maybe the government
has to make it, not only illegal, but impossible, to climb the mountain. What
if someone climbs it who doesn't know it's illegal (and falls off)? Maybe
they can't read English, and think the fence is to keep the cattle in...

I sent out an email petition some time ago, asking people to send it back to
me whenever the number of signatures was divisible by 10. I only got 23
signatures, even though the petition went around the world. I'll send the
petition out again to this alias, so that you can resend it. I think it makes
some valid points.

It would be good to have some more discussion before the meeting on the 30th,
so that we can come up with some more ammo and clarify our ideas.

Terry
==============================================
Terry Dartnall
School of Computing and Information Technology
Griffith University Nathan Brisbane
Queensland 4111 Australia
Phone: 61-7-3875 5020
Fax (w): 61-7-3875-5051
Fax (h): 61-7-3273-2434
Home page: www.cit.gu.edu.au/~terryd
==============================================

--
Don't let our National Parks be closed by the fear of litigation.

The Minister for the Environment, Rod Welford, will be opening a day use area at Glen Rock (an Open space environmental park) south of Gatton between 10 and 12AM on SUNDAY, 4 June 2000.

Depending on the outcome of the meeting with the Minister regarding the reopening of Mt.Coonowrin, we may need your support to heighten public awareness in the Minister's presence.

So get your pickets ready, we need as many outdoor enthusiasts (climbers, bushwalkers, birdwatchers) there so that the MINISTER is embarrassed and NOT US!!!!!

Please respond to this idea by email.
John & Ursula Gardner
u_gardner@yahoo.com.au

From J&U Gardner posted to CRAG discussion list:

The following is a list of the people attending the meeting with the Minister this afternoon [ 30 May 2000 ]:

Dr Ron Farmer - President of the Federation of Qld Bushwalking Clubs
Chris McKelvey - climber, solicitor
Trevor Gynther - climber, main activist behind scenic rim national parks system
John & Ursula Gardner

An update on what happens at the meeting this afternoon will be posted as soon as possible. This may very well be the first of many meetings with the Minister regarding this complicated issue.

John & Ursula Gardner