Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Legal Considerations, Accreditation, Industry 
Standards, and Insurance
Where undesirable incidents result in damage claims, the Australian legal system
will typically attempt to apportion blame to those found responsible and award
compensation to those parties suffering loss or injury. These cases can often
revolve around a breach of duty of care where the risk should have been reason-
ably foreseeable (Wilks and Davis, 2000). Further, the adventure tourism opera-
tions are subject to mandatory legal requirements pertaining to applicable
jurisdictions; for instance, in Australia operators are subject to common law, trade
practice, and health and safety legislation, and in many cases, government licens-
ing requirements.
Specific legislation (e.g., the Victorian Government [2001] Maritime Act, 1988)
will in some instances specify standards of operation. These legislative require-
ments will work to determine the minimum standards of entry for operators.
Similarly, land managers may not permit an operator access to a location without
meeting minimum requirements. For example, Parks Victoria (2001) requires oper-
ators to provide evidence of public liability and in some cases details of operator
accreditation.
As a more general strategy to manage the adventure tourism industry, many
countries are now implementing voluntary safety codes of practice. These safety
codes typically encompass key legal, environmental, safety, and customer service
principles. This approach may be the most suitable public policy option, particu-
larly where accidents are recognized to be part of the experience. This view
focuses blame on the individual involved rather than a governing authority
(Johnston, 1989). Bentley, Page, and Laird’s (2001, p. 239) study pointed to the
existence of support for this notion in New Zealand’s adventure tourism industry.
Based on operator reports of injuries, their study identified that clients
’
“failure to
attend to and follow instructions” was a prime cause of injury. Public policy should
therefore emphasize the need for safety management to begin with an education
and training foundation directed towards the individual level (i.e., employees and
clients).
A number of more formalized accreditation systems relating to client safety
operate throughout Australia. Although not generally enforceable, these systems
are often supported through industry-based standards or codes of practice where
adherence may be cited as evidence of an operator meeting legislative obligations.
For example, the Queensland Government’s (2001) industry code of practice
details how horseback riding establishments can meet the obligations of the
Queensland’s Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Industry accreditation may also require certification of an operator’s employees.
Certification for specific activities will normally be based upon an instructor’s hard
skills and activity experience. For example, instructor certification can be gained
through private organizations such as the Professional Association of Diving
Instructors (PADI, 2001), or through competency standards obtained through the
national vocational education and training (VET) system (ORCA, 2001).
Insurance cover for operators allows some of the risk that they carry to be trans-
ferred to another party. For example, adventure tourism operators (and their
employees) require public liability insurance (PLI) to protect them from claims of
Tourism, Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
160
H7898_Ch09.qxd 8/24/05 9:54 PM Page 160

---

third parties (e.g., clients) resulting from loss or injury often due to a breach of the
duty of care (Liability Insurance Taskforce, 2002). Risk management strategies
assist in both recognizing and minimizing the risk retained by the operator and in
identifying that to be transferred to the insurer.
Rising PLI premiums have been recently identified as driving some adventure
tourism operators from the industry. The reasons for premium increases are com-
plex and beyond the scope of this work (see Bartholomeusz [2002] and VTOA
[2001b] for a brief analysis of some relevant factors). Aside from passing on higher
charges to customers, a number of suggestions have been proposed to address this
problem. These include agreements made with clients not to sue if injured (e.g.,
through legally binding waivers), caps on insurance payouts, and legal contesting
of insurance claims to develop case histories (Kemp, 2002). Whatever solution is
found, adventure tourism operators will nevertheless continue to require risk man-
agement planning, including preparation for potential crises.