 Insurance and Recces |
|
From: Brett Davis To: info@shoalhavenbushwalkers.com Subject: Insurance and Recces Date sent: Feb 8, 2025 |
|
Hi SBW committee, As you know, Bushwalking Australia organises a National Insurance Scheme offering insurance cover to clubs affiliated with the peak body in their home state, and for SBW the peak body is Bushwalking NSW. Most clubs (including SBW) take out Public Liability, Personal Accident and Associations Liability cover. The “Insurance Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)” page on the Bushwalking Australia website - https://bushwalkingaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Insurance_FAQs.pdf - has a question that asks “Are exploratory walks, pre-walks or recce walks covered by the policies?” The answer says “for an activity to be covered it must be known to the club. The minimum requirement would be that a club officer bearer or committee member is advised of the details and that these are retained in club records.” Normal club activities are on our Program, and therefore “known to the club”. Recces, however, are not on the Program so details of recces should at least be given to a committee member in order for the recce to be covered by insurance. There appears to be nothing on the Bushwalking Australia page that says when a committee member needs to be advised – i.e. before or after the activity – but it would probably be advisable to inform a committee member prior to the activity just in case everybody on the recce died – in which case the recce would not be known to the club and would therefore be a private venture where the club’s insurance is not relevant. Over four months ago, on 23rd September 2024, Greg Smith (on behalf of the IT Team) posted the news item shown below which advertised the committee's decision to reduce the minimum number of walkers allowed on a walk or a recce from 4 to 3. The news item states that having a minimum of three people on a walk or recce allows the participants to be covered by insurance as long as a waiver sheet is sent to sbwwaiver@gmail.com.  The statement in the news item circled is actually misleading for walks because – as is shown above – walks are on our Program, and therefore “known to the club”, so there is no requirement in our safety procedures to send a waiver sheet to sbwwaiver@gmail.com for a normal club activity to be covered by insurance. The news item, however, is correct for recces – which would be covered by insurance as long as a waiver sheet is sent to sbwwaiver@gmail.com. However, sending a waiver sheet to sbwwaiver@gmail.com is not a requirement of our safety procedures for all recces. The club's "Procedures for Recces" document states "If using a Club PLB, email waiver sheet to sbwwaiver@gmail.com" - so there is no requirement in the recce procedures to send a waiver sheet to sbwwaiver@gmail.com if a recce doesn't require a PLB, or if the recce uses a personal PLB and not a club PLB. The recce procedure does state that all members should inform their personal contacts about the recce’s details, but these personal contacts are not necessarily members of the club’s committee. The recce procedure also states that a copy of the waiver sheet should be left behind in a car, but there is no requirement to send that waiver sheet to either a committee member or sbwwaiver@gmail.com afterwards. I would like to suggest that “Procedures for Recces” be amended to require leaders of ALL recces to send a waiver sheet to sbwwaiver@gmail.com PRIOR to all recces. I would also like to suggest – in the interest of complete clarity - that the “Insurance” document be amended to define what “an activity authorised by and under the control of the club” actually is – i.e. “an activity that appears on the club program, or a recce where a waiver sheet has been sent to sbwwaiver@gmail.com beforehand". It is disappointing that the Risk Manager released such a misleading news item. It is disappointing that the other two members of the IT Team thought the news item was okay. It is disappointing that a committee member could produce a document as flawed as the “Procedures for Recces” document. And it is particularly disappointing that none of the twelve committee members noticed anything untoward with either the news item or the recces document. I would suggest that all members of the committee need to lift their game ... 😀 And on a different but related topic, the "Procedures for Recces" document offers some points to outline what might be classed as good practice if a recce is to be carried out as a private venture. The fourth point in the advice states "The recce organiser shall inform a personal contact of where the recce is taking place ..." etc. SBW cannot dictate what people on a "private venture" must do. The fourth point should be changed in line with the other points -so say "should inform" or "is advised to inform". Regards, Brett P.S. Please forgive me if the issues covered in this email are actually addressed somewhere in the club's safety procedures and I haven't noticed it. Having 30 separate safety documents makes finding information difficult. 😀 |
  |
