One of the key recommendations from the Department of Labour's report was for a registration scheme to be established, along with upfront ongoing safety audits.
> For all land-based and water-based activities, excluding white-water rafting and jet-boating, this could include requiring all operators - or all operators within a certain risk profile - to be on a register managed by a central oversight body.
> Those on the register would have to declare against certain requirements, for example, business description information and possession of a safety plan, and also comply with certain requirements in order to operate.
> Once Rule Part 115 - Adventure Aviation is implemented, commercial white-water rafting and jet-boating and adventure aviation activities would already be covered by adequately similar rule-based requirements.
> Main requirements. -
• An upfront external safety audit of operators' safety provisions (to a level commensurate with the risk).
• Ongoing external safety audits (possibly three-yearly).
• An annual declaration they are still complying with their safety plans.
• An obligation on operators to ensure their registration details are kept up to date.
> The audits could be against generic safety criteria or activity-specific codes of practice - generic safety criteria would limit any negative impact on innovation. Minimum standards for the provisions of activities could also be added, for example, fit and proper person criteria.
> Operators who did not register would be barred from operating.
> Operators found to be operating without registration would be prosecuted.
> A public register could be used as an enforcement tool.
> The initiative would require. -
• Identifying requirements to register against.
• A legislative/regulatory mandate.
• An entity to manage the scheme.
• Resources to establish the register.
• Resources to monitor compliance.
• Enforcement against non-registered and non-compliant operations.
• Penalties for non-compliance, for example, "name and shame", or financial.
• Possible assessment of risk profiles (by an association/oversight body) and benchmarks for inclusion.
• Decision on what to audit against (generic minimum standards or activity-specific).
• Possible minimum standards/codes of practice for all relevant activities - if a non-generic approach to safety auditing for taken - and a process for updating these as required.
• A pool of approved auditors/activity-expert auditors (audits could involve a field check) and resources to ensure auditor capacity to avoid slowing down business decisions (although the market may respond to demand).
> However, key concerns about this approach include. -
• Defining the boundaries of the adventure and outdoor commercial sectors could be difficult.
• It is unclear whether the market would respond to ensure auditor capacity and not slow business decisions down.
• If activity-specific codes of practice were the basis for audits, it is unclear how new activities would be serviced in a timely way in terms of standards development and audit processes.
