Ok - A little more constructive:
I just spoke to the State Ombudsman's office - and can confirm that their scope does extend to reviewing complaints (including potential conflicts of interest) relating to local council decisions.
www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/About_Us/Role.htmSuggest that a formal query be raised by WWA relating to the consultation process in passing the rezoning legislation without consideration of WWA.
Further, to actually get the local members listening, raise the perceived conflict of interest of members of the SSLSC securing exclusive beach access rights to 'their patch' by or through CoS Beach Services Co-ordinator (John Snook) - a member of SSLCS. Potential abuse of elected position. Potentially mention also that visibility to risk assessment processes have been requested but not provided. Suggests a very polarised non-scientific use of 'risk assessment' to support their personal (seemingly emotive) views in order to gain more exclusive access to a public beach. Risk assessment takes into account two aspects, consequence and likelihood - the current classification definitions completely miss the point through use of size/speed/manoeuvrability. Consequence of a windsurfing board impact is in the same order as that of a surfboard/ski/kayak/someone's head/or a bogan's fist, (Note none of these are excluded from beach use). Likelihood - considering ~4 months max of late afternoon use, contrasting beach conditions to optimum swimming conditions and most importantly empirical evidence (remote likelihood of actually causing serious injury) suggests that the risk posed is medium due to windsurfing at worst. Especially when compared to daily medium risk activities of surfing, ski riding, kayak paddling during peak swimming times and walking home on the footpath getting bowled over by 30kph lycra clad warriors. Rogue surf ski's and glass paddle boards year round greatly outweigh the risk presented by windsurfing.
It is important to follow this up by raising that the complaint has been lodged to the State Ombudsman in subsequent CoS/WWA/WAKSA/SSLSC meetings - and backup with a summary regarding the less than forthcoming information or responses from CoS to the Perth windsurfing community. Hopefully we can get some attention...
Loa Shi - Great job on your progress so far in these meetings. Please don't be shy in yelling out if you need further support in attendance or writing up a submission etc. I don't know how WWA is resourced to take this up, but I feel it is an important issue for all of us windsurfers to nip in the bud - especially the re-education associated with our sport being High Risk. If we can achieve this, we can stop the rot and have a basis for negotiation if this arises again in the future.
I recommend raising with the Ombudsman - at least to have the complaint on record as early as possible given that there appears to be little interest from the CoS in responding to emails/letters from concerned windsurfers and that this could all run its course and be locked in very soon.
Note: In reviewing the MOM when the legislation was adopted, the emotive nature and reasoning behind this restriction is inherently observed in the Comments section on page 338.
The City of Stirling recognises that its beaches provide an ideal location for people to pursue a wide range of recreational activities, including, but not limited to, kite and windsurfing, fishing, dog exercise, surfing, surf life saving, swimming and the like. Many of these activities have been taking place for years and have developed informal arrangements, particularly with regard to locations where these activities are undertaken. In order to better manage the varying forms of recreational activities it is necessary to formalise some of the existing informal arrangements
Taking a step back, WHY when someone was talking about managing users of a beach would kitesurfing and windsurfing be listed first.. A normal statement would be bathing, sunbathing, swimming, throwing a Frisbee, surfing, boogie boarding etc A LONG way away from rare activities of windsurfing and kitesurfing.. Dog exercise, fishing etc have been thrown in for measure..
Lets work hard with the CoS through WWA to focus on "formalising the existing arrangement" and question the motives of the CoS Beach Services Co-ordinator/SSLSC via a registered query with the Ombudsman. If everything was undertaken above board, no harm done. But currently there is a significant lack of education and stakeholder consultation identified to support that the legislation should have been passed as written. The window of opportunity is the 1yr review period.
The Financial Implications of the MOM all that is identified is signage… No suggestion that rezoning of areas requires budgeting for additional infrastructure in the forms of access, carparks, amenities, services, security etc of land users who are subsequently ostracised. Pretty standard short-sightedness I guess...
Alternatively, we could draft a submission for social Heritage Listing to preserve the memory of our sport, rapidly being carried away by tangled kite lines into oblivion.
Not all older people are wise and to take advise off would be foolish.Thanks.
All they have done is forward my emails onto the Beach Services Manager (amazing effort!) to whom I have liaised with.
keep the push with this...
