*Corresponding author. Tel.: #61-07-3864-4589; fax: #61-07-3864-4592.

E-mail address: carrs-q@qut.edu.au (J. Wilks).

Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599

Risk management for scuba diving operators on Australia'sGreat Barrier Reef

Je!rey Wilks!,*, Robert J. Davis"!Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety } Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, Beams Road, Carseldine, Qld 4034, Australia"Attwood Marshall } Lawyers, Suite 1, Level 2, Showcase On The Beach, Cnr Marine Pde and Warner Street, Coolangatta, Qld 4225, Australia

Abstract

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is one of the world's most popular scuba diving destinations. Unfortunately, a series of recent divinginjuries and deaths has tarnished the region's safety record. In particular, media attention surrounding the disappearance of Americandivers Thomas and Eileen Lonergan has focused attention on dive operators' legal responsibilities and the consequences of failing todischarge their duty of care to customers. This paper brie#y examines the relevant Australian law for recreational diving operations,and reviews risk management strategies that may reduce or prevent the occurrence of future problems. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.

Keywords: Risk management; Scuba diving; Australia

1. Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef stretches 2500 km down theQueensland coast and is one of the world's most popularscuba diving destinations. Tourism "gures show that inexcess of one million recreational scuba dives are madefrom commercial vessels by visitors to the Great BarrierReef each year (Wilks, 1993a; Windsor, 1996). For inter-national visitors to Australia, scuba diving and snorkell-ing are among the most popular activities reported inindustry surveys (Bureau of Tourism Research, 1991,1997).

Scuba diving contributes substantially to marinetourism in Queensland. A total of 243 charter operatorsare licensed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority to conduct scuba diving activities along thereef, and the dive industry generates annual revenue inexcess of A$103 million (Windsor, 1996). For economicreasons it is important that the Queensland tourist divingindustry is regarded as safe (Division of WorkplaceHealth and Safety, 1996).

Recreational scuba divers generally belong to one offour groups. It is important to identify and distinguishbetween these groups because each has a di!erent safety

risk pro"le. The "rst group has been trained and certi"edby an accredited training agency. These `certi"eda diverscarry a card that allows them to rent equipment and todive in pairs under conditions similar to those in whichthey were trained. For those with an entry level certi"ca-tion, this means to depths of up to 18 m in fair weather(Wilks, 1993b). Approximately, 943,000 dives are madeby trained divers from commercial vessels on the GreatBarrier Reef each year (Windsor, 1996).

The second group are divers in the process of beingtrained. As part of the certi"cation program to acquirea licence, each candidate must demonstrate their skillsover at least four open-water dives under the supervisionof an instructor. Approximately, 150,000 open watertraining dives are conducted on the Great Barrier Reefeach year (Windsor, 1996), with a further 68,000 specialty(e.g. night diving, marine biology) and advanced trainingdives being made under supervision by divers who havealready achieved their entry quali"cation.

The third group have not been trained or certi"ed.Indeed, for many of these `introductorya or &resort'divers, their "rst experience underwater on SCUBA wasprobably not planned in advance. Rather, they havetaken an opportunity as it was o!ered while on vacationin a marine setting (Wilks, 1992). Introductory divers areescorted and closely supervised underwater by a certi"edinstructor. Approximately, 129,500 resort dives are con-ducted on the Great Barrier Reef each year (Windsor,

0261-5177/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - X

1996). Visitors report a high level of pleasure and satisfac-tion with their introductory dive experience (Wilks& Beecham, 1992) and these activities are generally verysafe (Wilks, 1993c). An introductory experience does notentitle a resort diver to continue diving independently. Ifthey wish to obtain their licence they must then completea full open-water certi"cation course.

The fourth group of divers includes certi"ed Instruct-ors and Divemasters. Instructors dive in a number ofcategories: as teachers of open water and continuingeducation courses; as supervisors of resort courses; asguides for certi"ed divers; and as social divers in theirown right. Divemasters act as a certi"ed assistant toinstructors in training programs and as underwaterguides for certi"ed divers. They can supervise resortdivers on their second dive of the day and they divesocially themselves. While Instructors and Divemastersare very active on the Great Barrier Reef, the exactnumber of dives they make annually is not known. In-deed, there is only limited information currently avail-able about their work practices and dealings withcustomers (Wilks, 1995; Wilks & Atherton, 1995).

Finally, there are divers who enjoy the reef waters o!the Queensland coast but have limited or no contact withcommercial operators; for example, certi"ed and uncerti-"ed divers who have all of their own equipment, includ-ing access to a compressor for "lling tanks (Wilks, 1993a).For this reason there has never been an accurate calcu-lation of the total number of dives made on the GreatBarrier Reef each year. Before any de"nitive statementcan be made about diving safety, the total number ofdives conducted would need to be known. For the pur-pose of this paper, statements about safety are con-strained to what limited information is available aboutcommercial dive operations.

2. Scuba diving safety

Safety has always been a concern for the Queenslandscuba diving industry, and overall the safety record ap-peared commendable for many years (Wilks, 1993c). Gov-ernment sources suggest that only one in 430,000Queensland dives results in a fatality, compared to one per120,000 dives in the rest of Australia. In the United States,the rate is one death per 100,000 dives, while in Japanthere are 6.5 deaths per 100,000 dives (Santoro, 1996).

Since there has never been a comprehensive audit of allscuba diving activity in Queensland, these fatality "guresare only best estimates. When it comes to non-fatalinjuries the picture is even less clear. Information col-lected by the Division of Workplace Health and Safetyfrom various sources identi"ed 14 deaths and 260 injuriesresulting from underwater diving in Queensland between1990 and 1996 (Division of Workplace Health andSafety, 1996).

However, the Division also acknowledges that someinjuries may be missed in o$cial reporting proceduresdue to limitations on access to information held by hos-pitals and medical surgeries. For example, hospitals donot routinely distinguish between commercial and recre-ational dive injury treatments (Wilks, 1993c). In addition,apart from decompression illness, it is di$cult to identifyscuba diving related injuries from general hospital re-cords. In a recent study of seven Queensland coastalhospitals, 69 cases of decompression illness in touristswere identi"ed over a 12 month period (Nicol, Wilks& Wood, 1996). For overseas tourists in Queensland,decompression illness was the second most frequent typeof injury requiring hospitalisation (following fractures).

While it can be argued that Queensland scuba diving isrelatively safe considering the large number of divesmade each year on the Great Barrier Reef, a recent spateof deaths and injuries has raised questions about stan-dards of operation in this area of marine tourism(Metcalf, 1998). In particular, media interest in the disap-pearance of American divers Thomas and Eileen Lone-rgan has focused attention on dive operators' legalresponsibilities and the consequences of failing todischarge their duty of care to customers (Reid, 1998).

Coroner Nunan found that Thomas and Eileen Lone-rgan died at sea after being accidentally left behind at StCrispin's Reef on the afternoon of 25 January 1998. Theskipper of the vessel was charged with manslaughter onthe basis of criminal negligence (Nunan, 1998).

In response to the Lonergan's disappearance, on6 February 1998 the government commissioned an in-dustry panel to review the appropriateness of workplacehealth and safety standards relating to recreational div-ing and snorkelling. The panel's "nal report (DivingIndustry Taskforce, 1999) recommends increased statu-tory regulation of the recreational diving industry, and inparticular that more emphasis be given to certain safetyprocedures, especially site supervision and people counts.

Given the current scrutiny of safety issues in theQueensland dive industry, it appears timely to brie#yexamine the relevant Australian law for recreational diveoperations, and to review risk management strategiesthat may reduce or prevent the occurrence of futureproblems.

3. Key areas of law relevant to recreational diveoperations

3.1. Contract law

When a customer purchases a ticket to board a boatand participate in diving services a contract is formedbetween the diver and the supplier of those services.Implicitly, the supplier of goods and/or services is re-sponsible for the safety of the diver during the course of

592 J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599

their contractual arrangement. Various pieces of legisla-tion throughout Australia reinforce the supplier's respon-sibilities. For example, in Queensland the state's FairTrading Act 1989 (Qld) and the Sale of Goods Act 1896(Qld), as well as the federal Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth), all confer rights on individuals who are injured orotherwise su!er loss following the supply of goods and/orservices (Davis, 1995).

Davis (1995) notes that the federal Trade Practices Act1974 (Cth) is a particularly important piece of consumer-protection legislation because it prevents dive operatorsfrom avoiding liability through contractual exclusionclauses. Speci"cally, Section 70 of the Trade PracticesAct 1974 (Cth) implies conditions into a diving contractthat any goods (e.g. rented scuba equipment) will be of`good quality and reasonably "t for the purpose int-endeda. Section 74 of the Act further implies into thecontract that the services (e.g. the boat trip to the divesite; supervision of divers at the dive site) will be providedwith all `due care and skilla. Under Section 68 of the Actthese warranties and conditions cannot be excluded, andany attempt to exclude them is itself a ground for com-plaint under Section 53(g). Davis (1995) points out thatdive operators' inability to contract out of their responsi-bilities under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) alsoprevents them from contracting out of their common law`duty of carea.

Wilks and Atherton (1994a) advise that marinetourism operators should always point out all the in-herent risks in activities such as scuba diving. This shouldbe carefully incorporated into brochure and promotionalmaterial. Failure to do so may leave operators exposed toclaims of `false and misleading representationsa underboth the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), section 53, andthe Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), section 40. This problemwas highlighted in one Queensland study assessing thelegal content of tourism brochures (Wilks, Atherton& Cavanagh, 1994). The study found that the commonfailure to mention medical clearance requirements fordivers in promotional brochures could be a potentialproblem for tourist operators. The study also found thatmany operators were including disclaimers in their pro-motional brochures, in an attempt to protect themselvesagainst potential claims for negligence.

Reliance on exclusion clauses, limitation clauses orliability release forms for legal protection is usually inef-fective in Australia. Such clauses will not override rel-evant statutory obligations (Cordato, 1993). Even undercommon law, such clauses must be carefully drafted andmust be brought to the attention and understanding ofthe customer before the contract is entered into, andwithout any misrepresentation by the operator or itsagents. Even then an exclusion clause will not bind in-fants or foreign nationals who do not understand thelanguage (Wilks & Atherton, 1994a). Since overseas visi-tors contribute substantially to the dive industry on the

Great Barrier Reef (Bureau of Tourism Research, 1997),charter operators must be aware of their legal obligationto explain any release, waiver or limitation form in a waythat is fully understood and accepted by the diver.

In summary, contract law requires the dive operator tobe clear and honest about the goods and services beingo!ered to the customer. Goods must be of &good qualityand reasonably "t for the purpose intended', while servi-ces must be provided with &due care and skill'. A breachof contract can result in a claim for damages against thedive operator.

3.2. The tort of negligence

The word &tort' is of French derivation, and it simplymeans &wrong'. Torts are often described as &civil wrongs'to distinguish them from criminal wrongs (Davies, 1995).Among the various torts (e.g. assault, trespass, nuisance)the source of most litigation is that of negligence. AsMendelson (1997, p.107) observes, `negligence is reallyabout prevention and control of risky behavioura.

To prove negligence and obtain damages, a plainti!(person injured) must show that the defendant owedthem a &duty of care', that there had been a breach of thatduty, and that the breach had caused the injury. Finally,the plainti! must establish that the injury caused by thedefendant was reasonably foreseeable. While every activ-ity, including scuba diving, carries with it some degree ofrisk, the criteria for being &foreseeable' set down by theHigh Court of Australia in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt(1980, p.47) is that `the risk is not one that is far-fetchedor fancifula. Whether a risk was foreseeable will be deter-mined on the particular facts of each case. An action forpersonal injuries must usually be commenced withinthree years, otherwise it may be statute-barred under theLimitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

A duty of care arises from proximity between the twoparties. That is, their relationship to one another. Inaddition, there is the condition that loss or damage ofsome kind is reasonably foreseeable if one of the partiesfails to take reasonable care in the relationship (Davies,1995). In order to bring a claim in negligence some actualinjury must occur, it is not enough that the plainti!su!ers disappointment with their dive experience or hurtfeelings.

Wodak and Gatehouse (1993) point out that there aremany di!erent circumstances in recreational diving thatgive rise to a duty of care. For dive schools, the relation-ship of instructor and student gives rise to a duty of carein negligence, as well as in contract. So, for introductorydivers on their "rst underwater experience, as well as divestudents completing the requirements of their open waterlicence, instructors have clear legal responsibilities.

Business owners may also be responsible for the negli-gent actions of their sta! by way of what is called &vicari-ous liability' if, for example, the wrongful acts of a dive

J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599 593

instructor were carried out during the normal course ofhis employment. In more serious cases of injury a busi-ness owner may also be held accountable for the negli-gence of sta! through what is called a &non-delegableduty of care' (see the High Court majority decision inBurnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd, 1994).

While industry sources con"rm that a number of lawsuits are made each year against dive operators for negli-gence and breach of contract, very few cases are reportedin the legal literature. Most claims are settled out ofcourt, usually with a con"dentiality clause inserted in thesettlement to prevent the parties from discussing thematter or disclosing the details of settlement. Wherecourt awards are made, the amounts can be substantial.For example, in Tonkin v Gunn and Anor (1988) theSupreme Court of Queensland awarded the plainti!'swidow $282,440 damages for loss of dependency after herhusband died in a scuba diving incident. In that case,Justice Connolly found defective scuba equipment andinadequate supervision caused the death.

In summary, dive operators and their sta! have a legalresponsibility to protect the health and safety of all diversin their care, under both contract and tort law. InQueensland, health and safety responsibilities have alsobeen formalised through legislation.

3.3. Workplace health and safety legislation

Recreational scuba diving has been the focus of con-siderable attention under Queensland workplace healthand safety legislation since 1989 (Wilks & Beecham, 1993;Wilks & Atherton, 1994b). The Diving Industry Tas-kforce (1999) provides a useful overview of various piecesof legislation, regulations and codes of practice that havebeen in force over the past ten years. Su$ce it to say, theQueensland government has tried very hard to addresshealth and safety issues in this particular industry.

As noted by the Diving Industry Taskforce (1999, p.6):

The regulatory framework for workplace health andsafety requires that employers or self-employed per-sons adopt e!ective risk management strategies thatwill minimise risks inherent in underwater diving andsnorkelling.

The current Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld)imposes duties on employers at a &workplace' to ensurethe health and safety of employees and others and im-poses criminal sanctions for a breach. The de"nition ofworkplace is very wide, and includes as a speci"c example`A vessel used for teaching members of the public toscuba divea (Section 9(1)). Similarly, the de"nition of&plant' under the Act is very broadly de"ned (Schedule 3)so that it would clearly cover any equipment supplied bya scuba diving operator to instructors, dive mastersor customers at a workplace. Davis (1995) notes that

a breach of the Act may simultaneously impose criminalliability, may sometimes confer a right to sue for damagesfor breach of statutory duty, or be relied on by commonlaw courts as evidencing a breach of tortious or contrac-tual duty of care.

Until recently, the dive industry was subject to a Codeof Practice for recreational diving (Division of Work-place Health and Safety, 1994), which allowed operatorsto self-regulate their activities. Davis (1995) points outthat Codes of Practice (currently referred to as AdvisoryStandards) cannot of themselves create civil or criminalliability, but they can be used as a benchmark to demon-strate that an operator has not complied with the Act,and has therefore breached his or her statutory duty orhas failed to exercise reasonable care (see WorkplaceHealth and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), Section 42).

Problems with a self-regulation approach to safetyhave recently been emphasised by the Diving IndustryTaskforce (1999, p.6):

Unfortunately, experience over the 1990s has shownthat it cannot always be assumed that all employersand self-employed persons in the recreational divingand snorkelling industry have been or are willing tovoluntarily adopt safe systems of work in the absenceof regulatory controls prescribing minimum workplacehealth and safety standards.

To address the problems highlighted by the disappear-ance of the Lonergans, and other recent diving deaths,the Diving Industry Taskforce (1999) has recommendedthat regulations be introduced for the industry, speci"-cally in the areas of:

f Dive and snorkelling site supervision.f Accounting for passengers on and o! vessels.f Medical and physical "tness to undertake recreational

diving and snorkelling.

In summary, Queensland workplace health and safetylegislation is a very powerful tool that can be used todirect risk management practices. Over a 10 year period,the government has attempted to improve diving safetyby using a range of statutory mechanisms. There is nodoubt that the workplace health and safety model hasmany useful features, as evidenced by the fact thatQueensland's standards are being used in the UnitedKingdom and Germany as a reference for developmentof diving safety codes (Santoro, 1996). The law is, how-ever, only one component in the risk management pro-cess. The fact that safety problems continue to existsuggests that operators are making decisions about theirrisk exposure based on other considerations. These otherfactors need to be identi"ed in order to e!ectively addresssafety issues.

594 J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599

Fig. 1. The risk evaluation matrix.

4. A risk management framework

Wilks and Oldenburg (1995) have argued that theconcept of risk management is a useful framework inwhich to understand and respond to tourist health re-quirements. Moreover, as a recognised business prin-ciple, risk management is also readily understood bycommercial operators. The "rst step in making decisionsabout risk management is to accurately assess businessexposure, based on the frequency and severity of identi-"ed potential risks. Risk, in this framework, includes pure"nancial risk, indirect "nancial risk that emanates fromlegal proceedings, and physical risks that are faced byclients and employees.

Cuskelly and Auld (1989) suggest the use of a riskevaluation matrix for such planning. Fig. 1 presents thematrix, containing four management response optionsaccording to the level of identi"ed risk.

4.1. Risk retention

Where both the frequency and severity of risk is lowoperators often retain their risk. This is a form of self-insurance whereby the operator assumes and acceptsa certain level of losses. Retention is either passive (risksare retained by an operator without the knowledge thatthey are occurring), or active (where risk is identi"ed anda decision is made to retain and pay for any losses fromthe operator's own resources). An example of risk reten-tion might be a dive instructor choosing not to ensure hispersonal diving equipment. This active decision might bebased on the fact that he always has the equipment closeat hand, and if it did go missing the cost to replace itwould be less than that of the insurance premiums overtime. This risk management strategy is appropriate wheneverything is going well.

4.2. Risk transfer

Where the frequency of risk potential is low, but theseverity of a potential incident is high, the most commonand traditional approach to risk management is transfer-ring responsibility to other parties (Wilks & Oldenburg,1995). Diving safety is a good example. Injuries do nothappen very often, but when they do occur they can besevere. For example, in the case of Andrewartha v Cool-angatta Dive and Rawlins the Queensland District Courtawarded damages of $380,000 plus costs for operatornegligence where a diver su!ered decompression illness(Davis, 1995). As the severity of risk potential increases,operators cannot a!ord to retain their risk so they musttransfer it to others.

Traditionally, the main component of risk manage-ment employed by dive operators is insurance cover. Allinstructors and divemasters are required by their trainingagencies to carry professional indemnity insurance as

a condition of membership. In addition, dive operatorsconducting business from premises on land or vesselsat sea would usually carry public liability insurance(Wodak & Gatehouse, 1993).

While insurance cover is essential for dive operators,Wilks and Oldenburg (1995) caution that exclusion ofcertain risks and refusal to pay claims if there is anybreach of &due diligence' provisions in a policy, suggestthat it is inappropriate to rely solely on insurance protec-tion.

4.3. Risk reduction

Where the severity of a potential risk remains low, butthe overall frequency of risk is increasing operators needto consider ways of reducing their exposure. An examplehere might be an increasing number of divers not follow-ing pre-dive instructions and returning to the boat lateand out-of-air. Appropriate &best practice' responses tocurb the growing number of problems might include theestablishment of set policies and procedures, sta! train-ing, signposting of hazards, provision of emergency faci-lities and maintaining written records (Wilks, 1993d,1999).

Risk reduction is the focus of current Queenslandgovernment recommendations to improve diving safetyin response to the Lonergan's disappearance. In particu-lar, the Diving Industry Taskforce (1999) has proposedthat:

f regulations be made to ensure that dive sites are con-tinuously supervised by designated lookouts;

f regulations be made to account for all people on boardrecreational diving vessels; and

f regulations be made to ensure that written records bekept in the form of dive safety logs for all dives,including resort dives.

J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599 595

4.4. Risk avoidance

Finally, when frequency and severity of risk potentialare both high, operators should consider cancellinga program or activity. This is often the only option whenweather conditions are judged to be too dangerous fordiving. For operators this is a serious option since itinvolves disappointment for customers if a service iscancelled, as well as loss of company revenue. However,in the interests of preventing further problems, it is animportant risk management consideration (Wilks& Oldenburg, 1995).

In summary, the best approach to risk management fordive operators appears to be a combination of best prac-tice initiatives to reduce risk and insurance cover totransfer some of the "nancial responsibility should a diveinjury occur.

5. Diving incidents

In order to choose the most appropriate methods ofreducing risk, operators need to identify and prioritisetheir main areas of exposure. The term &diving incident'has been used by Acott (1994, p.26) to describe `any erroror unplanned event that could, or indeed did, reduce thesafety margin for the diver on a particular dive. The errormay have been made by anybody associated with thedive and can occur at any stage during the divea. Thisbroad de"nition includes the action (or inaction) of divesta! as well as the divers themselves, so it is an appropri-ate foundation for a review of general safety issues.

While there may be some variation between operatorsbased on speci"c market segments (e.g. a liveaboardspecialising in long trips for experienced divers, in con-trast to a day trip vessel o!ering mainly introductorydives), the following have been identi"ed as general areaswhere diving incidents are most likely to occur for travel-lers visiting the Great Barrier Reef (Wilks, 1993d, 1999).

6. Health and 5tness

Scuba diving is generally not a physically demandingactivity, but it does require a reasonable level of healthand "tness. In their review of 100 consecutive scubadiving deaths in Australia and New Zealand, Edmondsand Walker (1989) found that in 25% of the fatalitiesthere was a pre-existing medical contraindication toscuba diving. Parker (1991a) reports that the most com-mon reasons for failure of a diving medical examinationare asthma, respiratory tract infections, poor lung func-tion, and various ear, nose and throat conditions. Unfor-tunately, it is well known that some divers manage toobtain medical clearance despite medical conditions thatshould prevent them from diving (Cullen, 1995; Walker,

1995). This makes risk management very di$cult for diveoperators.

A further problem in this area is that diver certi"cationcards, once issued, do not expire. There is no mandatoryrequirement that a certi"ed diver maintain their "tness todive, nor have a medical check up after the initial medicalexamination to obtain their licence. Yet, with the naturalaging process and changes in life circumstances, healthand medical conditions will vary from the time of originalcerti"cation.

Returning to the four main groups of recreationalscuba divers on the Great Barrier Reef, research suggeststhat most attention should be given to the certi"ed diverwho dives infrequently (Wilks, 1993d). Determining "t-ness to dive is an important component of overall riskassessment. Excessive weight, obvious nervousness andthe use of medication or a ventilator prior to the dive areclear warning signs that dive supervisors must act upon(Widman, 1975). Latent or pre-existing medical condi-tions are more di$cult to detect and control. To addressthe issues of health and "tness it is recommended thatoperators require all certi"ed divers to complete a briefmedical questionnaire and certify that they are "t to dive.Operators should also reserve the right to refuse servicesto those divers they believe are not "t to dive.

For introductory divers an initial medical examinationis not required in Australia. Candidates are screened atthe resort or dive site using a medical questionnaire. Ifany medical contraindication to diving (e.g. asthma) isticked on the checklist, then the candidate is not allowedto dive. Clearly, this honesty system is open to abuse andpeer pressure can often result in introductory divers notdisclosing conditions that are potentially dangerous tothem. While the safety record for introductory diving onthe Great Barrier Reef is very good (Wilks, 1993c), con-tinued safety relies heavily on personal honesty with themedical questionnaires (Parker, 1991b).

The Diving Industry Taskforce (1999) has recommen-ded that the practice of screening prospective resortcourse divers by means of a medical declaration be con-tinued, and that modi"cations to the form currently usedinclude provision for the diver's signature on the declar-ation. Sound risk management practice suggests thatoperators should require a similar signed medical declar-ation from certi"ed divers.

Of the remaining two identi"ed groups of divers on theGreat Barrier Reef, students wishing to undertake a certi-"cation program must obtain a medical clearance beforecommencing their course. Dive operators are advised tosend their prospective students to a medical practitio-ner quali"ed in underwater medicine (Gorman, 1994).A comprehensive dive medical should reveal any medicalcontraindications to diving and provide some legal pro-tection for the dive operator.

The "nal group consists of scuba instructors anddivemasters. Instructors generally report good health

596 J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599

(Wilks, 1993e), though they are also identi"ed as a speci-"c group requiring treatment for diving-related illnessand injuries. For example, 38 instructors were treated forDecompression Illness at the Townsville General Hospi-tal between November 1989 and December 1993 (Marks& Fallow"eld, 1994). While the full rami"cations ofwork-related injury for instructors and divemasters arebeyond the scope of this paper, dive operators shouldinsist that their sta!maintain good health as part of theirjob, and undertake a thorough medical examination ona regular basis.

7. Training and skills maintenance

While a small number of students are injured duringdive training programs each year (e.g. Walker, 1991),operators on the Great Barrier Reef are most likely toexperience problems with rusty and inexperienced certi"-ed divers (Acott, 1994; Walker, 1994). This is largelybecause diver certi"cation cards do not expire and thereis no mandatory requirement for divers to maintain theirskills and knowledge from one year to the next (Wilks,1993d). A number of options are available to address theissue of training and skills maintenance, including conti-nuing education and refresher training programs (Wilks,1993d, 1999). However, for the dive operator the twomain methods for ensuring that divers are prepared toenter the water are the dive brie"ng and site supervision.As sport researchers, Merriman and Conn (1988) argue,providing a safe environment is the greatest step that canbe taken to avoid sport injury litigation.

7.1. Dive briexngs

A complete brie"ng should include both an &area brief-ing' and a pre-dive safety check. The area brie"ng shouldinclude information on water conditions (e.g. depth, tem-perature, visibility), bottom conditions, water movement,area hazards and precautions, instructions speci"c to thedive (time, distance and depth limits), buddy system pro-cedures, signals, entry and exit methods, and emergencyprocedures (for a detailed discussion of topics to beincluded in a dive brie"ng, see Graver, 1989).

The dive brie"ng is a very cost-e!ective method ofpromoting safety, but it is a risk management strategythat is often not used to its full potential. As MelbourneCoroner Max Beck notes:

I have this advice for Divemasters on dive charterboats. They are the last thing between the diver and thedeep blue. They have no control over the divers afterthey enter the water. I believe it imperative that theyhave a tailor made, typed up, (or written), laminated,formatted, detailed dive brief before them to read outso they do not omit any necessary detail. There should

be a speci"c, tailor made brief for every special or di$cultdive. It can be handed to divers en route to the dive site toread and read out aloud at the dive site and then hung ona clip in some convenient location for all to observe. Thissmall piece of house keeping will not only protectDivemasters, it may also save lives (Beck, 1997, p.13).

While experience shows that some divers will stilldisobey instructions given during the dive brie"ng, safetywill nevertheless be enhanced if emphasis is placed onlocal safety procedures to be followed during the dive.One of the critical points that must be stressed in thebrie"ng is the importance of the buddy system (Wilks,1993d). Encouraging divers to work together in theirbuddy pairs, from planning the dive through to checkingequipment and staying together during the dive, cansubstantially improve safety. In one study on a GreatBarrier Reef charter vessel, a majority of the diving inci-dents observed among certi"ed divers involved dive part-ners failing to assist each other (Wilks & Christie, 1992).

7.2. Site supervision

The "nal area of risk management concerns site super-vision. In particular, the use of designated lookouts andkeeping written logs of diver activity have recently beenemphasised. In his inquiry "ndings, Coroner NoelNunan made the following speci"c recommendationsabout operators' duties:

I recommend that whilst any diving or snorkelling istaking place that it be mandatory to have a lookout onduty clearly visible to those in the water, whose soleresponsibility and task is to keep a proper lookout.

Secondly, I recommend that it be mandatory foreach dive company to have in place some failsafesystem of ensuring that all divers have returned fromtheir dive within a reasonable time. An example of thiswould be a dive log signed by each diver on theirreturn which is then checked and signed by thedivemaster and by the skipper before departing thedive site (Nunan, 1998, p. 18).

The Diving Industry Taskforce (1999) has adoptedthese recommendations and proposes that minimumstandards be set and enforced by regulation. However,for risk management to be e!ective, dive operators needto go further by putting in place policies and proceduresto demonstrate that their `duty of carea has been dis-charged. This should include sta! training programs,assessing customer's "tness to dive (and o!ering per-sonalised attention if it is required), a comprehensive divebrie"ng, pre-dive safety checks, continuous monitoring ofthe dive site, and logging divers in and out of the water.All four identi"ed groups of divers using commercialfacilities on the Great Barrier Reef would bene"t fromthese `best practicea initiatives.

J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599 597

E!ective risk management relies on co-operation. Forboth the dive operator and the diving customer it is easyto be careless, as well as carefree, in a vacation setting.The minimum standards recommended by the DivingIndustry Taskforce (1999) will assist operators reducesome risk, and they are a welcome initiative if they aremade mandatory. At the same time, dive operators mustmaintain adequate insurance cover. Severe penalties forbreach of legal responsibilities also need to be continuedif scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef is to regain itsimage as a safe recreational activity.

References

Acott, C. J. (1994). Diving incidents: Errors divers make. In Safe limits:An international dive symposium * Symposium proceedings (pp.25}38). Brisbane, Australia: Division of Workplace Health andSafety.

Beck, M. (1997). Scuba diving death on the J2 submarine. Record ofinvestigation into death, case no. 124/97. Geelong, Australia: Cor-oner's Court.

Bureau of Tourism Research (1991). International visitor survey 1990.Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Bureau of Tourism Research (1997). International visitor survey 1996.Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994). 154 Common-wealth Law Reports 673.

Cordato, A. J. (1993). Australian travel and tourism law (2nd ed.). Sydney,Australia: Butterworths.

Cullen, R. (1995). Novice recreational scuba divers and asthma: Twosmall surveys reported. South Pacixc Underwater Medicine SocietyJournal, 25, 8}10.

Cuskelly, G., & Auld, C. J. (1989). Retain, reduce, transfer or avoid?Risk management in sport organisations. The ACHPER NationalJournal, 23, 17}20.

Davies, M. (1995). Butterworths tutorial series* Torts (2nd ed.). Sydney,Australia: Butterworths.

Davis, R. (1995). The regulation of recreational scuba diving in Queens-land. South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 25, 10}18.

Diving Industry Taskforce (1999). Review of workplace health and safetyarrangements for recreational diving and snorkelling. Final Report tothe Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Bris-bane, Australia: Queensland Workplace Health and Safety Board.

Division of Workplace Health and Safety (1994). Code of practice forrecreational diving and recreational snorkelling at a workplace. Bris-bane, Australia: Division of Workplace Health and Safety.

Division of Workplace Health and Safety (1996). Regulatory impactstatement. Workplace health and safety (underwater diving) compli-ance standard 1996 under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.Brisbane, Australia: Division of Workplace Health and Safety.

Edmonds, C., & Walker, D. (1989). Scuba diving fatalities in Australiaand New Zealand. Part 1. The human factor. South Pacixc Under-water Medicine Society Journal, 19, 94}104.

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld). (1989). Brisbane, Australia: QueenslandGovernment Printer.

Gorman, D. (1994). Fitness for diving: A review of the critical issues.South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 24, 2}4.

Graver, D. (1989). The role and responsibilities of NAUI divemasters.NAUI Diving Association News, Jan}Feb, 26}30.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). (1974). Brisbane, Australia: Queens-land Government Printer.

Marks, A. D. & Fallow"eld, T. L. (1994). A retrospective study ofdecompression illness in recreational SCUBA divers and SCUBA

instructors in Queensland. In Safe limits: An international divesymposium * Symposium proceedings (pp. 52}59). Brisbane,Australia: Division of Workplace Health and Safety.

Mendelson, D. (1997). Butterworths casebook companions * Torts.Sydney, Australia: Butterworths.

Merriman, J., & Conn, J. H. (1988). Sport law: A social perspective.Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 12, 97}107.

Metcalf, F. (1998). Lawyers call for dive industry overhaul. Courier Mail27 June, 19.

Nicol, J., Wilks, J., & Wood, M. (1996). Tourists as inpatients inQueensland regional hospitals. Australian Health Review, 19, 55}72.

Nunan, N. (1998). Findings in the matter of an inquiry into the cause andcircumstances surrounding the disappearance of Thomas Joseph Lone-rgan and Eileen Cassidy Lonergan. Transcript of proceedings, no. 52of 1998. Cairns, Australia: Coroner's Court.

Parker, J. (1991a). The diving medical and reasons for failure. SouthPacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 21, 80}82.

Parker, J. (1991b). The assessment of the PADI resort course question-naire. South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 21, 82}83.

Reid, R. (1998). Deep doubts. The Australian Magazine 7}8 November,24}26, 30}31, 33, 35.

Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld). (1896). Brisbane, Australia: QueenslandGovernment Printer.

Santoro, S. (1996). Ministerial statement. Workplace health and safetyin the diving industry. In Queensland parliamentary debates, 6 Au-gust (pp. 1997}1998). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland LegislativeAssembly.

Tonkin v Gunn, & Anor (1988). Australian Torts Reports 80-219.Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). (1974). Canberra, Australia: Australian

Government Printer.Walker, D. (1994). The no-air problem in scuba diving: An alternative

approach to prevention. South Pacixc Underwater Medicine SocietyJournal, 24, 5}11.

Walker, D. (1995). Project Proteus: An investigation of health factors inscuba diving. South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 25,23}24.

Walker, R. (1991). Student divers, an at risk population: Two case reports.South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 21, 130}133.

Widman, B. (1975). The early warning signs of diving accidents. In L.Fead, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on underwatereducation (pp. 448}455). Colton, California: National Association ofUnderwater Instructors.

Wilks, J. (1992). Introductory scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef.Australian Parks and Recreation, 28, 18}23.

Wilks, J. (1993a). Calculating diver numbers: Critical information forscuba safety and marketing programs. South Pacixc UnderwaterMedicine Society Journal, 23, 11}14.

Wilks, J. (1993b). Pro"les of the travelling diver. In J. Wilks, J. Knight,& J. Lippmann, Scuba safety in Australia (pp. 64}75). Melbourne,Australia: JL Publications.

Wilks, J. (1993c). Scuba safety in Queensland. South Pacixc UnderwaterMedicine Society Journal, 23, 139}141.

Wilks, J. (1993d). Strategies for preventing accidents. In J. Wilks,J. Knight, & J. Lippmann, Scuba safety in Australia (pp. 85}93).Melbourne, Australia: JL Publications.

Wilks, J. (1993e). Health and safety of Queensland scuba instructors.Sport Health, 11, 21}23.

Wilks, J. (1995). Job satisfaction in Queensland scuba instructors. SouthPacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 25, 24}27.

Wilks, J. (1999). Scuba diving safety on Australia's Great Barrier Reef.Travel Medicine International, 17, 17}21.

Wilks, J., & Atherton, T. (1994a). Health and safety in Australianmarine tourism: A social, medical and legal appraisal. Journal ofTourism Studies, 5, 2}16.

Wilks, J., & Atherton, T. (1994b). Workplace health and safety: Anemerging issue for the Queensland tourism and hospitality industry.Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation, 4(3), 37}41.

598 J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599

Wilks, J., & Atherton, T. (1995). The lifestyle factor: Employmentpractices in the Queensland recreational diving industry. AustralianJournal of Hospitality Management, 2, 23}29.

Wilks, J., Atherton, T., & Cavanagh, P. (1994). Adventure tourismbrochures: An analysis of legal content. Australian Journal of Hospi-tality Management, 1, 47}53.

Wilks, J., & Beecham, V. (1992). Customer reactions to introductoryscuba diving. Sources: The Journal of Underwater Education, 4, 82}84.

Wilks, J. Beecham, V. (1993). Consumer perceptions of workplacehealth and safety legislation. Journal of Occupational Health andSafety * Australia and New Zealand, 9(3), 229}236.

Wilks, J., & Christie, L. (1992). Natural observations of diving incidents.South Pacixc Underwater Medicine Society Journal, 22, 143}147.

Wilks, J., & Oldenburg, B. (1995). Tourist health* the silent factor incustomer service. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 2,13}23.

Windsor, D. (1996). A study into the number of dives conducted on theGreat Barrier Reef in 1994. South Pacixc Underwater MedicineSociety Journal, 26, 72}74.

Wodak, T., & Gatehouse, M. (1993). The law and diving. In J. Wilks, J.Knight, & J. Lippmann, Scuba safety in Australia (pp. 153}165).Melbourne, Australia: JL Publications.

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld). (1995). Brisbane, Australia:Queensland Government Printer.

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980). 146 Commonwealth Law Reports40.

J. Wilks, R.J. Davis / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 591}599 599