Bushwalking for people with dementia

[Billv53]

So my partner has dementia early stages.
We have been members of a club for years including Bushwalking search and rescue BLMC qualifications etc.
And yet it is the Bushwalking community that has been the most discrimination we have experienced.
We are members of cycling clubs that have been understanding and welcoming.
But it is the Bushwalking community
through club affiliation that has put the most barriers in place with its risk management procedures inflicted on clubs.
My partner cannot attend an activity with out my presence. Has to stay beside my side in a group etc.
Clubs are so restricted by risk management that they have lost sight of what we all want which is to walk and enjoy.
Shame on you Bushwalking Victoria for your callous attitude which is out of step with society as a whole that is trying to be inclusive of all.

[Moondog55]

I fully understand the clubs attitude because risk aversion goes along with the massive cost of insurance.
There is nothing stopping you and your partner walking on your own tho or starting your own Dementia Walking Group but don't ask other people to take up the role of a Dementia Carer unpaid; that simply isn't fair or ethical

[Billv53]

Well I hope you never have to deal with a family member who has an illness.
No one is asking club members to become unpaid dementia carers.
My partner is quite capable of walking unaided as she has done for years. Club members are quite OK with her walking with the club. The problem is not even insurance it is a problem caused by the Bushwalking federation demanding a higher level of risk management than the insurance industry demands from clubs. Thus why walking clubs are forced into a position of discrimination which does not occur in other organisations.

[Moondog55]

PM sent

[matagi]

I don't understand what it is that Bushwalking Victoria is demanding? I assume that is the organisation you are referring to.

[Billv53]

You are right it is Bushwalking Victoria and ultimately Bushwalking Australia. They are demanding that the club put restrictions on her participation to minimise a perceived legal liability/insurance risk which is not there. She is still as capable as the next person in her walking ability just has a cognitive disorder dementia.
The club membership is supportive and do not want to discriminate. It is the club umbrella organisation that is demanding it with its over the top risk management demands.
Why is it that other organisations that provide legal liability insurance cover do not place such a discrimination requirement on the member clubs.
It is not even the insurance companies dictating this, it is the very organisation that supposedly exists to promote Bush Walking.

[matagi]

The requirements may be contrary to anti-discrimination legislation so you may have grounds for a challenge.

[Moondog55]

The requirements may be contrary to anti-discrimination legislation so you may have grounds for a challenge.

Interesting point.
Is it possible that there could be a conflict between Discrimination legislation and Health&Safety legislation?
It wouldn't be the first time one law or set of values contradicted another.

[wildwalks]

Hi matagi

Thanks so much for raising this issue. It is super important.
Most walking clubs have an older population, and I think clubs (as is true for many in the wider community) are not good at knowing how to interact with people with dementia.

Discrimination on the basis of disability, especially disabilities that are not purely mobility-based, do make many people squirm.
I managed this project and although we got a good reception from many people and organisations, the main response was very risk-averse. http://www.naturallyaccessible.org/
(My undergraduate studies were in access to leisure experiences for people with disability and older people.)

I also help manage a large walking group in NSW, and we welcome people with disability on walks, although the uptake is not significant and we are far from perfect. Disability access can be challenging but it is important, especially in remote areas.

I would be very keen to see the risk management documentation (assuming there was any) and to look at what else might be done to alleviate safety concerns. I think your partner would have every right to request the documentation, and you either of you feel that it is discriminatory (or non-existent) then ask for a review.
My experience is that people often equate a diagnosis of a disease to mean the same thing as being 'disabled' and as you have said that is far from the truth.

I am not sure what your background is in the disability space but it might be helpful to look through the early section of this manual in the context of recreational bushwalking and impairment.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jQwK7Y ... 6-bKy/view

There is a lot I want to ask, but a public forum is probably not the right place to discuss her journey to this point. I would be happy to jump on a call with you both and see if there is any advice I can offer.
Also keen for this conversation to carry on here.

in terms of the interplay with disability and health and safety legislation, they do not really contract each other thankfully. Health and Safety at is heart is about continual action to minimise risk whilst also acknowledging the 'dignity of risk'. Disability discrimination legislation is about avoiding stereotyping and excluding people based on non-relevant factors. (yes both are massive oversimplifications). A diagnosis of dementia in itself does not give reason for any legal exclusion that I can think of, but I am no lawyer.

Hope that sparks a few helpful ideas.

Matt

[CBee]

My 2c. Clubs should have some allocated days of bushwalking in their calendar, organised with the purpose of including bushwalkers with disability. I don't think is hard to achieve and some steps can be taken to ensure everyone is safe. Isn't the purpose of a bushwalking club to include?

[wildwalks]

Clubs should have some allocated days of bushwalking in their calendar, organised with the purpose of including bushwalkers with disability. I don't think is hard to achieve and some steps can be taken to ensure everyone is safe. Isn't the purpose of a bushwalking club to include?

Yes I think this is a great idea and a great way to get things started.
I think the goal should be greater inclusion. Like with buildings, having a wheelchair ramp out the back to let people in is a good starting point, but it is great to aim for the idea of all people being able to enter the main door together.
Many of the limitations people with disability experience are imposed by people who do no know better. Others deciding it is too dangerous, weird or will upset their own life too much.
But doing what you are suggesting helps us become more comfortable with integration and see that it can massively improve the experience for all members.

Most clubs grade walks based on difficulty. So clubs already have this idea of vetting people based on ability and experience. Disability access should be no different, but it does present challenges that leaders are not trained in. A diagnosis does not directly impact ability or experience. All people should be able to try to access walks through the same door. This is, however, a lot of club leaders to take on. I would be excited to see groups like bushwalking AU providing tools and systems to help improve leaders vetting skills and general risk management skills rather than setting blanket rules that apply to either specific people or diagnoses.

Again I do not know the specifics in this situation, but it opens up a really interesting potential legal issue for Bushwalking Vic and AU if this information is as it seems. For a peak body to be providing specific direction on specific Health & Safety policies for a member organisation (outside the requirements of the insurance they provide) seems a significant deviation from the remit for a peak body. If they are going to impose rules like this, then why not others? It suggests a much higher level of involvement in the management of clubs than previously. If someone dies on a club walk, then why did not intervene in that club's policy to prevent such an outcome? If they are going to insist on its, then why not other things that are much more likely to impact members safely?
They should perhaps insist all members declare their full cardiac, kidney, allergy, lung and mental health history, as well as family history, so they can determine what is the best way for clubs to manage each of our potential diagnoses. Clearly, they will not do that; it is an offensive idea. It would, however, be awesome that if a club reaches out to Bushwalking AU for advice, that they refer to expert organisations like Dementia Australia for general and specific advice. This general advice could be published for all clubs and help skill clubs leaders up. Maybe they did in this situation, but if they did, I suspect we would not be hearing about it like this.
It is also a clear consequence that such rules will discourage some people from declaring a diagnosis or disability out of fear of being excluded, potentially undermining their goal long term.

I don't know the details here, but in most situations, having early stages of dementia will not significantly actually impact the ability of a person to walk safely in a club context, and leaders should be empowered and equipped to manage such risks (without being burdensome). I have known people with dementia to continue bushwalking well beyond the early stages, often solo. This is why it is important to speak with the person and expert organisations to better understand.

Even after (or because of) many years of working in advocacy in this space as well as in bushwalking, I am very cautious about telling fellow bushwalkers about medical conditions I have out of concern about similar kinds of discrimination. People jump to unfair conclusions and say horrible things out of ignorance. I am also conscious the less often people like me speak up, the more this stuff drags on. It also increases the risk of a bad outcome if people are fearful of speaking up about such things or even seeking an early diagnosis.

Matt

[Warin]

I think the goal should be greater inclusion. Like with buildings, having a wheelchair ramp out the back to let people in is a good starting point, but it is great to aim for the idea of all people being able to enter the main door together.

Too easy to come up with excuses not to include but to exclude.

The default for new buildings should be access everywhere.
There is a difficulty with multistory buildings as ramps need lots of horizontal room compared to stairs. People also come up with costs in retro fiting ramps... And lifts are 'not to be used' in fire situations...

I am very cautious about telling fellow bushwalkers about medical conditions I have out of concern about similar kinds of discrimination. People jump to unfair conclusions

As a first aider ... I like to know what 'disabilities' people have that might crop up. If I know before hand I'll look it up and check for anything I should look out for and how to treat it - a refresher. Having said that, there is always the unexpected so first aiders should be prepared for anything.
I have a medication that I should take daily, miss it for a few days and no great problem, miss it for a week and I'm off to ER. Do I tell others about it? No, my family knows... but it is not something that would impact the things I do ... unless I lost the medication. So I keep a backup set of the medication...

[wildwalks]

Hey Warin

Yes, as you say it is too easy to exclude, sadly. I try to default to yes and try to find a way, and then refer on or say no if together we can't find a solution. If we are not including the person in the conversation, and an expert in the field then we are probably going to miss some really good potential solutions. I get this is really hard, especially with volunteer organisations not trained in this space. I am not saying that being a volunteer organisation is a good enough excuse, but I get it is hard.

Ohh, 100%, I want people to tell me, when I lead, about any potential illness/injury that may affect them on the walk. Very happy to admit my double standard in that space (although I do tend to carry my medical action plans in an easy-to-find spot).

I ask people to carry a written 'medical action plan' for anything that may require medication or other significant intervention outside standard first aid. Most of the time, they will be able to manage such things themselves, but it is helpful to know what is 'normal' for them and what is likely to require calling in more help etc. Very different from managing asthma, heart issues or a seizure in someone who is having their first compared to their 100th (with a clear action plan). First aid training is generally focused on assuming there is no medical action plan or that the event is their first, which is fair. I have only had a couple of people say they do not want to disclose their medical information (I suspect more just say they don't have any issues); I ask them to put their medical action plans in a sealed envelope and show me where it is so I can access it if needed - but the context of the walk will change this approach a lot.

I second the backup for important meds. (I have need them in the past)

[Joynz]

My Victorian bushwalking club used to expect participants - even on day walks - to tell the leader if they had any medical conditions. Walk leaders would ask this question at the beginning of every hike. Now they have realised that this is a privacy issue and there is no requirement at all (unless walkers want to inform the leader - and of course if they have a condition that might affect the group that’s probably advisable).

If your partner is in early stages - and if the condition definitely won’t affect the group - then I would suggest joining another club and not even mentioning the issue. If the condition might affect the group, I can see why you would want to mention it - and I agree with you that it seems very discriminatory and would add salt to the wound not to be able to keep doing a loved activity that’s good for physical and emotional health.

I also think that continuing to do these activities with your partner is probably very good for your health in what must be a very difficult situation - providing some stability and reassurance because you have shared Bushwalking in a group together in the past.

If you want to continue with this club, perhaps they would accept ‘within sight’ rather than needing to walk by your partner’s side. That would allow a lot more flexibility - and social interaction with others too.

[GPSGuided]

She is still as capable as the next person in her walking ability just has a cognitive disorder dementia.

The spectrum of dementia is so wide ranging and certainly relatable to safety concerns, hence liabilities. Here, the cognitive issue may affect poor decisions and judgements with further potential for impact on a group. Completely unsurprised by a society that’s ever more litigious, with conflicts b/n rights and suing mentalities, often from the same cohort or even the same individual.

Pragmatically, what’s wrong with the requirement of being accompanied on walks? Reality is, by the time an individual gets diagnosed with a cognitive impairment, the physiological deficit is already quite considerable. The family and partner may know the signs and behaviours well, and how to manage. But how can the same be expected of strangers in a bushwalk group? There’s always two sides to a story.

[EGM]

GPSguided I think you have made a few assumptions there.

There is no reason to think in this case the dementia was not caught very early, we don't know the specific circumstances.

I can understand if they potentially wanted to remove the individual from a leadership or key decision making position but not to require what is essentially a carer. I think it is unfair to assume that their cognitive ability is now significantly lower than everyone else's in the group. Maybe they should require IQ test results from all members (joking).

My main issue with them requiring the partner to accompany is that it comes across that they have no interest in respecting the individuals autonomy and instead want to shift all of the responsibility as far away as possible from the club.

I am really enjoying this discussion. Having these conversations is fantastic.

[Billv53]

So the latest is Bushwalking Australia through Bushwalking Victoria is trying not to address the problem but pressure the club to post here to minimise the damage to their reputation. They just do not get it. They are the ones forcing the issue onto to clubs with their over the top demands on risk management.

[bauplenut]

So the latest is Bushwalking Australia through Bushwalking Victoria is trying not to address the problem but pressure the club to post here to minimise the damage to their reputation. They just do not get it. They are the ones forcing the issue onto to clubs with their over the top demands on risk management.

It would be interesting to see what these risk management demands are that Bushwalking Australia places on clubs and why. Is there a policy document or directive ?

[wildwalks]

Hi Billy53 -- any update on how you and your partner are going with this?
Also, do you have any specific information on how they were encouraging people to respond to stuff here? Interesting they did not seem to get much of a response. I am trying to get a better understanding of misunderstandings people to have with this, and other medical/disability type issues. I am keen to write a series of articles to help people understand this stuff better.

[Billv53]

To answer some of the questions and to try to put all this in some perspective.
Bushwalking Australia thru Bushwalking Victoria tried to get our club president to post here as they are worried about reputation damage as they should be. As it is a new president the request was refused.
The reason for posting here is to address the power imbalance that exists between a small club and Bushwalking Australia and if they did not have such a heavy handed no compromise approach to this, but treated the issue and my partner and myself with respect there would be no issue.
The problem surfaced because Bushwalking Australia demands that every club member signs an acceptance of risk form annually and if a member will not sign the form the club is instructed to get rid of them from the club.
In the case of my partner she has signed the form in the past but can no longer understand the form so cannot sign. Because of the nature of the form it cannot be signed by a power of attorney especially as they are not bushwalkers so cannot understand why it needs to be signed every year.
Bushwalking Victoria then in verbal discussions with the former Secretary said I had to sign a document taking responsibility for her at all times and had to walk with her on all occassions. This the club in general did not agree with, but the club president said he had no choice but enforce as to not do so could comprimise the clubs legal liability insurance.
We have a new club executive and they are of the opinion that the club should be able to take on the role of looking after its members as a collective as it has always done, so are not enforcing the Bushwalking Australia/Bushwalking Victoria directive. We will see where it goes from here as the club has just submitted its annual insurance statement to Bushwalking Victoria.
The problem comes about as Bushwalking Australia do not as other outdoor organisations go to an insurance company for legal liability insurance directly. They enforce strict control on the clubs, greater than the insurance companies require by demanding every member sign every year an acceptance of risk document on the pretext that its members need to be reminded of the risk document they signed to become a member.
They then take it to the insurance companies saying hey look how diligent we are please can you insure us. This puts an onerous task on clubs as they have to chase up all members, many who are not active, to ensure the documents are signed. Most members do not agree with this process but sign as its easier than bucking the system. It also leads to discriminating against members who cannot sign.

[bauplenut]

Is it mandatory for all hiking groups nationally to be affiliated with state / national bodies and insured under the national body ? No.

Many hiking groups operate successfully without affiliation and Bushwalking Australia insurance. My understanding is that even some affiliated clubs organize their own insurance.

So the solution for your club if it disagrees with any state / national body (e.g. BWV, Bushwalking Australia) requirements is to obtain it's own insurance. And maybe even disaffiliate and operate independently as many hiking groups do e.g. Meet-Up type. Bushwalking Australia insurance cover is not mandatory for all hiking groups, not even affiliated clubs. Problem solved.

What benefits does your club get from being affiliated with state body and Bushwalking Australia ?

The numerous groups operating under Meet-Up etc and not affiliated / insured with state body / Bushwalking Australia get along fine independently. That may be the way for your club.

And stating that 'They enforce strict control on the clubs', - can you provide these strict controls and risk management demands that Bushwalking Australia places on clubs. Is there a policy document or directive ?

[Billv53]

And stating that 'They enforce strict control on the clubs', - can you provide these strict controls and risk management demands that Bushwalking Australia places on clubs. Is there a policy document or directive ?

Bushwalking Australia insurance directives to affiliated clubs https://www.bushwalkingaustralia.org/insurance

You seem familiar with bushwalking Australia are you a member of an affiliated club trying to justify their stance.

It is fairly easy for this issue to be resolved just exempt someone who has a geniune reason from the Annual Risk managment form requirement and let them continue to enjoy the same rights us all club members.
Up to now all we have been told as a club is to get rid of anyone who does not sign.

If you take the trouble to read my posts you would be aware my partner and myself have over 30 years in our club including BSAR callouts with life long friends in the club and also sets out responses from Bushwalking Aus etc.

To say go elsewhere is typical of Bushwalking Aus bullying attitude to its members.

[Billv53]

The latest in this saga is I emailed Bushwalking Victoria on this subject as they invite submissions for their Bushwalking Victoria News monthly newsletter. They as I expected refused to publish but instead advised it was a club matter.

This is a cop out as they are the ones dictacting the policy to clubs to enforce the AOR requirement or to get rid of members who cannot or will not comply (their words).

Originally we as a club were told it was a directive from the insurance company but then when we questioned further we are told it is a directive from Bushwalking Australia. So the directive can be easily altered to not discriminate.

Our club is completley supportive of my partner but is restricted by the Bushwalking Australia/Victoria directive, as a club we have no room to move. What we need is a directive allowing the club as a collective to take the responsibility for our member. It is currently doing this in defiance of current directives. A simple solution to end the discrimination and allow my partner to have all the rights as other members of the club.

The frustrating thing in this discrinination saga is they are directing clubs how they must operate but will not take ownership on the consequences just saying it is a club matter. It is not a club matter when you force a club into a discriminatory position and I am sure the Victorian Equal Oppurtunity and Human Rights Commission will agree with me.

It seems that if this cannot be resolved with common sense it will be headed to the Victorian Equal Oppurtunity and Human Rights Commission.

[robs19]

In consideration of the privacy of the persons concerned, Bushwalking Victoria do not wish to comment on the specifics of this particular situation. However, please be assured that we and our member clubs wholeheartedly support the participation of members with cognitive impairment or other conditions that may affect their abilities.

We recommend clubs implement a buddy system to support members with cognitive issues, whether as a result of a confirmed diagnosis or simply just to keep an eye on someone who needs it. Our clubs are friendly and supportive groups and our biggest concern is that a person may wander away unnoticed from the group and put themselves at risk.

Bushwalking Victoria is not a governing body and does not dictate how clubs run their activities. We do provide guidance and opinion when requested but the clubs are separate legal entities and make their own decisions.

Through Bushwalking Australia our clubs participate in an insurance scheme offering cost-effective public liability cover and optional personal accident cover. This scheme does not define who may participate in club activities but there is an expectation that clubs will have appropriate risk management processes in place to look after the safety and well-being of participants. This includes the annual signing of a simple Acknowledgement of Risk form for all participants and enables our clubs to offer a wide range of activities suited to a person's physical capabilities and experience. It is NOT required that someone with cognitive impairment must sign this form if they do not understand it.

Bushwalking Victoria, Bushwalking Australia and our member clubs are all run by volunteers and aim to do their very best to support the bushwalking community. Only the clubs know whether they have the capacity to provide additional support if needed for less able participants - they must be free to determine their own course of action without falsely being accused of discrimination.

The person concerned has continued to participate in club activities with the support of fellow club members.

Robyn Shingles
Vice President
Bushwalking Victoria

[wildwalks]

Great to hear from Bushwalking Vic - Thanks Robyn And thanks Billy53 for the updates.

I get this stuff is difficult and emotional.

Good to hear that Bushwalking Vic has clarified they are not in a position to actually enforce specific solutions to perceived risks.

A flexible buddy system done well sounds like a dignified solution and would potentially allow participation as dementia changes in its presentation.

Billy - are you able to confirm that your partner is continuing to join in club activities, with buddies (other than yourself)?
Originally you said that "My partner cannot attend an activity with out my presence. Has to stay beside my side in a group etc." it seems like this situation has improved?
is there anything else you feel like your partner is missing out on at the moment?

My personal experience (I oversee one of the largest clubs affiliated with Bushwalking Australia) is that they do not impose strict conditions. The signing (or agreeing in some way to a waiver) is common practice, infact I would worry about any organisation that did not require one. In the club I oversee we actually get people to sign (or acknowledge in other ways) on each walk (not just annually - this is currently easier for us to manage due to the size). People only need to sign if they participate, so it is up to the club to work out what systems they use to manage that - The insurance company does not enforce a system (but does require specific wording). We have had people with significant disability on walks and have always found a dignified way to comply with the waiver. The signing of waivers is a very common requirement from insurance providers. In this case, I am confident that it is an insurance requirement (organised via the broker), not an extra layer applied by bushwalking Australia. If this is an actual issue for your partner, it might be helpful to discuss some specific potential solutions. I am happy to jump on a call with you billy53 to see how I can help, might be more productive than on a forum.

Matt

[Billv53]

I think Robyn is saying one thing privately and another in her emails and phone conversations.

To say " It is NOT required that someone with cognitive impairment must sign this form if they do not understand it " is different to what is conveyed to me in a private email from Robyn and what has been conveyed to the club previously and if it is true then it should have been clearly spelt out to our club in the beginning and the angst caused would not have occurred including resignation of our then secretary from the club and our then president from the executive.

What is not being said by Robyn is if the person with a cognitive disability cannot sign then another person has to sign and walk at all times with the person with the cognitive disability. That is the directive not as being conveyed here.
Also what is not being said by Robyn is the advice that if for what ever reason a person does not sign the risk management form they are to be gotten rid of.

If it is as Robyn states, then this needs to be clearly stated in correspondance to our club which has not so far occurred. This needs to also include a retraction of the directive that the person needs to be signed for by a carer and can only walk with that carer present which is where the discrimination is occurring.

It is true as Robyn states "The person concerned has continued to participate in club activities with the support of fellow club members." but that only occurs because of a change to our exec to include members who did not agree with Bushwalking Australia / Bushwalking Australia directives to our club and are refusing to follow them.

To say that the discrimination occuring is a false accusation is insulting and shows how out of touch that Robyn and the bushwalking bodies are with clubs and potentially inflames the situation. If our club follows Bushwalking Aus/Vic directives my partner will not have the same rights as other club members and she is being discriminated against. Bushwalking Aus/Vic are still discriminating by pressuring clubs.

Had this been handled properly with proper advice forthcoming from Robyn initially this issue would not have occurred and hopefully it is finally resolved by Robyn following up her post here with an email to our club reversing previous advice as she is doing here.

All my partner and I want to do is walk with our club as we have done for many years without all the BS we have been subjected to, even to the point were we said enough is enough, we will leave our club, our health and time left together is more important.

As Robyn knows full well as she was the presenter when I attended a forum of Bushwalking Victoria and tried to discuss these issues and I was shouted down by others with get rid of them, Not relevant etc. and she shut down the discussion. So lets put the statement of "However, please be assured that we and our member clubs wholeheartedly support the participation of members with cognitive impairment or other conditions that may affect their abilities" in perspective.

As I have said previously take on ownership of the problem do not push it onto the clubs you are the ones directing clubs and are the problem.

[wildwalks]

Thanks Billv53 for the update.
I can hear the pain and frustration.

I clearly do not have a full picture and am not sure of the history.
It is clear Bushwalking Vic are not in a position to make a directive to clubs, other than what are the requirements of the insurance company (and to pay funds due etc). They may have worded things as directives in the past (I do not know), but their scope is limited. They can provide advice, education and support, but not tell clubs how to achieve specific things. EG how they club manages risk, is up to the club. How they ask people to sign the forms is up to the club.
It is not up to bushwalking Vic/AU to work out how the club manages disability integration. They can not legally direct clubs on policy; that is not the structure. They can offer advice.

But what it sounds like to me is that there was uncertainty and potentially changing advice early on. Assuming this is a new situation for the volunteers in the club and peak bodies, then I get this stuff takes time to sort out. People do not have experience in disability, medical stuff etc, they are bushwalkers wanting to get out bushwalking. Initial gut reactions take time to understand the nuances and develop a clear coherent message, let alone any misunderstandings and communication issues that occur. From what you are saying, the messages have changed (or at least been misunderstood) over time; this is confusing and frustrating. But I also get that this stuff is hard for volunteers to get their heads around, so stuff takes time. Yes, in an ideal world, situations like this would be considered before it is needed and policies developed, but these are organisations that often just have enough recoursing for the day-to-day. (I have very little actual experience with Bushwalking Vic, but a similar organisation in another state).

Can I urge caution in claiming discrimination because of differing rights? Different treatment does not automatically mean illegal discrimination in Australia. In fact often you will find people with be treated people differently with the aim of achieving equality. Again I am not sure what is the situation here. The goal here, as I understand it, is for your partner to participate in the club as freely (and safely) and with as much dignity as possible. This is up to your club to decide how to achieve that. If Bushwalking AU/Vic are imposing requirements that make that impossible/difficult then I would suggest that is something for your club to take up with them (as the club is the member of Bushwalking Vic).
The suggestion of a buddy system seems a reasonable starting point, and that then leaves it up to the club to consider if that works in your context and how to make that work in a dignified way.
This might help https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protec ... rimination

Can I encourage you to consider taking Robyns's words here as their actual stance? Try to let go of the frustration of the past, and put the words together as a proposed policy for your club to adopt. Bushwalking Vic/au to have one requirement - that members sign the Acknologyment of risk, and that people with (some level) of cognitive impairment do not need to sign. But sounds like signing is not a barrier for your partner at this stage. This is the only directive they can make (as it is an insurance requirement). Anything else is to be considered suggestions (helpful or not).
So this seems like an opportunity to develop a policy within your club, refine it and improve it, then share it with other clubs to make this transition easier for other people in the future.
Personally, when I develop policies that can help others, I share it with clubs in my network. It then forms helpful starting points for those who want to do something similar.
I know it is a hard time for you guys, I do hope that you can get some enjoyable times on track.

[Gadgetgeek]

All I can offer is that as someone who fell into the "ask your father" trap of worksafe and fairwork due to an illness, I feel your frustration. I don't know if you will succeed in getting what you want or need. I say the following hesitantly because no one should be forced to carry a torch for others when they do not have that fight in them. 2020 showed a lot of organizations how fragile and unprepared they really were, and many are still trying to come to terms with that. They didn't know what they could get into trouble for (I listened to the exec of a bike club wonder if they could host a trail ride in which they would provide a clean trail, water and food, but even under their normal operations still exceed the requirements for social distancing by massive amounts, and then decide to cancel) But every person who brings a "hard problem" to a group and a peak body helps build institutional knowledge, helps mentors understand what they need to actually help guide, and makes for more realistic risk assessments. Australia doesn't want to admit how litigious a risk culture it has. Everyone is not only worried about the rules, but they are worried about misstepping the safeties that keep them out of the courts. That fear is hard to get around, and it sucks. But please rest well knowing that even if you don't end up getting everything in the short term, you are making it easier for the next couple, and the couple after that. In your case it's something that no one wants to think about, and that makes it tougher. In my case it was almost something that the industry refused to admit was a possibility, (and to be fair, I didn't push that fight because I had other priorities, like a roof and food) but all I can do is keep letting people know and push back when and where I can so that the next guy who has a problem doesn't get run out on a rail, but has the support I probably should have had, or at least more support. At this point I've got 20 years experience with non-profit/community organizations. Sorry that it sucks sometimes, but those are people giving from what they have left after a work day, which often isn't much, and they have no one looking out for them, because the few that are in the peak body need to look after hundreds of groups, everyone is split too thin, and if the risk is making a statement in front of the magistrate, well, they'd all really rather keep that possibility from happening. Kinda hard to hold that against them. I hope you are able to enjoy the time you have left with your partner, don't let this get in the way, it doesn't need to consume you.

[Billv53]

Thanks wildwalks, gadgetgeek and others who have made balanced posts on this topic.

I am indeed hopeful of a sensitive, positive outcome.

Our club exec which I am part of have taken the approach that we would not force a signing of the acceptance of risk managment form by my partner or require anybody else to sign a form on her behalf.
We have noted this on the annual compliance form to Bushwalking Victoria/Australia.

The decision was taken not only to avoid discriminating against my partner but also to recognise that many members are single and should they develop a cognitive illness they do not have a partner in the club to sign on their behalf.
The club feels that as a collective we can assume the role of the person being asked to take responsibility of signing for the person with the disability.

We do not know the repercussions as yet to this decision, but we are hopeful that it will be accepted in good faith by Bushwalking Victoria/Australia and make it easier for clubs in the future to deal with this illness that more and more clubs will come in contact with.