RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION - TRIAL OF REMOTE RESCUE TUBES/LIFE RINGS AT UNPATROLLED BEACHES · Report

Page 2

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                            19 JANUARY 2026



REPORT
The purpose of this report is to investigate the feasibility of Council installing remote rescue tube/life
rings to determine whether a trial should be conducted.
1. Background
A Notice of Motion (NoM) was tabled at the September 2024 Ordinary Meeting, requesting an
investigation into the feasibility of installing remote rescue tubes and life rings at selected unpatrolled
beach locations. The proposal included the possibility of conducting a single-site trial prior to any
broader implementation, see Attachment 1.
The NoM sought to address the risk of drowning incidents in unpatrolled areas or outside of patrolled
areas by introducing self-service rescue tubes. It referenced a successful trial in northern NSW and
requested:
Review of the existing trial that was conducted in NSW, identification of potential sites, an analysis
of the potential cost, a comprehensive breakdown of all identified risks and a review of potential
stakeholders and partners.
Council requests the CEO to:
•   Report on Feasibility: Report back on the feasibility of conducting a remote rescue tube/life ring
    trial at unpatrolled locations with high visitation. This report should include data on visitation
    numbers at these locations, particularly at Sunrise Beach and North Peregian Beach.
•   Consult Insurers: Consult with Council’s insurers to ensure support for the initiative and confirm
    that no additional liability would be incurred should the units be damaged, stolen, or an incident
    occur while using the rescue tubes.
•   Seek Expert Insights: Contact Greg Hackfath, Team Leader of Lifeguard Services at Coff’s
    Harbour, who pioneered a similar project, for insights and guidance.
•   Explore Emergency Beacons: Explore using Surf Lifesaving Queensland’s (SLSQ) emergency
    beacons with the rescue tubes/life rings. This would allow beachgoers to contact emergency
    response by pressing a button, and the tubes/life rings would have clear location markings,
    including access numbers, to assist emergency responders.
The NoM provides the following background information to support consideration of a trial:
•   Rescue tubes are used widely across Australia, Europe, central and northern NSW, Hawaii, New
    Zealand, Zambia, Denmark and Germany.
•   The global adoption of rescue tubes and life rings highlights the need for Queensland to
    implement similar measures for unpatrolled and remote areas.
•   The initiative has strong support from ocean affiliated community organisations Noosa
    Boardriders Club, Noosa Malibu Club, Noosa World Surfing Reserve (NWSR), Noosa Surf
    Club.
Since the commencement of the Coffs Harbour remote rescue tube trial in 2019, the program has
received strong support, and no incidents of vandalism or bystander drownings have occurred.
See Figure 1 for typical installation:

Page 3

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                         19 JANUARY 2026




Figure 1 – City of Coffs Harbour Remote Rescue Tube Installation




Figure 2 – Ballina Shire Installation

2. Evidence supporting public rescue equipment
•   Between 2004 and 2022, there were 80 deaths of bystanders attempting to rescue someone on
    the coast, an average of five deaths each year. Most rescuers were male (83%), 40-54 years old
    (41%), and were rescuing a family member or loved one, usually a child under the age of 18. Rip
    currents were a significant factor in three-quarters of fatal bystander incidents (73%). 97% did
    not use a flotation device when they attempted the rescue. Providing a flotation device (i.e.,
    something that floats – e.g., a surfboard, bodyboard, angel ring, rescue tube, esky lid) to a
    drowning patient is a priority intervention that interrupts the drowning process and is crucial for
    mitigating effects on rescuer safety – Source https://beachsafe.org.au/surf-safety/bystander-
    rescue
•   The key to returning safely from a bystander rescue is bringing a flotation device. There have
    been no bystander rescue drownings when a flotation device has been used. On the flip side,
    every person who died in a rescue attempt between 2012 and 2022 did not have a flotation
    device,   according     to    the   Water    Safety    New     Zealand      Drown     Base   -
    Source https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535829/hey-dad-don-t-drown-saving-your-kid-this-
    summer

Page 4

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                       19 JANUARY 2026


•   SLSQ is leading the implementation of standard public rescue tube boxes as an approach to
    drowning prevention in Queensland. The installation of publicly accessible rescue equipment
    aims to bridge this gap by giving bystanders a simple flotation aid that can be deployed in the
    critical minutes before emergency services arrive. International examples have demonstrated
    the value of this approach. Hawaii has led the way, with more than 200 rescue tube stations
    installed across the islands, directly credited with saving over 150 lives – Source - Coast Safe
    Report 2024/2025, page 32.
3. Noosa National Park trial
On 20 May 2025, Council was notified by SLSQ that QPWS had provided written approval to NWSR
to trial 4 rescue tubes in the Noosa National Park. The locations are proposed between Granite Bay
and First Point.
4. Noosa Shire Lifesaving Services
Noosa Council works closely with SLSQ and affiliated surf lifesaving clubs to deliver lifesaving
services to the community. SLSQ is recognised as the State’s peak coastal safety and rescue
authority. An overview of services provided to the community is provided below:
Surf Lifesaving Clubs – Three lifesaving clubs operate within Noosa Shire which include Noosa
Heads, Sunshine Beach and Peregian Beach. These clubs operate on a seasonal basis between
the September school holidays through to the May long weekend.
Lifeguard Services – SLSQ provide year-round services at Noosa Main Beach, Noosa Main Beach
West, Sunshine Beach and Peregian Beach as well as seasonal services at Peregian and Sunrise
Beach via formal agreement.
Support Services – SLSQ enhances coastal safety through additional resources, including:
     •   State Operations Communication Centre – Centralised coordination and monitoring.
     •   Waverunner Patrols – Proactive patrols and rapid response capability for in-water incidents.
     •   Westpac Helicopter Rescue Service – Routine patrols and aerial support for emergency
         situations.
Beach Signage – There are 67 formal beach access points within Noosa Shire, spanning from the
northern Noosa North Shore boundary to southern Peregian Beach. Each access point features
SLSQ endorsed safety signage to inform and protect beach users.


Cameras and Emergency Beacons
•   SLSQ has implemented the Coastal Safety Network (CSN) to reduce incident risk through
    strategic installation of cameras and emergency response beacons at high-priority locations.
    Current installations include:
    a) Noosa North Shore Campground – Camera and emergency response beacon
    b) Alexandria Bay – Emergency response beacon.
•   A dedicated CCTV network, monitored 7 days a week by the State Operations Communication
    Centre, provides real-time surveillance and facilitates rapid emergency response.


5. Current SLSQ and Surf Club Approaches to Rescue Tubes
The NoM highlights the need for Queensland to implement similar measures for unpatrolled and
remote areas.
Response: SLSQ has confirmed plans to roll out 30 public rescue tube boxes on Queensland
beaches. Planned installation sites include:
•   Alexandra Headland

Page 5

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                       19 JANUARY 2026


•   Kings Beach
•   Mooloolaba
•   Kurrawa
•   Northcliffe
•   Burleigh
•   Currumbin
•   North Stradbroke Island (Frenchmans Beach)
•   Etty Bay
•   Hervey Bay
•   Bundaberg; and
•   Tannum Sands.
These installations will complement existing sites at Noosa Main Beach, Tallebudgera Creek and
Marcoola Beach.
6. Feasibility of Trial at Unpatrolled Locations with High Visitation
The NoM requests a report on the feasibility of conducting a remote rescue tube/life ring trial at
unpatrolled locations with high visitation. This report should include data on visitation numbers at
these locations, particularly Sunrise Beach and North Peregian Beach.
Response: The findings presented in this report collectively inform the feasibility of the proposed
rescue tube/life ring trial. However, accurate visitation statistics for unpatrolled locations are
generally not available, due to the absence of monitoring technology and consistent patrolling
presence to record visitation. Further discussion will be undertaken with SLSQ to progress
unpatrolled locations monitoring and in particular for Sunrise Beach and North Peregian Beach.
7. Expert Insights – City of Coffs Harbour
The NoM requests Council officers contact Greg Hackfath, Team Leader of Lifeguard Services at
Coffs Harbour, who pioneered a similar project, for insights and guidance.
Response: Mr Hackfath is no longer employed by the City of Coffs Harbour, however discussions
were held with the Section Team Leader, Community Facilities who provided the following insights:
     •   Safety Record: No reported drownings or injuries involving use of rescue tube equipment.
     •   Deployment: 86 rescue tube boxes installed across 36 beaches, supported by a funding
         partnership with Rotary.
     •   Maintenance: No dedicated maintenance budget or asset renewal plan currently in place;
         officers intend to develop these frameworks.
     •   Inspection Program: A formal inspection schedule is proposed for future implementation.
     •   Management: Equipment is currently monitored through community reporting.
     •   Durability: No incidents of vandalism or theft; boxes have proven resilient to environmental
         conditions.
     •   Environmental Impact: Severe dune erosion has required repositioning of some units.
     •   Community Response: Initiative has been positively received by the local community.
     •   Risk Management: The risk profile has been accepted by the NSW Statewide Mutual
         Insurance Program.

Page 6

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                          19 JANUARY 2026




8. Integration of Emergency Beacons with Rescue Tubes/Rings
The NoM requests Council explore the possibility of using SLSQ’s emergency beacons with rescue
tubes/rings. This would allow beachgoers to contact emergency response by pressing a button, and
the tubes/life rings would have clear location markings, including access numbers, to assist
emergency responders.
Response: SLSQ has advised the planned upgrade of the Alexandria Bay emergency beacon will
incorporate a rescue tube box mounted on the beacon pole as a combined unit. Furthermore, SLSQ
is investigating additional integration opportunities across Queensland.
9. Legal and Insurance Considerations
Legal
The NoM rationale for the rescue tube program is clear but the program would create a liability risk
for Council if not undertaken with care and diligence. The starting point of consideration for potential
liability is identification of Council’s duty of care. Council owes a duty of care to those individuals
“closely and directly affected” by Council’s actions including:
     •   Persons for whose benefit rescue tubes are provided (swimmers in distress).
     •   Persons who may use the equipment (bystanders/Good Samaritans).
In essence, Council must take reasonable steps to:
     •   Ensure equipment is fit for purpose - Meets Australian Standards (e.g., buoyancy, tensile
         strength, durability).
     •   Provide clear instructions and warnings - How to use and how not to use the devices and
         warnings of dangers inherent in rescue attempts and site-specific hazards (e.g., rips,
         submerged obstacles).
     •   Educate users - Signage at the site and supplementary information (e.g., website videos,
         public awareness campaigns).
     •   Maintain infrastructure - Regular monitoring of cabinets, signage, and equipment to prevent
         misuse, vandalism, or absence of rescue gear.
No general legal duty exists for bystanders to rescue a person in Australia (except NT Criminal
Code). However, once a rescue attempt begins, the rescuer owes a duty of care to the person in
distress and take reasonable care in the attempt. Council should also warn that attempting a rescue
creates legal and personal risk.

Insurance and Liability
The NoM requests consultation with Council’s insurers to ensure support for the initiative and confirm
that no additional liability would be incurred should the unit be damaged, or stolen, or an incident
occur while using the rescue tubes
Response: Council's liability for compensation arising from Council's involvement in Council
activities and functions (including the supply and installation of rescue tubes) is covered under the
liability cover provided pursuant to Council's LGM Liability membership subject to the Scheme Rules
and relevant Wording.

Condition 5.7 of the Protection Wording notes that Council must take all reasonable precautions to
prevent personal injury and damage to property and the onus is on Council to take reasonable
precautions and a robust risk assessment is noted as a critical risk control measure. A more detailed
risk management analysis is discussed later in this report.

Page 7

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                           19 JANUARY 2026


10. Measures of Success and Failure
There are numerous references in Australia and internationally indicating that rescue tubes play a
critical role in breaking the “chain of drowning” and contributing to “successful trials.” However, there
are currently no widely accepted or readily available benchmarks for measuring success or failure
of such trials. To address this gap, the following proposed measures could be used by Council to
evaluate a trial:
Measures of success
•   Number of lives saved during the trial period
•   No bystander drownings or injuries associated with equipment use.
•   Positive feedback from the community, beachgoers and community groups
•   Equipment remains in place without incidents of vandalism or theft
•   Maintenance costs remain within allocated budget
•   No insurances claims or litigation against Council
Measures of failure
•   A rescuer is injured or dies during an attempted rescue.
•   Reputational damage to Council resulting from injury or loss of life
•   Equipment fails during a rescue attempt.
•   Equipment is vandalised, stolen, or subject to frequent misuse.
•   High maintenance costs or logistical challenges in monitoring and upkeep.
•   Council incurs legal liability due to incidents involving rescue tubes.
•   Negative feedback from stakeholders or the public.
•   Perception that Council acted prematurely or irresponsibly.
•   Media or public criticism following an incident or perceived failure.
•   Trial deemed ineffective or poorly managed.
A trial assessment should also incorporate further empirical evidence and this could include the
following:
     1. Was there evidence of cabinets encouraging swimming outside patrolled areas, creating a
        false sense of security?
     2. Did the remote rescue tubes dilute life-saving authorities long standing message: ‘Swim
        between the Flags?’
     3. Did the trial involve bystanders retrieving a rescue tube and flippers, securing the victim and
        bringing them to shore?
     4. Were rescues performed in varying surf conditions and at what distance from the shore?
     5. Who performed the rescues that occurred - off duty lifesavers, lifeguards, surfers or others?
     6. How many rescues were performed by random individuals and were those individuals
        strong swimmers?
     7. Did the rescuer perform the rescue alone or with assistance from others?
     8. Did the availability of a rescue tube embolden individuals to attempt the rescue when they
        might otherwise have stayed out of the surf?

Page 8

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                        19 JANUARY 2026




11. Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management Policy
At its September 2024 Ordinary Meeting, Council adopted the Enterprise Risk and Opportunity
Management Policy. This Policy articulates Council’s overarching approach to managing risks and
identifying opportunities. It forms part of a broader framework of Risk and Opportunity Management
documents designed to support informed decision-making and strategic planning.
A key feature of the Policy is the concept of Risk Appetite, which refers to the amount and type of
risk Council is willing to accept, absorb, or retain in pursuit of its objectives and when making both
strategic and operational decisions. The Policy includes a series of categorised Risk Appetite
Statements and corresponding Risk Tolerance Statements, which serve as tools and guides for
decision-making and planning.

Council’s risk appetite approach seeks to minimise exposure across all risk categories. Specifically:
Health and Safety Risk Appetite Statement
Council has no appetite to take risks that do not adequately prioritise the safety of our workforce,
volunteers, contractors and/or members of the community
Health and Safety Risk Tolerance Statement
Council will not tolerate activities that result in reasonably foreseeable and preventable injuries or
illnesses to our community or employees
Legal and Compliance Risk Appetite Statement
Council will continue to develop, implement, maintain and review a strong governance framework.
Council will make decisions that align to its corporate goals, policies and/or strategies
Legal and Compliance Risk Tolerance Statement
Council will not tolerate failure to consider expert/professional legal advice


12.       Employees Responsibility Under the Policy
Council officers have a number of responsibilities under the Policy which include:
      •   Adhering to the Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management Policy,
      •   Maintaining an awareness of their operational environment as well as current and potential
          risks and opportunities, particularly in their area of expertise and industry,
      •   Identifying new and emerging risks and applying the risk and opportunity management
          process in their area of work, including regular review, ownership, monitoring, escalation
          and reporting, and
      •   If an employee is identified as a risk owner, then they are required to manage and monitor
          the risk.
13. Residual Risk Rating.
Using Table 1 below, Council’s risk assessment procedure includes determining the residual risk
rating:


Table 1 – Residual Risk Rating Calculator

Page 9

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                                    19 JANUARY 2026




14.       Risk Assessment
Council’s risk assessment procedure includes undertaking a risk assessment of identified risks using
the calculator above. Some of the key risks are included in Table 2 below:
Table 2 – Risk Assessment of Identified Key Risks
 Risk                 Risk Categories        Control             Likelihood   Consequence   Appetite
 Description                                 Measures            Rating
                                                                                            Compliance
 Bystander            - Reputational         - Ensure tubes      Rare         High          ☐Y ☒ N
 fatality or injury                          are   fit   for
 as a result of       -   Health       and   purpose
 using Council        Safety
 supplied                                    -        Provide
 equipment                                   proper
                                             instruction on
                                             how to use the
                                             tubes
                                             - Warnings on
                                             rescue     box
                                             indicating that
                                             you must be a
                                             strong
                                             swimmer      to
                                             use equipment
 Litigation           -  Legal         and   -Insurance          Possible     High          ☐Y ☒ N
 against Council      Compliance             coverage for
                                             activities within
                      - Finance              Council scope
                      - Reputational         and          risk
                                             appetite
 Damaged,             -   Health       and   -Regular            Possible     High          ☐Y ☒ N
 missing rescue       Safety                 inspection
 equipment                                   regime        to
                                             ensure
                                             equipment      is

Page 10

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                            19 JANUARY 2026


 Risk               Risk Categories   Control         Likelihood   Consequence     Appetite
 Description                          Measures        Rating
                                                                                   Compliance
                                      available and
                                      functional



Discussion
The risk assessment indicates each identified risk falls outside Council’s current risk appetite. While
the likelihood of these risks occurring ranges from Rare to Possible, the potential consequences are
assessed as High and could arguably be considered Extreme in the event of a bystander fatality,
noting if the likelihood was assessed as Likely, the overall rating could escalate to Extreme.
As discussed, Council’s adopted position for risk appetite and tolerance is as follows:
      •    Zero tolerance for health and safety impacting the community; and
      •    Zero to minimal tolerance for legal and compliance risks.
If Council were to adopt a higher risk tolerance position, this would require a formal adjustment to its
risk appetite and tolerance levels. Such a shift must be supported by comprehensive mitigation
strategies, robust governance and accountability frameworks and enhanced monitoring and
reporting systems.
These measures are essential to ensure that any increase in risk appetite does not compromise
community safety or expose Council to unacceptable legal, financial, or reputational consequences.

15.       Options
Option 1: Not installing rescue tubes/life rings now or into the future
Council does not install rescue tubes/life rings now or into the future.
This option involves Council not installing rescue tubes/life rings for a trial period or at any time in
               the future on Council owned or managed land
Opportunities
      a. Avoids installation of infrastructure that may carry legal, operational, or reputational risks for
         Council.
      b. Reinforces the long-standing “swim between the flags” message, which is supported by Surf
         Life Saving Queensland and widely recognised as the safest strategy to protect beachgoers.
      c. Addresses insurance and liability risks and exposure to liability associated with bystander
         rescues, equipment misuse, or failure given there is no installed equipment.
      d. Avoids rate payer funded capital and operational expenditure on equipment purchase,
         installation, maintenance, monitoring and replacement of damaged or stolen equipment.
      e. Aligns with the position adopted in Council’s Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management
         Policy.
Risks
      a. Creates a perception Council is overly risk adverse and not doing enough to protect lives.
      b. Potential reputational risk to Council if preventable risk occurs and lives are lost.
      c. A drowning or serious injury could occur at an unpatrolled location where rescue equipment
         might have made a difference.
      d. Support from community organisations and residents may lead to increased lobbying and
         criticism of Council’s decision.

Page 11

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                         19 JANUARY 2026


    e. Council may miss the opportunity to be seen as a leader in beach safety innovation and
       community responsiveness.
    f.   The community may interpret Council’s decision as a lack of responsiveness, hiding behind
         ‘red tape’ and an unwillingness to trial new ideas.
    g. A firm decision to decline installation now and into the future may limit Council’s ability to
       respond to changing conditions, new technologies, evolving community expectations and
       legal considerations.
    h. Declining the initiative may reduce opportunities to collaborate with local surf clubs and
       SLSQ.
Option 2: Council does not install rescue tubes/life rings to allow further review of trials at
other locations and supports rescue tube installations by surf clubs and SLSQ
Council does not install rescue tubes/life rings on Council owned or managed land and monitors
trials elsewhere while supporting surf clubs and SLSQ equipment roll outs.
This option involves Council not installing rescue tubes/life rings on Council owned or managed land
to allow further review of the effectiveness of rescue tube installations within Noosa National Park
and other locations and supporting the roll out of rescue tubes by surf clubs and SLSQ
Opportunities
    a. Allows Council to adopt a precautionary approach to implementing rescue tubes/life rings.
    b. Allows Council to monitor and assess trial outcomes in Noosa National Park, City of Coffs
       Harbour, and other jurisdictions to inform future decisions.
    c. Supports an evidence based and informed decision-making approach.
    d. Does not impede surf clubs or SLSQ from installing rescue tubes and enhancing emergency
       response capabilities in unpatrolled areas.
    e. Reduces Council’s exposure to liability associated with bystander rescues, equipment
       misuse, or failure as installations are not owned or managed by Council.
    f.   Avoids rate payer funded capital and operational expenditure for equipment purchase,
         installation, maintenance, monitoring and replacement.
    g. Prevents ad-hoc responses to community requests by requiring observation and
       assessment of trial results before action.
    h. Aligns with the position adopted in Council’s Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management
       Policy.
Risks
    a. Delaying action may result in missed opportunities to prevent drownings or serious incidents
       at unpatrolled beaches where a rescue tube might have been situated.
    b. Council may be seen as abnegating its responsibilities and taking a reactive rather than a
       proactive approach to water safety.
    c. Community groups and surf clubs that have expressed strong support may feel ignored,
       potentially eroding trust and collaboration.
    d. By not participating in early trials, Council could be seen as a laggard and miss opportunities
       to influence regional or state-level coastal safety initiatives.
    e. If a drowning occurs during the review period, Council may face criticism for not acting
       sooner.
    f.   Delaying a local trial means missing the chance to gather site-specific data that could inform
         better future decisions.

Page 12

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                           19 JANUARY 2026


      g. Although surf clubs and SLSQ will manage their equipment, Council may still bear legal
         responsibility or reputational risk due to lease arrangements, perceived oversight
         responsibilities and duty of care - especially if equipment fails or contributes to injury or
         death.
      h. Community groups may push for installations beyond surf clubs, leading to increased
         lobbying and potential criticism if Council is seen as limiting access to life-saving tools - as
         seen in Clarence Valley, Source https://arr.news/2024/05/29/rescue-tubes-at-popular-
         swimming-spots/
Option 3: Council undertakes a trial at a single unpatrolled/remote location and supports
            community requests for expansion
This option involves Council undertaking its own trial at a remote, unpatrolled location and if
              successful approving future requests for more rescue tube installations.
Opportunities
     a. May help to reduce drowning incidents.
      b. Responds positively to requests from community groups
      c. Demonstrates Council’s commitment to mitigating risk of surf drownings.
      d. Enables Council to collect its own site specific data.
      e. Provides an opportunity to enhance public awareness through signage, surf safety
         messaging, instructions and an incident reporting system.
      f.   A single-site trial allows for close monitoring, refinement of procedures, and lessons learned
           before considering broader implementation.
      g. Positions Council as a proactive leader in coastal safety, potentially influencing regional or
         state-level approaches.
      h. May identify gaps in signage, public awareness, or emergency response coordination,
         leading to broader safety improvements.
      i.   A well-managed trial could generate positive media coverage and reinforce Council’s
           commitment to public safety.
Risks
      a. There is currently no industry recognised framework for evaluating the success or failure of
         a trial (refer to Measures of Success and Failure).
      b. Without clear site selection criteria, Council may face pressure from community groups to
         expand the program to unsuitable or random locations.
      c. Conducting a trial without underpinning empirical evidence, a robust risk assessment and
         satisfactory mitigation measures may expose Council to liability if equipment is misused,
         fails during an emergency, or if a bystander is injured or killed while attempting a rescue.
      d. If the trial is perceived as poorly planned, inadequately monitored, or results in a negative
         outcome, Council’s reputation for responsible public safety management could be
         damaged.
      e. Ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and evaluation of trial sites will require dedicated
         resources. If the program expands, this could place a significant burden on Council staff
         and budgets (refer to Finance section for potential impacts).

16.        Conclusion
Public rescue devices have been recognised within the aquatic safety industry as an effective
intervention to ‘break the chain of drowning’ by providing flotation until help arrives. SLSQ, as the
State’s peak coastal safety authority, has commenced a statewide roll out of rescue tube boxes and
community groups have advocated for similar installations within Noosa Shire.

Page 13

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                        19 JANUARY 2026


While there has been some community support for the roll out of this equipment, installation and
management of this equipment by Council enlivens issues such as duty of care and liability
exposure, precedent and cost implications if the program expands, Council’s adopted risk appetite
and tolerance, and reputational risk.

A Council managed trial requires Council to accept a higher risk appetite and tolerance than its
current adopted position which makes it essential to adopt robust mitigation measures. While the
likelihood of a bystander drowning in a rescue attempt is low, the potential consequences of such
an event would be significant for Council.
Deferring installation on Council-managed land while supporting SLSQ and surf clubs in their funded
rollout provides a balanced and prudent approach. This strategy enables Council to monitor
outcomes from existing trials and gather empirical evidence before committing resources to a rescue
tube program. It also mitigates immediate legal, financial, and operational risks and aligns with
Council’s zero tolerance position on health and safety and zero to minimal tolerance for legal
compliance risks and preserves flexibility for future decisions based on proven effectiveness.
Although this approach carries potential reputational risk if a drowning occurs where a rescue tube
might have been situated, it ensures decisions remain informed, evidence-based, and consistent
with Council’s Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management Policy.
In summary, it is recommended Council continue to monitor trials and programs elsewhere and
support SLSQ and surf clubs in their funded rescue tube rollout initiatives, as detailed in Option 2
of this report.


Link to Corporate Plan
Theme No. 2 - Liveability
Objective 2.8 – Provide opportunities to enhance the health, wellbeing and safety of our
communities.
Departments consulted:




Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes dated 19 September 2024
TRIAL OF REMOTE RESCUE TUBES/LIFE RINGS AT UNPATROLLED BEACHES
That Council request the CEO to provide a report to Council that investigates the opportunity to
install Remote Rescue Tubes/Life Rings at selected unpatrolled beach locations with the possibility
of conducting a trial of a single site prior to any further action.


Finance
The 2024/2025 Coast Safe report (page 32) states the advantages of rescue tube boxes lie in their
simplicity, affordability and potential impact.. and they are low cost compared to the societal and
economic burden of a single fatality. Table 3 identifies the cost to manage a rescue tube trial at a
single location. Rescue tubes are housed in a rescue tube box which includes a rescue tube,
adjustable set of fins, bleeding kit and resuscitation mask. Monitoring costs are not included given
singular site. The figures include the following assumptions:
•   3% CPI annual indexation.
•   Capital costs included purchase of box in year 1 and replacement in years 4, 7 and 10.
•   Equipment in each box includes rescue tube, adjustable set of fins, bleeding kit and resuscitation
    mask.

Page 14

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                          19 JANUARY 2026


•   Monitoring of rescue box is proposed to be undertaken on a minimum weekly basis.
Table 3 – 10 Year Cost Summary for Rescue Tube Boxes – Single Location




Table 4 identifies the cost of a broader scale roll out and is notionally based on 30 locations out of a
total of 67 formal beach accesses. The figures include the following assumptions:
•   3% CPI annual indexation
•   Capital costs include purchases of 10 boxes in Years 1, 2, and 3.
•   Equipment in each box includes rescue tube, adjustable set of fins, bleeding kit and resuscitation
    mask.
•   3 yearly box replacement schedule (10 per year)
•   Maintenance, monitoring, and vandalism costs are indexed annually at 3% CPI.
•   Monitoring of rescue boxes is proposed to be undertaken weekly at 30 locations between
    Sunshine Beach and Peregian to ensure each unit is serviceable and readily available.
•   Monitoring cost includes labour and all-terrain vehicle annual charge
Table 4 – 10 year Cost Summary for Rescue Tube Boxes (30 locations)




Commentary
The capital cost to replace the boxes and equipment over a 10 year period for 30 locations is
projected to be $229,277.59. Council’s net operating cost to establish, maintain and monitor the
equipment over a 10 year period is projected to be $731,425.08.


Risk & Opportunities
This item has been collectively discussed within the report.

Page 15

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                            19 JANUARY 2026


Human Rights
Human Rights Compatibility Statement
In developing this Report, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the
requirements of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019. It is considered that the subject matter
does not conflict with any human rights and supports a human rights approach to decision making
by Council. Council representatives will endeavour to act and make decisions under this report in a
manner that is compatible with human rights. This report should be read in conjunction with
Council’s Human Rights Policy.


Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
King & Co. Solicitors
Surf Lifesaving Queensland Inc.
QLD Local Government Mutual Scheme / JLT Risk Solutions Pty Ltd.
Internal Consultation
Departments consulted:
     Office of the CEO, Mayor &             Community Services               Corporate Services
             Councillors
      Mayor & Councillors                 Director                        Director
      Chief Executive Officer             Community Development       x   Financial Services
      Executive Officers                  Sport & Active Lifestyles       Fleet
      Community Engagement                Arts & Culture                  Revenue Services
      People & Culture                    Community Connection            ICT
 x    Governance                          Customer Experience             Procurement

                                                                          Commercial Property

      Strategy & Environment              Development & Regulation        Infrastructure Services
      Director                        x   Director                        Director
      Strategy & Sustainability           Development Assessment          Infrastructure Planning, Design
                                                                          and Delivery
      Economic Development        &       Local Laws                      Civil and Asset operations
      Destination Management
      Environmental Services              Environmental Health            Waste
      Innovation & Digital Hub            Building & Plumbing             Building & Facilities
                                      x   Property / Permits              Disaster Management