Meeting papers

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 101 of 141