Meeting papers

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 102 of 141