Meeting papers

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 103 of 141