Review of Victoria's water safety arrangements

Review of Victoria's water safety water arrangements

Publication information

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management acknowledges and respects Victorian Traditional Owners as the original custodians of Victoria’s land and waters, their unique ability to care for Country and deep spiritual connection to it.

IGEM honours Elders past and present whose knowledge and wisdom has ensured the continuation of culture and traditional practice.

Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

July 2024

ISBN 978-1-921699-11-5 (pdf/online/MS Word)

© State of Victoria 2024

You are free to re-use this work under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, provided you credit the State of Victoria (Inspector-General for Emergency Management) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including government logos.

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format telephone (03) 8684 7900 or email igem@igem.vic.gov.au

Inspector-General for Emergency Management

GPO Box 4356, Melbourne, Victoria 3001

Telephone: (03) 8684 7900

Email: igem@igem.vic.gov.au

This publication is available in PDF format on igem.vic.gov.au

Image credits

Page 109 Rock fisher, Urquhart Bluff (Laura McDougall)

Page 110 Swinburne University Beach Program (Life Saving Victoria)

Page 118 Dam at Avington (Agriculture Victoria)

Page 123 Rock fishing (Life Saving Victoria)

Page 128 Stand up paddleboarders, Murray River at Echuca (Shutterstock)

Review of Victoria's water safety arrangements

This page left intentionally blank

Preface

Drownings are tragic yet frequent events. They rob families of their loved ones and alter the fabric of communities. They can occur at any time, in any body of water, and all parts of the Victorian population are at risk.

This review topic was selected following Victoria’s worst drowning toll in 20 years, when 63 people lost their lives in 2020–21. During this review, a further 59 people drowned in 2022–23, Victoria’s second highest toll in 20 years and the start of a concerning upward trend.

Increased drowning rates are not unique to Victoria, with other Australian states and territories, and countries around the world experiencing similar peaks in recent years. There are likely to be ongoing increases in drowning risks associated with longer periods of warmer weather and changes in where communities live and visit, and how they interact with the water.

Some drowning risk factors are well understood and publicised, such as the dangers of unsupervised children around water. Others are less well known, such as changes to how we interact with the water, and habits related to recreational boating and personal watercraft.

If occurring as a result of other hazards, such as bushfires for example, these figures would spark significant community outcry and concern. However, while individual deaths are grieved, the sporadic nature of drownings makes it difficult to conceive the cumulative impact each year. Although often regarded as unavoidable, all stakeholders contributing to this review shared the opinion that every drowning is preventable.

Numerous organisations across Victoria recognise the importance of water safety and dedicate significant resources to understanding drowning risks, implementing prevention measures and ensuring efficient patrolling and rescue arrangements are in place. Government, emergency services, water safety organisations, community groups and businesses all contribute in diverse and effective ways to improving water safety.

Like so many other areas of emergency management, volunteers contribute significantly to water safety. Life Saving Victoria’s patrolling capability is largely served by volunteers and over 60 per cent of marine search and rescue incidents are responded to by volunteer members.

I would like to extend my thanks to the stakeholders who have shared evidence, insights and experiences over the course of this review. Their openness and interest in seeing improvements made to water safety arrangements is further testament to the good work done in this area.

My main aim when undertaking this review was to assess whether current water safety arrangements allow government and the broader community to respond to the increases in drowning figures and evolving risks. Based on the evidence received and the commentary provided over the course of this review, it is clear that some changes are necessary to ensure a suitable level of oversight and coordination for water safety. However, I am convinced that the existing arrangements provide a strong foundation to address the current challenges.

I have made five recommendations that aim to enhance the existing arrangements. Together, they focus on providing greater visibility of the key risks facing Victorians and ensuring better coordination of the approaches, strategies and activities that aim to address them. Collectively these build on the highly skilled efforts of the numerous stakeholders involved in water safety and the mature initiatives already in place.

Tony Pearce Inspector-General for Emergency Management

Acronyms and abbreviations

Shortened form Full name

ABP Australian builder's plate

ADF Australian Defence Force

AED Automatic External Defibrillator

AIPA Aquatic Injury Prevention Agenda

AML Advanced Mobile Location

AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority

ARV Aquatics and Recreation Victoria

AV Ambulance Victoria

AVCGA Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association

CAD Computer-aided dispatch

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CERA Community Emergency Risk Assessment

CFA Country Fire Authority

CPR Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

DE Department of Education

DEECA Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action

DJCS Department of Justice and Community Safety

DJSIR Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions

DTF Department of Treasury and Finance

DTP Department of Transport and Planning

EMC Emergency Management Commissioner

EMT Emergency Management Team

EMV Emergency Management Victoria

EPIRB Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon

ESRF Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund

ESTA Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority

FLIR Forward looking infrared

FRV Fire Rescue Victoria

FTE Full time equivalent

HEMS Helicopter Emergency Medical Service

HIN Hull Identification Number

ICCS Incident Command and Control System

IGEM Inspector-General for Emergency Management

LSV Life Saving Victoria

LSVComms LSV Communication Centre

MEMP Municipal Emergency Management Plan

MEMPC Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee

MSAR Marine Search and Rescue

NSW New South Wales

PISBTW Play it Safe by the Water

PLB Personal Locator Beacon

Push MOLI Push Mobile Location Identification

PWC Personal watercraft

RCC Rescue Coordination Centre

REMP Regional Emergency Management Plan

RLSSA Royal Life Saving Society - Australia

RTO Registered Training Organisation

SEMP State Emergency Management Plan

SLSA Surf Life Saving Australia

SMS Safety Management System

STVic Safe Transport Victoria

TSO Transport Safety Officer

VESEP Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program

VFA Victorian Fisheries Authority

VHF Very High Frequency

VicPol Victoria Police

VICSES Victoria State Emergency Service

VMC Victorian Multicultural Commission

WHO World Health Organization

000 Triple Zero

Glossary

Term Definition

Aquatic facilities

Coastal waters

COVID-19

Public, commercial and communal swimming pools

Waters extending to three nautical miles offshore

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Government Victorian Government

Hazard

A source of potential harm (water)

Inland waterways includes rivers, creeks, streams, dams (public and private), lakes, lagoons, ponds, waterfalls and storm water drains

Life buoy

A life saving buoy designed to be thrown to a person in water, to provide buoyancy and present drowning

Lifeguard Paid personnel who conduct lifesaving patrols at coastal and inland waterways and aquatic facilities

Lifejacket

Also known as a Personal Floatation Device (PFD) or buoyancy vest, is a device which will keep the user afloat in water

Lifesaver Volunteer who conducts lifesaving patrols at coastal and inland waterways

Minister Minister for Emergency Services

Personal watercraft

Recreating

Residential pools

Risk

A vessel with an engine that is used for propulsion and has a fully enclosed hull. Designed to be used kneeling down, standing up or sitting astride, and includes jet skis and jet-powered surfboards

Spending time in, on and around water for pleasure

Private residential pools and spas

The likelihood that a particular level of impact (drowning) will occur

Sector Emergency management sector

Executive summary

Drowning risks and impacts in Victoria

Globally, water safety is recognised as a significant public health issue, with many drowning risks considered to be preventable. Any body of water can pose a risk – from the obvious dangers posed by beaches and the ocean, to seemingly innocuous settings such as unsupervised bathtubs in the home, ponds at local parks and slow-moving rivers.

In 2022–23, over the course of preparing this report, 59 Victorians lost their lives to drowning. This is the second highest drowning toll in 20 years, and well above both the five and ten-year averages. It comes only two years after Victoria’s highest drowning toll of 63 deaths in 2020–21.

In addition to the fatalities, non-fatal drownings can be equally devastating for the affected individual, their families and community. However, the frequency of these incidents is much harder to quantify as only the most serious injuries are reportable. In 2021–22 Ambulance Victoria (AV) paramedics attended 111 non-fatal drowning instances and since 2011–12 there has been an average of 110 emergency department presentations per year. In 2021–22 Life Saving Victoria (LSV) performed 732 rescues and over 340,000 preventative actions. Victoria Police (VicPol) coordinated 1500 marine rescues.

In Victoria, much work has been undertaken over many decades to reduce water related injuries and deaths. This collective effort across government and non-government organisations was successful in achieving a long-term decline in drownings since the 1990s, with the crude drowning rate reducing from 1.4 drowning deaths per 100,000 in population in 1997–98 to 0.67 in 2014–15.

Since 2011, however, this progress has plateaued. Of greater concern is that the recent peaks represent the early signs of an upward trend in drowning fatalities. The crude drowning rate per 100,000 in population peaked at 0.92 in 2020–21, remained elevated at 0.81 in 2021–22 and increased to 0.89 for 2022–23. The risks of drowning in Victoria are widespread. Victorians interact with water in their day-today lives and enjoy recreating in and around the water at home, around the community and in nature. Swimming, surfing, boating, kiteboarding and paddling are all popular, but inherently risky activities. In addition, many people who come to harm do not intend to enter the water, and come into contact by slipping, tripping or falling. Consequently, risk assessment and prevention activities must consider measures to prevent unintentional entry into the water, alongside a range of strategies to improve public understanding of drowning risks, encourage safer choices and build water safety skills.

Many government and non-government organisations have roles in reducing drowning risks. Some have dedicated water safety roles in risk assessment, prevention and response. Others influence water safety through the development of regulations and policies that indirectly address drowning risks or through broad duty of care responsibilities for the land or waterways they manage. Given the wide range of drowning risks, prevention measures and rescue options, many organisations operate independently to provide high-quality programs, services and expertise.

As with many aspects of Victorian life, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant influence on water safety. It dramatically reduced access to pools and swimming lessons, with reports of a staggering five million primary school swimming lessons missed. It also prompted people to live and recreate in areas that were unfamiliar to them, more isolated and less likely to be patrolled.

Review aim and approach

The Review of Victoria's water safety arrangements provides an opportunity to assess whether the current water safety arrangements are conducive to lowering the drowning toll, regaining progress lost through the pandemic, and delivering the outcomes identified in the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25.

The review has undertaken a comprehensive assessment to identify key areas for improvement. It examines four key elements of water safety: governance and funding, risk, prevention and response. The scope of the review includes arrangements related to safety around public pools, and coastal and inland waterways. It also includes arrangements related to ensuring drowning risks in and around the home and community are considered and mitigated as much as possible, including specific risks related to residential pools, spas and dams.

Governance and funding

Coordination and leadership structures are important to create clear and transparent decision-making pathways and determine cross-government priorities. This is particularly relevant for water safety given the numerous government portfolios with land or waterway management roles, or with responsibilities to support the safety and wellbeing of specific cohorts through broader service provision obligations.

Coordination and leadership

Despite the collective interest and broad range of roles and responsibilities, there is no single entity with overall responsibility to coordinate the risk assessment, governance, prevention and response elements of water safety. Leadership for water safety is dispersed across numerous programs of work related to prevention activities and water rescue, with roles held by both government and non-government organisations.

This includes the leadership role of VicPol, which conducts risk assessments and some prevention activities in relation to its role as control agency for water rescues. Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and LSV also provide leadership in water safety, with EMV coordinating some governance activities, as well as volunteer marine search and rescue services. None of these agencies, however, have accountability for the coordination of all water safety activity, including the broad and diverse range of risk assessment and prevention activities.

The lack of a centralised coordination function has contributed to siloed streams of activity and a limited collective understanding of drowning risks. Many programs of work operate independently, and while these are often effective, there are limited opportunities for valuable collaboration. Opportunities for information-sharing, efficiencies in program development and implementation, and lessons management have been missed due to the current arrangements and a siloed approach can be observed in relation to risk assessment, planning, drowning prevention and response initiatives.

Water Safety Taskforce

Dispersed leadership, and the absence of a single coordinating entity, places significantly more importance on the need for an effective coordination mechanism. The Water Safety Taskforce was established in 2019 to fill at least some of this void, and provide government with visibility of water safety risks, prevention activities, response arrangements and impacts. Since its establishment it has provided a mechanism to share information, build relationships, coordinate some activities and monitor emerging risks and community impacts.

To date the taskforce has collaborated to produce the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 which provides a strong, evidence-based series of outcomes and targets to drive decision-making and planning. However, since releasing the strategy, the taskforce has adopted a format that is more conducive to information-sharing rather than the rigorous and collaborative analysis of risks. It has proved limited in its ability to coordinate cross-government planning and policy development and currently lacks the maturity to provide strategic advice to government on key water safety priorities.

The taskforce is currently in the process of finalising a Water Safety Action Plan to support the implementation of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25. Members of the taskforce felt the development of the draft plan was rushed and was not the collaborative plan intended by the strategy. While the action plan was endorsed by the State Crisis and Resilience Council in August 2022, it has not progressed further and there are currently no timelines for its implementation. There is work to be done to ensure the final plan prioritises key foundational initiatives and reflects the resourcing required to deliver the outcomes of the strategy.

The original purpose of the taskforce remains relevant, potentially even more so, following several years of elevated drowning fatalities. Members of the taskforce see its potential value and ongoing relevance. However, there is concern as to its ability to drive improvements in water safety in its current form.

While the taskforce may not currently be suitably structured and resourced to provide the government with appropriate visibility of risks, it has become increasingly important that a dedicated and ongoing coordination function is in place to ensure priority water safety efforts are advanced.

Recommendation 1: The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government builds on the progress of the Water Safety Taskforce to establish a coordinating body that has the accountability, membership and resourcing to:

(a) implement the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and monitor progress towards its outcomes

(b) assess statewide drowning risks and develop water safety policy to address these risks

(c) identify high-priority cross-government actions and ensure their delivery

(d) provide visibility and advice to government on emerging risks.

Coordinated readiness for periods of heightened drowning risk

There are many examples of organisations responding proactively ahead of, or during, periods of increased risk, often through targeted or place-based prevention activities. VicPol, as the control agency for water rescues, coordinates a range of agencies and land managers to target enforcement activities based on risk. LSV also increases patrolling activities and participates in the State Control Team during summer, with a focus on school and public holiday periods. Communications associated with the Water Safety Campaign are also scheduled to increase during pre-determined high-risk periods.

Victoria Police is the control agency for water rescues (Source: Victoria Police Air Wing)

However, there are currently no coordinated readiness arrangements across all types of prevention activities. Coordination in readiness does not encompass activities outside of enforcement and there are no documented arrangements to identify and implement targeted activities based on immediate risk. Individual efforts are under-resourced and not aligned with any readiness strategy.

While there are some well-known indicators of high-risk periods (for example, high temperatures and public holidays), there are no agreed triggers to activate readiness arrangements or forums to ensure these activities are complementary and consistent. There are opportunities to learn from measures taken to improve readiness for other hazards. For example, the mature readiness arrangements for grass and bushfire could be leveraged to address drowning risk through local variable signage, emergency information and warnings and media placements on local networks.

Recommendation 2: The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police works with the Water Safety Taskforce to establish coordinated readiness arrangements to initiate relevant water safety measures ahead of high-risk periods. The arrangements should:

(a) specify organisational roles and responsibilities

(b) include triggers and procedures for activating the arrangements through the State Control Team

(c) be flexible to address local and statewide risks

(d) consider all relevant public communications, place-based education, regulatory, enforcement, patrolling and rescue methods.

Water safety funding and partnerships

The Victorian Government has provided significant funding for water safety initiatives in the last decade through direct budget allocations or budget-funded grants. It has invested heavily in curriculum-based water safety education, community programs, research, lifesaving patrols and club facilities. It has also made sizeable contributions to procure rescue vessels, develop rescue infrastructure and establish a coordination function for volunteer marine search and rescue.

The Victorian Government takes a partnership approach to water safety, with many government entities using funding to work with community groups, businesses, non-government organisations and research groups to deliver water safety initiatives. This improves the quality and reach of the initiatives, however, there is no overall visibility of the partnerships, and the lack of coordination has resulted in some inefficiencies in program design, implementation and promotion. The approach is not conducive to sharing lessons between partnerships and reinforces the siloed approach to water safety work.

The strengths and limitations of this partnership approach are perhaps most clearly evident in government’s relationship with LSV. LSV is a key collaborator for the Victorian Government, with many departments and agencies engaging with it to provide a range of services including patrolling, water safety education, cohort-specific initiatives, public communications and research. LSV also serves a role in advocating to government and raising interest and awareness for water safety.

LSV holds contracts, leases and agreements with many organisations and a variety of land managers to deliver water safety programs, lifesaving patrols and evidence-based advice. Despite many of the deliverables being similar, the nature of the agreements varies considerably to meet the requirements of the contracting party and ensure sufficient (if not total) cost recovery. This process is inefficient and burdensome for LSV and leads to inconsistencies in program and service delivery that can undermine public safety.

The current approach to working with LSV capitalises on its subject matter expertise in water safety. However, while LSV is often considered to be a partner organisation in water safety, it functions as a service provider for government and is limited in its ability to initiate and maintain water safety activities without dedicated funding. Despite this limitation, LSV provides advice, shares resources and self-funds a range of water safety initiatives as much as possible where resourcing allows.

This arrangement, while positive and beneficial to government, has led to a misunderstanding of LSV’s role in water safety and unrealistic expectations around its ability to respond to either emerging risks or fluctuations in funding. There is often an overestimation of LSV’s accountability in water safety which does not align with its capacity and funding allocations.

Although LSV has clearly articulated roles in the State Emergency Management Plan and ongoing service delivery roles with many government entities, it is not bound by legislated water safety accountabilities and fulfillment of these roles is largely enabled through lapsing funding focused on the delivery of specific initiatives. As a non-government entity, LSV is not structured to absorb reductions in funding, nor is it bound to deliver services for which it does not received specific funding. This scenario presents a risk for government as the services provided by LSV are critical, but its accountability to deliver the services is contingent on funding.

Under current arrangements, LSV’s level of Victorian Government funding is not guaranteed beyond the 12-month budget cycle. There is a lack of clarity regarding the preferred scope of services that should be delivered by LSV and the specific impact of funding fluctuations on the services it delivers to the Victorian community.

Assessing and planning for Victoria's water safety risks

Assessing drowning risks and the associated planning to minimise or mitigate risks is a challenging task. All waterbodies or water-related activities pose risks to public safety. These risks are also dependent on the capabilities of individuals and cohorts, which vary considerably across the Victorian population.

Risk assessment

The ways in which organisations assess drowning risks is influenced by how water safety interacts with their broader organisational objectives. Most organisations must balance drowning risks with other priorities, for example efficient transport and waterway management and the general public’s freedom to enjoy nature.

This can lead to inconsistent approaches and in some cases suboptimal outcomes. These issues are exacerbated by the fact that Victoria does not have a standardised water safety risk assessment process, and organisations largely conduct their risk assessments in isolation. Given the diverse nature of water safety risks, this is largely appropriate. However, opportunities for more comprehensive and consistent understandings of risk are lost as a result of this approach and there are some inefficiencies as organisations conduct parallel work to understand similar risks.

Victoria’s complex land tenure and waterway management legislation can also make it difficult to determine accountability for planning and prevention activities. Many waterway managers are poorly resourced to conduct thorough drowning risk assessments. Additionally, there is often confusion surrounding the roles and responsibilities of land and waterway managers in relation to assessing and responding to these risks.

Water safety planning

While there is a strong planning culture for individual programs and activities, there are limited collaborative planning opportunities in place to respond to drowning risks through current emergency management planning arrangements. State, regional and municipal emergency management planning committees do not systematically consider drowning as a hazard in their risk assessments, primarily because a water safety incident is not a major emergency. The Victorian emergency risk assessment process does not consider drowning risks and the State Emergency Management Plan provides a highlevel overview of some, but not all, agencies’ water safety roles. Drowning risks are also not routinely considered at the regional level in risk assessments or planning.

Although the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 recognises that local planning is key for addressing drowning risks, there is no requirement for Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committees to consider drowning risks in their Community Emergency Risk Assessments or associated planning processes. Many councils consider water safety to be business-as-usual, rather than an emergency management matter.

Data and evidence

A fundamental requirement for comprehensive and high-quality risk assessment and planning is accurate and timely data. However, collating quality data to inform the identification and assessment of water safety risks is challenging, and the resulting information gaps limit the accuracy and reliability of the risk assessments.

The sensitive nature of drowning data, the involvement of numerous organisations, and various levels of interest in water safety means that data and information is piecemeal and often delayed in its availability. For example, there is little information available on non-fatal drownings, particularly for inland waterways and unpatrolled coastal locations.

Knowing a cohort’s level of exposure to risk helps organisations assess relative risk and can direct prevention resources to optimise reach and effectiveness. However, information demonstrating risk exposure is lacking, with data related to waterway visitation rates and participation trends for aquatic activities is highly variable or unavailable.

These limitations create a challenging scenario for organisations with a role in water safety, as decisions must be based on limited or potentially flawed evidence. Organisations use the available information as best they can, and often work to collate various sources of data to improve their understanding of individual, environmental and social risk factors. This approach is labour intensive and still leaves gaps in risk understanding as data may not be of a similar quality or focus on isolated aspects of risk.

The collection and dissemination of timely and accurate data is critical for strategic and effective planning. This is particularly true for water safety as the dispersed and complex nature of these incidents creates complicated and variable risk profiles. While there have been some improvements to the sharing of high-level information facilitated by the Water Safety Taskforce, the level of detail is not sufficient to inform sophisticated risk assessments. There are also no arrangements in place to identify and address data gaps.

These limitations prevent the development of a statewide picture of risk that considers all types of risks and settings. Without a comprehensive assessment of all drowning risks in Victoria, it is difficult to determine priorities and ensure suitably resourced actions are in place.

Recommendation 3: The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establishes an ongoing process to develop and maintain an evidence-based statewide picture of water safety risk. The process should:

(a) be collaborative and involve all organisations with roles and responsibilities in water safety

(b) consider demographic, social, behavioural and environmental risks

(c) identify data needs and collect data to resolve gaps

(d) include data and evidence sharing mechanisms and permissions

(e) be used to identify and implement priority actions to reduce drowning risks.

Prevention

Drowning prevention covers a broad range of initiatives including raising awareness of drowning risks and water safety through campaigns, engagement and education. It also involves regulations and enforcement of behaviour and safety measures in relation to pools and spas. Many place-based initiatives aim to facilitate safe behaviour and prompt awareness of local risks.

Campaigns and community engagement

Victoria has well established water safety campaigns such as Play it Safe by the Water, and strong linkages to national campaigns. Victoria’s annual Water Safety Campaign currently focuses on two key demographics that are overrepresented in drowning statistics, men as risk-takers and very young children needing supervision around water.

There is a strong culture of evidence-based practice and evaluation in campaign development. The identification of target audiences is informed by LSV’s annual drowning reports and campaigns are regularly tested and evaluated to ensure effective reach and recall.

However, campaign investment in water safety has remained static for many years despite the broadening of its target audiences. While campaign message recall has remained steady with the target audiences, message recall with the broader community has been declining steadily over this time.

Direct community engagement is also undertaken by a broad range of organisations, often as part of their business-as-usual interactions with communities, as a way to promote safe behaviour and raise awareness of risks. There are many examples of community engagement that provide relevant and meaningful information to communities through face-to-face and online mediums. Collaboration in engagement occurs but is limited and not prompted or guided by any strategy or coordination mechanism.

In general, the review found that the materials and resources produced by water safety organisations are underutilised. There are opportunities to align engagement approaches to increase the consistency, reach and efficiency of community engagement without creating additional workload for individual organisations.

Play it Safe by the Water campaign

Education and skill development

In addition to using campaigns to raise awareness of drowning risks and promote safe behaviour in and around the water, there are a range of education programs in place to build swimming and water safety skills and knowledge.

Victoria has a leading-practice approach to school-based swimming and water safety programs which are embedded within the curriculum for government and Catholic primary school, English language and specialist school students. These programs have received recent boosts in funding to provide catch up lessons for those missed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to increase swim teacher numbers. There are also many programs on offer that target high-risk cohorts and aquatic environments.

This approach has successfully removed many of the practical and financial barriers of participating in swimming lessons and is complemented by a range of other community education programs run by LSV, VICSWIM, the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions, and the Department of Justice and Community Safety targeting specific communities and settings.

Recreational boating and paddling safety measures

While boating incidents currently account for 11 per cent of Victorian drowning deaths, boating and paddling are increasingly popular in Victoria, leading to a higher number of inexperienced vessel operators and increased drowning and injury risks. Current licensing requirements for powered vessels are minimal and only assess knowledge, rather than skills. Despite multiple coronial recommendations and a high level of interest from the boating community, there have been no changes made to require practical skills assessment. At present, the available data does not justify the resources required to change licensing requirements and provide skills training and assessment.

Requirements to register vessels or maintain a standard of fitness-for-purpose are also minimal, meaning that operators face few legal barriers to taking unsafe vessels onto the water or navigating into waterways for which their vessel is not equipped to safely manage. Authorised compliance officers are limited in their ability to require unsafe vessels to return to shore and make the necessary safety improvements.

Efforts to increase safety through more stringent licensing requirements, safety inspections, registration practices and other measures are limited by a lack of data demonstrating the impacts of boating incidents. Cost-benefit analyses rely on fatality data and are not able to accurately account for the impacts associated with non-fatal drownings, injuries, rescues and damage to vessels or infrastructure.

There are, however, strong examples of collaboration amongst agencies to encourage safe boating and enforce safety requirements. This includes work by Safe Transport Victoria and the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) to promote lifejacket use, and the work of VicPol to coordinate a multi-agency emergency management team that has facilitated coordination in boating education, patrolling and enforcement activities based on risk. These examples have increased efficiencies in regulation, facilitating greater compliance to safety regulations through education and enforcement activities.

Pool safety

Residential pools and spas have long been recognised as a drowning risk, particularly for young children. Requirements to fence pools and spas have been in place for some time, however, there has historically been limited ability to monitor compliance with safety standards. Since 2019, however, landowners have been required to register their swimming pools and spas with their council and lodge compliance certificates for safety barriers.

While this represents a significant step forward, there have been concerns as to councils’ ability to resource the registration and compliance assessment requirements as the specific requirements can be complex, varying based on when the pool was built, and there is limited availability of qualified personnel to conduct inspections and advise landowners on required safety modifications. A Victorian AuditorGeneral’s Office performance audit assessed compliance to the changed requirements and found generally low levels of compliance to safety standards across residential pools and spas.

Victoria does not consider public pools to be high-risk environments as there have been minimal drownings at these facilities. Facility owners and operators are encouraged to adhere to public pool safety standards and relevant codes of practice. However, adherence is voluntary and there is no mandatory assessment in place to provide oversight of risks associated with public pools. Consequently, many public pools do not undertake the assessment. Pools managed by accommodation providers (motels, hotels and caravan parks) only need to comply with residential pool safety requirements and don’t have to comply with the more stringent public pool safety standards.

Place-based intervention

There are a range of measures that can be implemented in and around waterways to raise awareness of risks and facilitate safe participation in aquatic activities. Place-based interventions encompass signage and appropriately sited and maintained jetties, piers and boat ramps, as well as fencing, pathways, trails and carparks, all of which can encourage visitation to patrolled or safer waterways and discourage access to isolated or dangerous locations.

There are no specific regulations or guidelines for water safety or drowning prevention on public land. Specific water safety roles and responsibilities of land and waterway managers are unclear and there is a lack of resourcing for dedicated drowning prevention initiatives. Land and waterway managers typically adhere to general duty of care and safety provisions for the siting, design and location of public facilities such as jetties, piers and boat ramps. While drowning prevention is certainly a priority, it is one of many considerations made during land use planning decisions.

Signage is frequently used to raise awareness of drowning risks and to promote safe behaviour. Australian signage standards provide clear guidance on the use of symbols and information, as well as signage placement and design to increase effectiveness and consistency. However, its effectiveness is contingent on individuals taking notice of signage and responding appropriately.

Land tenure complexities can complicate roles and responsibilities for determining the need for signage. Installing and maintaining appropriate signs among land and waterway managers, particularly in locations where there are multiple organisations involved for managing the land and water, adds further complexity.

Overall effectiveness of prevention measures

Looking across all prevention measures, there is a large amount of work underway to reduce drowning risks. This work is largely well-evidenced and of a high standard, and there is evidence of collaboration when convenient and possible. However, there is little oversight of all work or coordination of prevention initiatives. This makes it difficult to determine the most effective means of preventing drowning risk and informing future strategy and investment. Greater coordination of drowning prevention initiatives would provide opportunities for resource and knowledge sharing, as well as the sharing of lessons to build on the successes of existing programs and interventions.

Signage at Apollo Bay (Source: IGEM)

Case studies

The variety of circumstances in which people drown, and the absence of data available to quantify drowning trends, can make it difficult to understand the factors that facilitate or undermine prevention efforts. Four case studies are used to highlight some of the variability and complexity associated with these tragic deaths. While illustrating the range of drowning risks, the case studies also serve as exemplars of common water safety issues that plague many communities and settings. Each case study makes observations on trends and learnings that are applicable across a broad range of circumstances.

Multicultural communities

Victorian residents and visitors from multicultural communities are at higher risk of drowning. There are a range of successful programs available to multicultural communities, with some of the major contributors of success being the formation of genuine and ongoing relationships with communities and a partnership approach throughout program development and implementation. There is also a strong recognition of the value of representation of multicultural communities in water safety roles (for example, lifesavers and swimming teachers) for improving participation in education programs. These learnings can be used to not only improve water safety for multicultural communities but increase the effectiveness of programs for other high-risk communities.

Dams on residential properties

Dams on residential properties are high-risk locations for drowning incidents. Residential dams pose a common risk, however, the nature of the risk varies significantly depending on the physical characteristics of the dam, its location on the property, the presence of children on the property, and the use of fencing to restrict access to the dam. These factors make it very difficult to impose regulations that appropriately address the risk but do not unduly disrupt the management of the property and the use of the dam itself. This leads to a reliance on education, awareness raising and promotional activities to increase the likelihood that property owners will implement safety measures around dams on their property.

This scenario, where the reliance is on the property owner to appropriately identify and respond to risks, is a common strategy across many aspects of water safety. While strategies to facilitate safe behaviour are helpful, there needs to be clear and consistent messaging coming from a variety of sources that are likely to be relevant to those with responsibility for the risk. There are opportunities to improve safety messaging around dams and apply similar thinking to other circumstances where government is limited in its ability to implement safety regulations and place-based prevention measures.

Rock fishing

Victorian rock fishing deaths are intermittent but persistent. Rock fishing is a popular but dangerous activity, with a high risk of injury and fatality. LSV and VFA have conducted campaigns and education over many years, but these alone have not been enough to prevent rock fishing deaths along Victoria’s coastlines. In March 2022, VFA introduced a regulatory intervention through a two-year trial requiring people to wear life jackets while rock fishing in high-risk locations.

The introduction of this regulatory prevention measure demonstrates a well-evidenced progression of interventions to respond to an enduring drowning risk. Following efforts to encourage safer behaviour through communications, education and signage, ongoing monitoring of drownings and public behaviour provided suitable impetus to implement a stronger prevention strategy. The introduction of the regulatory lifejacket requirements has been coupled with education, promotion and strategies to facilitate adherence to the regulation. Its implementation has also been closely monitored to understand the public’s adherence to the regulation.

The case study provides an opportunity to consider other activities and settings where drowning risks and impacts remain high despite targeted awareness raising and education. It demonstrates the value of a detailed understanding of the risk and the success of other prevention measures for justifying the resources required to impose regulations on the public.

The Murray River

The Royal Life Saving Society Australia identified the Murray River as the number one river drowning blackspot in Australia in 2014. Most visitors to the Murray River are from Victoria and a significant number of the drowning fatalities along the Murray are Victorian residents, yet the New South Wales Government (NSW) holds responsibility for managing and enforcing Murray River regulations. While Victorian residents are exposed to risk, opportunities to intervene through targeted education, regulation and enforcement must be supported and led by NSW. This limits the ability of Victorian entities to introduce water safety initiatives and monitor fatal and non-fatal drownings, unsafe behaviour and near-misses.

The case study exemplifies a common issue with land tenure and jurisdictional accountabilities, where there is a mismatch between those responsible for assessing and managing the risk, and those responsible for the people at risk. This scenario is common across many waterways in Victoria, where visitors may not be local to the area. Clear and ongoing communication and a strong understanding of roles and responsibilities between Victorian and NSW agencies is helpful. There are opportunities to adopt this approach in other areas when water safety initiatives are negatively influenced by land tenure roles and responsibilities.

Response

Response to water safety incidents is complex and is provided by many emergency services and volunteer Marine Search and Rescue (MSAR) organisations, with VicPol assigned as the control agency for all water rescues. Water rescues are varied in nature and can include preventive and rescue actions taking place on patrolled beaches by lifesavers, inland water search and rescue operations, swift water rescues in fast flowing rivers, or multi-agency vessel rescues off Victoria’s coast.

Water rescues rely on emergency service organisations such as AV, Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV), LSV, VicPol and Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES) who provide a large amount of specialist capability and conduct many of the more complex aquatic rescues both inland and along the coast.

These agencies are supported by a large volunteer contingent. Volunteer lifesavers perform a vast number of rescues for the community, with volunteer MSAR units providing more than 60 per cent of rescues on behalf of VicPol. LSV and VICSES volunteers provide further essential capacity in MSAR roles and in their support of swift water rescues.

Patrolling and lifesaving

Lifesaving patrols occur at 68 sites across Victoria, with another 14 roving patrols activated to address heightened risk during warm weather. Patrols are largely managed by lifesaving clubs and as part of a broader service coordinated by LSV. LSV has a strong culture of capability development in patrolling, with established assurance mechanisms in place to monitor club capability and organisational capacity. Volunteer lifesavers perform a wide range of duties and provide 165,000 hours of patrolling capability each year.

While there have been some positive instances of short-term, risk-based patrolling at inland locations, the only permanent inland patrolling is in Mildura on the Murray River. This is despite the highest number of Victoria’s fatal drownings occurring at inland locations.

The location of patrols is largely based on the location of life saving clubs rather than an assessment of risk. LSV works with land and waterway managers to activate additional lifesaving patrols or expand existing services where there is heightened risk and where resources permit.

Currently, the establishment of additional patrols is subject to land and/or waterway manager approval and conditions. The accountability for determining a need for increased lifesaving patrols is unclear, and while LSV often advocates for patrolling activities, there are no clear arrangements in place to encourage and facilitate these activities.

Marine search and rescue

MSAR involves many agencies, with VicPol accountable for incident coordination as the control agency. Responses may be provided by vessels or aerial assets, with VicPol tasking resources and coordinating rescues from its Rescue Coordination Centre in Williamstown.

In 2016 the MSAR office within EMV was established and now provides strategic oversight and coordination for the 27 volunteer MSAR units across Victoria. The MSAR office has also come to provide significant operational support to the MSAR volunteers to increase their preparedness. However, the resources within the MSAR office are stretched, requiring a level of prioritisation of strategic and operational matters that is neither desirable nor sustainable.

Victoria’s volunteer MSAR units are affiliated with various parent organisations (LSV, VICSES or the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard) or remain independent. These parent organisations provide variable levels of support and impose an additional layer of governance. Particularly in the case of Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, this arrangement creates confusion in operational and non-operational matters that is not resolved through plans, training or exercising. Volunteer units grapple with unclear leadership which results in numerous difficulties, including differences in accreditation requirements and conflicting guidance on rescue roles.

Non-operational and operational arrangements, roles and responsibilities are not clearly articulated in any formal documentation. Although most agencies understand their own roles and responsibilities, there are variable interpretations of other agencies’ responsibilities and capabilities. While providing valuable support for volunteer MSAR units, many of the roles assumed by the MSAR office to support preparedness, such as volunteer training and maintenance of safety systems, must be prioritised based on the most critical needs. There is a lack of resourcing for the MSAR office to commit to providing this support in an ongoing and sustainable manner.

VicPol takes a manual approach to tasking and other aspects of incident coordination which accommodates the highly specific nature of water rescues. However, volunteers struggle to understand decision-making as there have been limited formal avenues for interacting with VicPol, and the principles guiding incident coordination are not captured in any plans or procedures. While VicPol is attempting to improve communication with volunteer MSAR units, it is still a source of frustration for volunteers. The manual approach is resource intensive and relies on a strong understanding of marine search and rescue, local conditions, weather, and the capabilities and capacities of volunteer units.

Volunteer MSAR capability and capacity

There are current concerns relating to the capability of MSAR volunteers, with several incidents requiring investigations by national and state regulators and enforcement agencies. The current system for monitoring capability and safety compliance – the Safety Management System – is difficult for volunteers to accurately maintain. The system indicates only 55 per cent of units comply with capability and safety standards. However, the complexity of the system makes it difficult to determine where there are genuine deficits in capability, and where poor results are a reporting issue.

The MSAR office supports capability development of volunteer MSAR units by providing programs and resources to support trainers within each unit. The ability of volunteer marine search and rescue units to provide effective training to their members is therefore variable, as it is dependent on the capability of trainers within each unit. There are concerns that this approach is leading to poor capability levels in some volunteer units, and reducing the number of volunteers who are able to meet the accreditation standard required to assume highly-skilled leadership positions.

The MSAR office also coordinates local, multi-agency exercises to improve relationships between units and with agencies. Although attendance by agencies is variable and based on capacity to attend, volunteers describe the exercises as valuable. The exercises have provided opportunities for volunteer MSAR units to work together and strengthen relationships.

Volunteer membership within the MSAR sector has been experiencing a steady decline for many years, with a concerningly higher rate of attrition for members in leadership roles (for example, unit masters). All MSAR volunteers must be highly skilled and qualified to operate in a complex regulatory environment, with specialist positions requiring a significant amount of training and accrued hours of experience.

These specialist roles cannot be easily filled and are essential to the ability of the unit to function. However, volunteer recruitment strategies remain the responsibility of individual units, despite the challenges of attracting and training volunteers in this complex environment. Volunteers and agencies hold concerns about the sustainability of a fit-for-purpose rescue service.

Capacity concerns are compounded by a long history of troubled leadership and coordination of volunteer MSAR units. The MSAR office is currently unable to implement further changes to ensure volunteer units have an appropriate level of skilled capacity to provide safe and timely rescues across the state. As such, it has initiated a reform program to develop a sustainable MSAR operating model.

Capability and capacity issues have already resulted in the closure of some volunteer units and units imposing limited operating periods. There are concerns that more closures and limitations in unit services will follow as a result of increasingly rapid membership attrition associated with an ageing volunteer workforce, as well as long-term frustrations with unresolved governance and resourcing issues. In addition to reduced capacity, capability concerns are such that both volunteers and agencies fear unsafe rescue operations could result in adverse outcomes for volunteers, agency personnel and the public.

The inability for volunteer units to provide sufficient and safe MSAR services across the state jeopardises the entire service as professional agencies would need to cover geographical gaps in service, as well as a wider range of rescues to address volunteer capability limitations. This outcome, should it eventuate, would place considerable strain on agency resources.

Funding and resourcing for volunteer MSAR units

Funding for volunteer MSAR unit resources is through a mixture of State Budget allocations, fundraising and sponsorship. Much of this funding is allocated to critical operational needs such as vessel procurement and maintenance. As a result, the MSAR office is under-resourced to provide the level of support required by volunteer units. The office has a minimal number of staff yet provides a greater range of operational support than initially intended to ensure safe and compliant rescues across the volunteer units.

The lack of resourcing has limited the ability of the MSAR office to develop and implement a risk-based approach to vessel procurement and other investments in volunteer units, resulting in reactive decisionmaking, and inefficiencies in purchasing through an inability to plan expenditures.

The current funding arrangements also do not provide an ongoing solution for essential costs such as volunteer unit insurance or an improved training and exercising program. While the MSAR office has been able to source additional funding and prioritise urgent expenditures, it makes the volunteer service vulnerable to ongoing reductions in capacity and unanticipated resourcing requirements.

Recommendation 4: The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establish a marine search and rescue (MSAR) operating model to:

(a) ensure clear leadership and lines of accountability before, during and after incidents

(b) support strategic planning and investment across the volunteer MSAR service

(c) increase operational support and preparedness through risk-based capability and capacity development across volunteer MSAR units

(d) support a long-term volunteer recruitment and management model.

Swift water rescue

Swift water rescues are necessary in fast-moving water, such as rivers, storm water drains and rapids. Like MSAR, VicPol is the control agency for swift water rescue, with AV, FRV and VICSES providing additional responder capability. Rescues can be performed in-water, using boats and aerial resources.

Given the time-critical nature of swift water rescue and the dispersed level of risk across the state, rescue helicopters are a critical resource as it may not be possible for the appropriate land and water-based resources to be deployed quickly. AV, LSV and VicPol provide this air response capability, and are supported by both FRV and VICSES in land and water-based rescue operations.

Given the highly technical nature of swift water rescues, there is a high level of capability required. Individual agencies manage their capability development internally, and there is a strong culture of training and exercising to ensure their personnel are well-equipped to perform rescues. There are opportunities for more multi-agency exercising, training and post-incident debriefing to increase sharing of lessons learnt and improve understanding of roles and responsibilities across agencies.

This is particularly important as swift water rescue arrangements, roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined in existing emergency management doctrine resulting in variable understandings of agency roles and responsibilities across the sector. While there is a strong understanding of internal roles, there is evidence of a lack of role clarity between agencies.

Overall effectiveness of response

Across all types of response activities, agencies hold a high degree of capability. Volunteers contribute hugely to both patrolling and rescue activities, however, MSAR volunteers are frustrated by longstanding issues with governance and coordination.

There is currently no multi-agency plan that articulates roles and responsibilities of responders to provide a shared understanding of the end-to-end arrangements for the diverse range of activities and agencies involved in water rescue. While individual agencies and individual units work hard to provide a consistent level of service – be that patrolling or rescue – the lack of a centralised plan means that it is difficult to create a shared understanding of roles, capabilities and capacities.

Recommendation 5: The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police with the support of Emergency Management Victoria, responder agencies and Life Saving Victoria work together to develop a subplan to the State Emergency Management Plan that clearly articulates roles, responsibilities and arrangements for risk assessment, prevention, operational preparedness and incident control in relation to water-based rescue.

Looking ahead

One of the clear priorities of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 is to support collaboration and coordination across organisations with roles in water safety. The need for this is evident to focus efforts and increase effectiveness across governance, funding, risk assessment, prevention and response.

Efforts have been made to establish a coordinated approach to water safety through initiatives such as the Water Safety Taskforce, the strategy itself and preliminary work on a draft Water Safety Action Plan. However, coordination and collaboration are either lacking or limited to specific programs of work in risk assessment, prevention and response. In cases where it is limited to specific programs of work (for example, swimming education or boating regulations) there are often many positive outcomes.

Widespread coordination and collaboration are not essential to delivering strong water safety programs. In fact, an overly coordinated approach for the extremely diverse range of activities explored in this review may have limited value. However, this review highlighted that achieving greater coordination and collaboration across a number of core activities is likely to have important and critical benefit.

Increasing data collection and sharing is foundational to understanding water safety risks and developing fit for purpose strategies for mitigation. This includes greater coordination to provide the level of risk awareness required for effective readiness and response arrangements during high-risk periods.

Building on the achievements of the Water Safety Taskforce to establish mature and accountable leadership is equally critical to achieving the highly collaborative work capable of addressing new and emerging areas of risk.

As with other areas of Victoria’s emergency management arrangements, volunteers contribute significantly to water safety. LSV's patrols and MSAR are primarily serviced by volunteers. While this is a strength of the arrangements, it is also a vulnerability that requires consideration in long-term planning.

Organisations involved in water safety are clearly motivated to reduce drowning and typically invest available resources to support collaborative efforts as much as possible. There is strong government interest in facilitating safer behaviour in and around the water. These factors provide an opportunity to continue developing Victoria’s water safety arrangements to improve efficiencies and ultimately effectiveness.

Based on the findings and observations made throughout the review, the Inspector-General for Emergency Management makes five recommendations to increase coordination in three specific areas of water safety, increase the availability of data and evidence to support the prioritisation of risks, and strengthen planning for water rescues. While these outcomes may not directly lead to reductions in drownings, they will help support greater efficiencies and awareness of risks that will ultimately increase safety and reduce harm for Victorians and visitors to Victoria.

Observations, findings and recommendations

Chapter 2 Background

Drowning risk in Victoria

Finding 2.1 Despite a significant reduction in fatal drownings since 1997, the drowning toll over recent years has exceeded average figures and indicates the beginnings of a concerning, upward trend.

Observation 2.1 Victoria’s water safety strategy, plans and communications do not reflect the prevalent risk of the cold temperatures of Victorian waters.

Water safety in Victoria

Finding 2.2

There are many organisations involved in water safety that influence drowning risks across numerous settings. Given the wide range of drowning risks, prevention measures and rescue options, many organisations operate independently to provide high-quality programs, services and expertise.

Chapter 3 Governance and funding

Leadership

Finding 3.1 While Victoria Police conducts risk assessments and some prevention activities in relation to its role as control agency for water rescues, there is no single entity providing overall coordination for water safety risk assessment, prevention and readiness.

Finding 3.2 The lack of a centralised coordination function or accountability for water safety has contributed to a siloed approach to risk assessment, planning, drowning prevention and response initiatives.

Finding 3.3 The establishment of the Water Safety Taskforce provides a centralised forum to share information, develop relationships and raise awareness across organisations with roles in water safety. However, it is limited in its ability to coordinate cross-government planning and policy development and currently lacks the maturity to provide strategic advice to government on key water safety priorities.

Finding 3.4 Increases in the drowning toll and ongoing changes in drowning risks require a dedicated and ongoing coordination function to ensure water safety efforts are coordinated and government has appropriate visibility of risks and priorities.

Observation 3.1 There is an opportunity for the Water Safety Taskforce to review its ongoing role, function and format to ensure it continues to progress the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and continues to address the ongoing risk of drowning across the state.

Recommendation 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government strengthens the accountability, membership and resourcing of the Water Safety Taskforce to ensure it functions to:

(a) implement the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and monitor progress towards its outcomes

(b) assess statewide drowning risks and develop water safety policy to address these risks

(c) identify high-priority cross-government actions and ensure their delivery (d) provide visibility and advice to government on emerging risks

Strategic activities

Finding 3.5 The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 articulates a common vision and priority areas for water safety and its collaborative development through the Water Safety Taskforce provides a strong foundation for the development and implementation of coordinated policy and initiatives.

Finding 3.6 Despite preliminary work on a draft Water Safety Action Plan providing some opportunities for collaboration, it is yet to be finalised and there is no endorsed plan to support the implementation of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25.

Readiness in water safety

Finding 3.7 There are currently no coordinated readiness arrangements across all types of prevention activities to address high-risk periods for water safety.

Finding 3.8 During high-risk periods, efforts to promote community awareness of water safety and increase readiness to respond to drowning incidents have been largely successful. However, these efforts are under-resourced and not associated with an ongoing coordinated readiness strategy.

Recommendation 2 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police works with the Water Safety Taskforce to establish coordinated readiness arrangements to initiate relevant water safety measures ahead of high-risk periods. The arrangements should:

(a) specify organisational roles and responsibilities

(b) include triggers and procedures for activating the arrangements through the State Control Team

(c) be flexible to address local and statewide risks

(d) consider all relevant public communications, place-based education, regulatory, enforcement, patrolling and rescue methods.

Finding 3.9 Government’s partnership approach to water safety research, risk assessment and many prevention activities is valuable and supports collaboration. However, there is a lack of coordination which limits the efficiency of water safety initiatives and overall progress towards water safety outcomes.

Finding 3.10 Life Saving Victoria has a central role in Victoria’s water safety arrangements, providing subject matter expertise and informal leadership to drive actions and interest in government and community.

Finding 3.11 Life Saving Victoria manages an extensive range of individual agreements to deliver lifesaving services and water safety programs across Victoria which is inefficient, burdensome and creates inconsistencies in service provision that can undermine safety.

Finding 3.12 Life Saving Victoria (LSV) contributes to water safety as a peak body, subject matter expert, coordinator of life saving clubs and service provider. This is beneficial but has led to a misunderstanding of LSV’s accountabilities which does not align with its capacity and funding allocations. This scenario presents a risk for government as there is growing expectation that LSV can deliver broad water safety activities it is neither accountable for nor funded to deliver.

Chapter 4 Risk assessment and planning

Understanding and assessing risks

Finding 4.1 Many organisations appointed as waterway managers do not fully understand or accept their obligation to assess water safety risks because the roles and responsibilities of waterway managers are not clearly documented.

Observation 4.1 By their nature, water safety hazards and risks do not fit easily into Victoria’s arrangements for assessing emergency risks.

Finding 4.2 State, regional and municipal emergency management planning committees have not systematically considered drowning as a hazard in their risk assessments because a water safety incident is not considered a major emergency.

Observation 4.2 The Community Emergency Risk Assessment process may be a useful tool for municipal emergency management planning committees of local government areas with a high number of drowning fatalities.

Consultation and communication

Observation 4.3 Organisations involved in water safety do not systematically involve local communities, communities of interest or the public in the identification and assessment of water safety risks.

Data and information

Observation 4.4 There is significantly more information available about the physical features and potential hazards of Victoria’s coastal beaches compared to what is known about inland waterways.

Observation 4.5 Most organisations involved in water safety id entify and assess water safety risks as best they can with the data available to them.

Finding 4.3 Collating quality data to inform the identification and assessment of water safety risks is challenging, and the resulting information gaps limit the accuracy and reliability of the risk assessments.

Effectiveness of risk assessment arrangements

Finding 4.4 Existing forums and risk assessment practices do not provide an effective mechanism for organisations to build a comprehensive statewide picture of all water safety risks which makes it difficult for them to collaborate on identifying and prioritising activity, resources and funding.

Recommendation 3 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establishes an ongoing process to develop and maintain an evidence-based statewide picture of water safety risk. The process should:

(a) be collaborative and involve all organisations with roles and responsibilities in water safety

(b) consider demographic, social, behavioural and environmental risks

(c) identify data needs and collect data to resolve gaps

(d) include data and evidence sharing mechanisms and permissions

(e) be used to identify and implement priority actions to reduce drowning risks.

Chapter 5 Prevention

Water safety campaigns

Observation 5.1 State and national campaign activities complement each other as there are common target audiences and consistent water safety messages. The overlap in both target audiences and water safety messages has served to reinforce safety messages.

Observation 5.2 Play it Safe by the Water has evolved beyond an enduring and trusted brand with a 25-year legacy to become a useful platform for collaboration that aligns messaging across broad groups of stakeholders and delivers targeted initiatives to high-risk groups.

Finding 5.1 Campaigns to raise awareness of water safety use drowning data to identify target audiences, and conduct thorough testing and evaluation to inform key messages and assessments of effectiveness.

Finding 5.2 Communications funding has effectively reduced over time as it has not increased with the consumer price index and is now used to resource more sophisticated campaigns for multiple target audiences.

Observation 5.3 Water safety campaigns receive a boost in awareness among target audiences when the creative concepts and assets are refreshed every couple of years.

Finding 5.3 While the target audiences of specific campaigns show good recall of key messages, general awareness of water safety messaging has significantly declined since 2004.

Community engagement

Observation 5.4 Engaging people at events that are not water-related but draw the same target audiences can be an effective way of imparting safety information, especially to audiences who may not gather as communities at any other time.

Observation 5.5 The presence of water safety information is highly variable across government websites, tourist information sources and the online content of land and waterway managers. There are opportunities for greater coordination and collaboration to increase the amount, consistency and value of online information by linking to trusted information sources.

Finding 5.4 Organisations recognise the value of community engagement in raising awareness of drowning risks, however there is a lack of collaboration and planning to increase the consistency, reach and efficiency of engagement opportunities.

Education and skill development

Finding 5.5 There has been significant investment by the Victorian Government to compensate for the large number of missed swimming lessons and shortage of swimming teachers caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Observation 5.6 There is ongoing work being undertaken by the Department of Education and Life Saving Victoria to increase the uptake and monitoring of student attainment of the Victorian Water Safety Certificate. Additional data collection will improve monitoring and evaluation of student water safety progress and competence.

Finding 5.6 Victoria's approach to funding and embedding swimming and water safety within the school curriculum is leading practice, providing equitable access to students at Victorian Government primary, specialist, English language and Catholic primary schools.

Finding 5.7 Victoria has well-established swimming and water safety programs funded by the Victorian Government including low-cost learn to swim programs delivered through VICSWIM and a range of indoor, coastal and inland waterway programs delivered under the Public Water Safety Initiative by Life Saving Victoria.

Recreational boating and paddling safety

Observation 5.7 The Victorian Fisheries Authority plays an important role in providing boating and water safety education, particularly to multicultural communities.

Finding 5.8 There is no requirement for new boaters to demonstrate skill proficiency before they go onto the water as marine licence and personal watercraft endorsement tests are paperbased. Practical tests have been repeatedly recommended by the Victorian Coroner since 2004.

Observation 5.8 Community consultation on the proposed 2022 Marine Safety Regulations showed strong support for introducing a practical component to marine licencing, particularly for a personal watercraft licence endorsement.

Observation 5.9 Victoria does not have a system in place to track ageing vessels or require owners to undertake a safety check. This means vessels can be used with significant safety flaws and authorised compliance officers are limited in their powers to prevent unsafe vessels from being operated or compel appropriate safety improvements.

Observation 5.10 Victoria is a leading state for lifejacket regulations in Australia, requiring lifejackets to be worn during more boating and fishing activities than many other states, reflecting the heightened risk of Victoria’s cold waters.

Finding 5.9 The Emergency Management Team coordinated by Victoria Police provides a valuable forum for boating and fishing regulators, enforcement agencies and waterway managers to increase efficiency and effectiveness of safety patrols.

Finding 5.10 The data available to demonstrate the impact of boating incidents is limited to drowning fatalities, which leads to the likely underestimation of costs and benefits associated with strengthening licensing requirements, safety inspections and other safety measures.

Pool safety

Observation 5.11 Public pools managed by commercial accommodation providers (motels, hotels and caravan parks) are classified as residential pools meaning they do not have to comply with the more stringent safety standards associated with commercial swimming pools.

Finding 5.11 Most public pools do not conduct Life Saving Victoria’s voluntary pool safety assessments on a regular basis to ensure that they are performing in line with industry safety standards and the Safer Public Pools – Code of Practice, making it difficult to maintain oversight of safety.

Observation 5.12 Despite regulatory efforts to increase water safety around the home, there are low levels of compliance to safety standards across residential pools and spas, as demonstrated by a Victorian Auditor-General’s Office performance audit.

Place based intervention

Finding 5.12 Waterway and land managers are adhering to general duty of care and safety provisions for visitors and users. There are no specific regulations or guidance in place for water safety on public land.

Finding 5.13 There is clear guidance in place to improve standardisation in signage symbols, information and positioning. However, land and waterway managers are often unclear about the roles and responsibilities for determining the need for signage and then installing and maintaining appropriate signs.

Observation 5.13 Available research on water safety signage suggests that they provide limited effectiveness due to low levels of visitor engagement and recall of symbols and information.

Observation 5.14 There is a strong reliance on signage and personal responsibility across public land due to the practical limits associated with more direct engagement and enforcement activities across the vast public land estate.

Evaluating effectiveness

Finding 5.14 The nature of drowning risks and the diversity of measures used to prevent these risks has resulted in a reasonably siloed approach to prevention programs and policies and limited sharing of lessons learnt. Organisations collaborate, plan and coordinate within these siloes of activity and draw on available evidence but there is no overall coordinated approach to drowning prevention.

Chapter 6 Water safety case studies

Multicultural communities

Observation 6.1 The Victorian Multicultural Commission and Regional Advisory Councils are an underused resource for agencies and organisations working to reduce the risk of drowning of people from multicultural communities.

Observation 6.2 Life Saving Victoria is a leader in delivering water safety programs with multicultural communities based on its long-standing partnerships developed through targeted engagement with communities.

Observation 6.3 Water safety programs targeting multicultural communities are most successful when partnerships are ongoing and longer-term funding is provided.

Dams on residential properties

Observation 6.4 Government regulation of water safety measures on rural properties is impractical, so assigning responsibility for identifying and managing drowning risks to rural property owners is appropriate.

Observation 6.5 Child safe play areas have been promoted for more than three decades as a way to reduce the risks posed by private dams but many existing and new houses on rural properties in Victoria do not have these.

Observation 6.6 Organisations with responsibilities in child, farm and water safety have worked hard to raise awareness of drowning risks on farms but they have limited resources and few opportunities to come together to identify and target at-risk rural population groups.

Rock fishing

Observation 6.7 The introduction of regulations to improve safety for rock fishing follows a series of less intrusive measures that aim to raise awareness of drowning risk and educate rock fishers on safe behaviour. The resources required to implement the regulations and their higher level of intrusiveness were justified by a detailed understanding of risk and the effects of other measures to increase the safety of rock fishers.

The Murray River

Observation 6.8 The Murray River exemplifies a common issue with land tenure and jurisdictional accountabilities, where there is a mismatch between those responsible for assessing and managing the risk, and those responsible for the people at risk. Joint operations, ongoing communications and role clarity have allowed Victorian agencies to support their New South Wales counterparts to increase public safety along the Murray.

Chapter 7 Response

Patrolling and surf lifesaving

Finding 7.1 There is a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities in relation to the establishment of expanded and additional lifesaving patrols, which leads to variability in the agreements reached between Life Saving Victoria and land and waterway managers and may lead to missed opportunities to establish lifesaving patrols in high-risk locations.

Observation 7.1 Short-term lifesaving patrols on inland waterways trialled in 2023 were valuable water safety initiatives and there is scope for land managers to work collaboratively with Life Saving Victoria to activate additional patrols during known high-risk periods

Finding 7.2 Life Saving Victoria maintains a strong patrolling service along Victoria’s coastline with proactive assessments and development of capability and capacity.

Observation 7.2 Inland waterway drowning figures indicate a need for greater patrolling along popular rivers, lakes and public dams. Increased collaboration is needed to collect information to prioritise patrol locations and coordinate patrolling service agreements with relevant land and waterway managers.

Bystander rescue

Observation 7.3 Bystander rescue is highly dangerous and difficult to deter. Surfers with flotation aids, good physical fitness, knowledge of and competence in the coastal aquatic environment are uniquely positioned to perform it successfully.

Marine search and rescue

Observation 7.4 Changes to the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority computer-aided dispatch system have increased the timeliness and appropriateness of responses to incidents requiring a water rescue. The work demonstrates the value of collaboration between Victoria Police as the control agency and support agencies facilitated through strong organisational relationships and participation in the Water Safety Taskforce.

Observation 7.5 There are sufficient redundancies in place when it comes to locating people during a marine search and rescue incident. Technical and process improvements have increased the accuracy and timeliness of location methods.

Finding 7.3 The manual dispatch process used by Victoria Police is vulnerable to organisational changes and individuals’ experience as it is resource intensive and relies on a deep understanding of marine search and rescue, local conditions, weather and the capabilities and capacities of marine search and rescue units.

Finding 7.4 There is a lack of documented principles and procedures for marine search and rescue incident tasking that makes it difficult for volunteers to understand the decisions related to tasking and incident coordination.

Finding 7.5 Victoria Police focuses on incident control in its role as control agency for marine search and rescue, leaving strategic and operational volunteer preparedness functions to the Marine Search and Rescue Office, or individual marine search and rescue units.

Finding 7.6 The current approach to preparedness within the marine search and rescue sector creates confusion and conflict for volunteers in relation to overall leadership, which is not resolved through plans, training or exercising.

Finding 7.7 Current and future marine search and rescue service provision is at risk due to capacity deficits caused by low recruitment levels and high attrition rates of volunteers, particularly highly qualified members with leadership roles.

Observation 7.6 The absence of a state-level marine search and rescue volunteer recruitment and retention model leaves current capacity development as the responsibility of individual units, posing a significant risk to the marine search and rescue service provision and volunteer and public safety.

Observation 7.7 It is difficult to use the Safety Management System to determine the scale and nature of capability issues across volunteer Marine Search and Rescue (MSAR) units, as it is not clear whether low compliance scores indicate a deficit in capability across volunteer MSAR units, or are an artefact of the time-consuming and complex system.

Finding 7.8 Multiple sources evidence systemic capability issues across volunteer Marine Search and Rescue (MSAR) units that pose safety risks to MSAR volunteers, agency personnel and the public.

Finding 7.9 The ability of volunteer marine search and rescue units to provide effective training to their members is variable as it is dependent on the capability of trainers within each unit.

Observation 7.8 Supporting volunteer units to provide effective training places significant demand on the Marine Search and Rescue Office’s already stretched resources.

Observation 7.9 The different training and accreditation requirements of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association make it difficult to provide consistent state-based training that meets the needs of each organisation.

Finding 7.10 The Marine Search and Rescue Office has established a localised marine search and rescue exercise program that provides an opportunity for marine search and rescue units to work together, which has strengthened relationships between units.

Observation 7.10 There are opportunities to develop a schedule for a large-scale, multi-agency marine search and rescue exercising program involving emergency service organisations, volunteer units and other relevant agencies.

Finding 7.11 It is difficult to resource the non-operational activities of the Marine Search and Rescue Office as a greater proportion of funding for marine search and rescue is directed to highpriority operational costs accrued by volunteer marine search and rescue units.

Finding 7.12 Staffing and vessel replacement budget constraints have hampered attempts to link volunteer marine search and rescue unit funding and vessel procurement to comprehensive and ongoing risk assessments.

Observation 7.11 The Marine Search and Rescue Office has limited capacity to progress strategic marine search and rescue development as the needs of day-to-day volunteer support and assisting volunteers to maintain regulation compliance has placed significant demands on the office.

Finding 7.13 The lack of a state-based multi-agency plan that clarifies strategic and operational governance arrangements results in a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities for both professional and volunteer marine search and rescue providers.

Observation 7.12 Many of the issues identified in previous reviews of marine search and rescue remain problematic with current reform attempting to resolve these long-standing issues.

Observation 7.13 Many marine search and rescue volunteers are experiencing their third round of reform initiatives, solidifying a feeling of being undervalued and disenfranchised. There is significant risk to service provision if change does not occur and more volunteers leave.

Finding 7.14 The governance arrangements for marine search and rescue lack clarity on roles and responsibilities across all phases of water rescue. This has led to serious and ongoing performance issues and frustration among volunteers. The service is at risk of collapsing and the safety of volunteers and the community is compromised.

Recommendation 4 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establish a marine search and rescue (MSAR) operating model to:

(a) ensure clear leadership and lines of accountability before, during and after incidents

(b) support strategic planning and investment across the volunteer MSAR service

(c) increase operational support and preparedness through risk-based capability and capacity development across volunteer MSAR units

(d) support a long-term volunteer recruitment and management model.

Swift water rescue

Finding 7.15

Swift water rescue arrangements, roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined in existing emergency management doctrine resulting in variable understandings of agency roles and responsibilities across the sector.

Finding 7.16 There has been improvement in multi-agency swift water rescue capability development in recent years, however training and exercising are still inhibited by low levels of coordination and oversight, a lack of strategic or risk-based planning, unclear participation requirements and limited debriefing.

Effectiveness of response

Finding 7.17

There is no state-wide documentation that provides a shared understanding of the end-toend arrangements for the diverse range of activities and agencies involved in water rescue. This contributes to unclear arrangements, roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 5 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police with the support of Emergency Management Victoria, responder agencies and Life Saving Victoria work together to develop a subplan to the State Emergency Management Plan that clearly articulates roles, responsibilities and arrangements for risk assessment, prevention, operational preparedness and incident control in relation to water-based rescue.

St Kilda Pier (Source: Laura McDougall)

1 Introduction

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management (IGEM) is an independent statutory role with responsibilities under the Emergency Management Act 2013 (EM Act 2013) to:

 provide assurance to government and the community with respect to emergency management arrangements in Victoria

 foster continuous improvement in emergency management in Victoria.1

IGEM undertakes system-wide reviews, including reviews of the emergency management functions of responder agencies and government departments as defined under section 64(1)(b) of the EM Act 2013.

The Review of Victoria’s water safety arrangements (the review) was identified in IGEM’s Annual Forward Plan of Reviews 2022–23, which was provided to relevant agencies and the Minister for Emergency Services (the minister) as required by section 66 of the EM Act 2013.2

All IGEM’s assurance activities are guided by the Assurance Framework for Emergency Management (the Framework) which provides the foundation for a coordinated and collaborative approach to sector-wide assurance issues.3 IGEM considers all relevant evidence impartially and objectively and makes observations, findings and recommendations based on merit and without bias.

1.1 Rationale

There has been steady growth in visitors to natural water attractions, piers and beaches over the last 20 years. The easing of COVID-19 restrictions highlighted just how much Victorians enjoy being in and around the water. Land managers and water safety experts have noted record high visitation numbers at inland waterways, and growing numbers of visitors at coastal and inland waterway locations previously considered too remote.

Recreating in and around the water is inherently hazardous. Whether participating in adventurous boating and fishing activities, or playing in the household bath, accidents in aquatic settings can lead to fatal drownings and non-fatal incidents that leave people seriously, and sometimes permanently, injured.

In its 2021–22 Drowning report, Life Saving Victoria (LSV) reported 53 people fatally drowned in Victoria, an 18 per cent increase on the 10-year average. Another 111 non-fatal drowning incidents were attended by Ambulance Victoria (AV).4 These figures follow 63 drowning fatalities in 2020–21, the state’s worst fatal drowning toll in 20 years.5

In 2022–23 drowning deaths reached 59, another tragically high drowning toll.

LSV, Emergency Management Victoria (EMV), government departments, local government and other organisations have led the development of major strategic, educational, and practical work programs. Yet there has been no discernible improvement in drowning outcomes in recent years.

Throughout the review these stakeholders lamented that many drowning incidents were largely predictable and preventable.

A review of Victoria’s water safety arrangements, investments and priorities is well-timed to assess whether the current arrangements are suitable to address several recent peaks in the annual drowning toll and curb the beginnings of an upward trend in drowning deaths. The review identifies opportunities for improvement that can potentially increase the safety of all Victorians and visitors alike.

1.2 Review aims and objectives

Through the review IGEM has evaluated and assessed the capability, capacity, and performance of Victoria’s water safety arrangements.

In identifying opportunities for learning and improvement, IGEM examined the effectiveness and appropriateness of the arrangements through:

 analysing strategies, including the different water safety sector organisations’ strategic governance, planning, investment and oversight

 developing an understanding of risks, mitigation and control measures related to aquatic environments, public behaviour, socio-demographic trends and population cohorts

 evaluating prevention activities such as water safety education and public communications

 evaluating roles, readiness and response involved with water-based emergencies.

1.3 Scope of review

Water safety involves many activities and strategies to prevent drowning. The review focused on general arrangements and those relating to water safety in recreational activities in and around publicly accessible coastal and inland waterways, public and residential swimming pools.

The review included the evaluation of governance and funding, which involved evaluating Victoria's water safety strategic development and the supporting leadership and coordination structures. It also evaluated risk assessment processes and multi-agency planning.

The review examined the many drowning prevention activities in place. IGEM assessed the oversight, delivery mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation of select activities including the regulatory arrangements for recreational marine licensing, and public and residential swimming pools. Additionally, the review evaluated water safety education, such as swimming lessons and skills training. There was also an emphasis on better understanding public communications to increase risk awareness, including signage and communication of safe behaviours.

The final consideration relates to response activities for water safety incidents, and the major roles and responsibilities of organisations (both paid and volunteer). This involved evaluating the provision of patrols and lifesaving services in coastal and inland waterways. Arrangements for operational governance of marine search and rescue (MSAR) activities were also assessed.

These elements are considered in the context of broader emergency management arrangements, reflecting on the extent to which water safety arrangements within the sector are recognised.

1.3.1

Out of scope

Drownings associated with flooding are not considered as part of the review. The mechanisms to prevent and respond to drowning during floods are quite different from broader water safety measures.

IGEM acknowledges that floods create high-risk situations for drowning and recognises the tragic loss of lives throughout Australia during significant floods in 2022.

Also out of scope are the following issues relating to water safety:

 individual prevention activities

 activities to deter or prevent illegal, improper or deliberately irresponsible water use

 intentional self-harm

 individual deaths or injuries related to aquatic activities

 commercial activities and work-based activities

 water quality monitoring safety

 marine animal emergencies.

1.4 Approach

The review was conducted as an assurance activity in accordance with the Framework. It describes relevant preparedness and response activities and arrangements related to the water safety sector.

1.4.1 Lines of enquiry

The review evaluated the effectiveness of Victoria’s arrangements – the extent to which risks have been addressed and desired outcomes are achieved at the system level. This included the capture and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data related to the aspects of water safety – governance and funding, risk assessment, prevention and response – in the aquatic environments identified in the scope.

For each aspect of water safety, the review considered the core capability elements specified in the Victorian Preparedness Framework: people, resources, governance, systems and processes.

IGEM developed the following high-level lines of enquiry to guide the analysis of the review’s evidence:

 What are the risks that need to be addressed?

 What arrangements are in place to address the risks and achieve the desired outcomes?

 What activities are occurring to address the risks?

 How effectively are the arrangements and activities addressing the risks and achieving the desired outcomes?

1.4.2

Information sources

IGEM sought information from multiple sources to prepare this report and to generate the observations, findings and recommendations.

Government departments and agencies with roles and responsibilities in water safety planning, prevention and response were invited to provide written and interview evidence. Aquatic industry and volunteer groups were also invited to provide information and commentary on various aspects of water safety prevention and response.

The review included examining publicly available documents, doctrine and effectiveness evidence provided by review stakeholders. Consideration was also given to evidence provided by relevant stakeholders during the conduct of other IGEM assurance activities.

Observations from strategic forums, site visits and water safety activities were also used to inform the review.

Overall, information sources included:

 interviews with stakeholders, councils and sector agencies

 academic research

 desktop analysis of relevant legislation, guidelines and policies

 stakeholder and sector agency reports, reviews and evaluations

 news media, including online, print and broadcast

 stakeholder feedback provided during the stakeholder validation workshop and in response to the draft report.

1.4.3 Observations, findings and recommendations

All observations, findings and recommendations were developed through a triangulation process validated by key stakeholders, subject matter expertise, research and observations. This validation also occurred at a stakeholder workshop and through feedback on the draft report.

IGEM’s observations reflect a strong consensus of evidence that describes a potential problem or solution for organisations working in water safety. However, IGEM cannot confirm the application or relevance of this evidence across these organisations. As such, IGEM’s observations are strong indicators of potential or emerging issues that would be useful to consider in planning and preparing for future water-based incidents in Victoria.

IGEM’s findings describe a significant amount of evidence with implications across organisations working in water safety. These were consistently found to have important direct or indirect effects on emergency management arrangements related to water safety.

Recommendations are made when multiple findings and observations identify a gap in Victoria’s water safety arrangements and IGEM determined that a well-considered change across the sector would increase safety and reduce harm for Victorians and visitors to Victoria.

IGEM assigns organisations accountable for implementing the recommendation based on their legislative responsibilities and assigned roles per the State Emergency Management Plan (SEMP). IGEM considers the availability of resources required to implement the recommendations and other issues related to the viability of implementation.

1.5 Acknowledgements

Water safety is a complex issue, with many organisations playing a role in improving the wellbeing of Victorians in and around water.

IGEM acknowledges the amount of time and effort provided by all stakeholder organisations and the individuals charged with coordinating their organisation’s submission of evidence, follow-up information, interviews and feedback.

The review also provided IGEM’s first formal involvement with some water safety and aquatic organisations, peak bodies and their communities. Their enthusiasm and generosity in contributing insights, experience and feedback to the review cannot be understated.

Finally, IGEM recognises the significant impact that fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents have on individuals, families, communities and emergency services personnel. IGEM offers its deepest sympathy to all who have been affected by drowning incidents.

2 Background

People of all ages and backgrounds enjoy recreating in and around Victoria's beaches, rivers and inland waterways. Swimming, fishing, boating and other aquatic activities are very popular along Victoria's coastline, in Port Phillip Bay and in the many lakes, dams and rivers across the state. Public pools are often fixtures within the local community and many families have backyard pools and spas.

Spending time in and around the water is a fundamental part of life and has many physical, social and economic benefits. However, as well as a source of enjoyment, water can equally be a hazard whether it is a large lake in a national park, or a small paddling pool in the backyard.

Throughout this review, stakeholders noted the everyone everywhere nature of drowning risk. Any combination of entering the water unintentionally (by slipping or falling), overestimating one's swimming ability, inadequate supervision or a lack of awareness of weather and water conditions can have tragic outcomes.

This chapter establishes relevant concepts and the context that informs the review. It introduces key water safety arrangements and broadly describes how organisations contribute to policies and activities that increase safety and reduce drownings. It also describes the impacts of drowning and the major trends facing the state.

2.1 Water safety and drowning prevention

Water safety is a broad term that refers to strategies and actions whose primary purpose is to prevent fatal, non-fatal and near-miss drownings to enable the safe enjoyment of water. Water safety is somewhat synonymous with drowning prevention. However, water safety extends to include the prevention of injuries, and general promotion of safely engaging in aquatic activities, recognising their value to health and wellbeing.

Drowning prevention is a commonly used term internationally, however in Australia, Royal Life Saving Society - Australia (RLSSA), Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) and Victoria's LSV refer primarily to water safety. Throughout this review, the term water safety is used to align with key Victorian strategies and approaches. However, the focus is on the aspects of water safety that assess, mitigate and respond to the risk of drowning.

In emergency management, organisations are familiar with the concepts of hazards and risks. Hazards are sources of potential harm, with risk being the likelihood and consequence of any harm caused by the hazard. When considering water safety, water is the hazard and drowning is the risk that water safety measures intend to prevent from eventuating.

There are many ways in which water presents as a hazard. The risk of drowning varies according to the specific nature of the hazard and how people interact with it. For example, a dam on a residential property is a hazard. The risk of drowning increases if it is easily accessible to young children without supervision. Likewise, fast flowing water in a river is a hazard and poses an increased risk of drowning after heavy rain for kayakers who are used to paddling on smoother water.

In Victoria, initiatives to improve safety around the water and prevent fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents have been developed and implemented by a range of public and private organisations for many years. Water safety initiatives primarily aim to prevent drowning, however they also promote the safe use of waterways and public and private swimming pools.

Breakout Box 1: Fatal and non-fatal drowning

Drowning is the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion or immersion in liquid.4 Drowning is not always fatal and for every fatal drowning it is estimated there are three nonfatal drowning incidents.6

A non-fatal drowning incident occurs when a person survives an experience of respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid. People who experience non-fatal drowning incidents can acquire both physical and psychological injury, and these can have lifelong impacts on the individual and their loved ones, as well as emergency service providers responding to the incident.4

Monitoring the frequency of non-fatal drowning incidents is difficult. Data is collected when the nonfatal drowning incident requires presentation to an emergency department, hospitalisation or AV attendance. However, there is no accurate mechanism to monitor incidents such as bystander rescues or other minor incidents not requiring major first aid.

Fatal and non-fatal drownings often occur silently, quickly and in remote locations. Shared responsibility in the form of vigilance and active supervision of vulnerable age groups, and the acquisition of personal skills (such as water survival and resuscitation) and knowledge is an important component of mitigation and risk reduction.

Coroners investigate all reportable deaths in Victoria to determine how and why they happened and to help prevent similar deaths from occurring. Since May 2010, the Coroners Court of Victoria has made 155 recommendations from 72 investigations related to drownings in recreational settings.7

When discussing fatal and non-fatal drowning, the terms intentional and unintentional entry are often used. Intentional entry refers to a person who has decided they want to play, swim or be in the water. Unintentional entry is where a person has fallen into the water while undertaking another activity such as walking or cycling.

Water related injuries can occur from slips and falls and include bone fractures, concussions, neck and back injuries and paralysis from diving into shallow water. These injuries can occur in any body of water following both intentional and unintentional entry into the water.

2.2 Drowning risk in Victoria

Drowning is a major public health issue internationally, with the World Health Organization (WHO) describing drowning as a 'serious and neglected public health threat' that is largely preventable.8 It reports that drowning accounts for seven per cent of unintentional injury deaths, making it the third leading cause of injury-related deaths.9

Drownings clearly have a huge emotional and social impact. Losing a valued member of the family or community is extremely distressing. There are also broader social and economic impacts, and the economic burden of fatal drownings per annum is conservatively estimated at $1.24 billion in Australia.10

In Victoria, the drowning toll reduced considerably between 1997 and 2011, with the fatality rate halving in this period. However, since then it has plateaued, with several concerning peaks in the last four years that exceed the five and ten-year averages (see Figure 1, p 39).

These figures are informed by LSV annual drowning reports that provide context for the drownings reported throughout the year. It reports on the characteristics of people who drowned, drowning locations and how drowning victims came to be in the water. It identifies trends and risk factors for drowning based on historical data.

High-risk scenarios often arise due to the presence of multiple risk factors and when protective factors are not in place. Understanding how risk factors interact is important in guiding prevention strategies, however, there is broad acknowledgement across the water safety sector that drownings can occur among any cohort where water is involved.

Drowning deaths and drowning rate in Victoria (Source: Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–2511)

Note: Years presented are financial years (for example 2023 is financial year 2022–23)

Finding 2.1

Despite a significant reduction in fatal drownings since 1997, the drowning toll over recent years has exceeded average figures and indicates the beginnings of a concerning, upward trend.

2.2.1 Individual risk factors

LSV’s assessments of drowning incidents over many years have identified several cohorts that are overrepresented in fatal drowning statistics.

During the past decade males have been over three times more likely to drown than females. In LSV's 2021–22 Drowning report, males aged 65 and over recorded the highest drowning rate compared to all other population cohorts, and a 92 per cent increase on the 10-year average.4

Children aged 0-4 years continue to be a high-risk cohort.

People, especially men, from multicultural backgrounds are also considered to be at a higher risk of drowning. This at-risk cohort is discussed in greater detail in section 6.1 (p 110).

2.2.2 Environmental risk factors

Inland waterways were the most common location for drowning in 2021–22, with 24 people losing their lives – this trend was continuing into the 2022–23 reporting period.

Amongst inland waterways, the Murray River is a high-risk location for drownings. Although state legislation requires drowning incidents in the Murray River to be reported within New South Wales (NSW) jurisdiction, Victorian residents made up almost half of the drowning victims over the last ten years.4 The Murray River as a high-risk location is discussed further in section 6.4 (p 128).

There was some decrease in the number of people drowning in coastal waterways in 2021–22, with 14 people losing their lives. This is 17 per cent less than the 10-year average. While natural waterways continue to pose a drowning risk, so too does water around the home, with 10 people fatally drowning in bathtubs, spas and residential pools.

Children aged 0-4 years continue to be at risk from waterways around the home, including dams and other water bodies on private rural properties. The age of the children, physical characteristics of dams and the rural environment all contribute to drowning incidents. Drowning in private dams is discussed in greater detail in section 6.2 (p 118).

In 2021–22 the majority (60 per cent) of fatal drowning incidents occurred within major cities of Victoria.4 Over the last decade, however, regional residents were almost twice as likely to fatally drown than metropolitan residents. Although people often travel to recreate on or in the water, statistics show that Victorians continue to drown at a waterway within their residential postcode.

In Victoria, areas that are within close driving distance from Melbourne and are popular with tourists and visitors have experienced a higher number of drownings over the last ten years. These include Mornington Peninsula Shire and Bass Coast Shire as well as bayside municipalities such as Hobsons Bay City Council and City of Port Phillip.

Breakout Box 2: Victorian water temperatures

Cool Victorian waters pose an additional risk to anyone without the protection of an insulated wetsuit. The surface temperature of Victorian waters ranges from 9 degrees in midwinter to about 22 degrees at the height of summer. This varies enormously depending on the location, water source and exposure to sunlight. Across Victoria, water temperatures remain below 15 degrees for most of the year.

Cold water shock can occur when a person is suddenly immersed in water cooler than 15 degrees. The body responds almost immediately with an involuntary gasp that increases the likelihood of inhaling water and creating a high risk of drowning within the first 30 seconds.12 It can trigger a sense of panic, confusion, hyperventilation and a racing heart.

Prolonged exposure to cold water, for example swimming in cold lakes or the ocean, can also impair a person's coordination and decision-making, and dramatically increase fatigue levels. The effects may be felt quite quickly but become problematic after 30 minutes and may result in hypothermia.

Both cold water shock and hypothermia can be fatal.

Cold water shock and cold water immersion are well understood by search and rescue operators. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s (AMSA) National Search and Rescue Manual notes that cold water areas pose a significant danger to missing person(s) and rescue is time critical.13

Cold water awareness and survival strategies are covered in Victorian swimming lessons and boating education material, yet there is little emphasis on the prevalence and likelihood of the risk.

Despite this, water temperatures are rarely considered in risk assessments, with the focus on the physical characteristics of the waterway (for example, depth, currents, shoreline conditions). The nature of cold water shock may change the risk profile. Drowning prevention strategies should provide warnings that discourage people from entering the water where immersion and cold water shock may prevent them from easily returning to shore, and/or encourage the use of insulated clothing.

Safe Transport Vic’s (STVic) Prepare to Survive: Know the Five campaign is aimed at recreational boaters and paddlers. It encourages people to practice getting back onto their vessels and to wear a lifejacket. These two safety behaviours directly improve the chances of surviving an unexpected fall into the water. Lifejacket safety videos on its website remind boaters that Victorian waters are cold. There are opportunities to further embed safety awareness and behaviours through boating education (see section 5.4, p 93).

Cold water shock and hypothermia are risks in all seasons for swimmers, boaters, rock fishers and anyone who engages in waterside recreation without insulated swim clothing.

Observation 2.1

Victoria’s water safety strategy, plans and communications do not reflect the prevalent risk of the cold temperatures of Victorian waters.

2.2.3 High-risk aquatic activities

In 2021–22, 11 people who fatally drowned in Victoria were either walking or playing near water, and 10 people who fatally drowned were swimming, paddling or wading in water.4 As people seek recreational experiences where there are less people, swimming at unpatrolled beaches continues to be a high-risk activity.

The combination of people recreating around water and using alcohol or drugs has been shown to have a direct link to drowning risk. While a person who has been drinking may not intend to enter the water, the risk of unintentional entry or risk-taking behaviour is increased.

Rock fishing is a particularly high-risk aquatic activity, especially for people from multicultural backgrounds. In recognition of this risk, in March 2022, the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) introduced a trial of new laws that required rock fishers to wear a lifejacket in high-risk locations. This trial is discussed further in section 6.3 (p 123).

2.2.4 Protective factors

Protective factors are the actions people can take to keep themselves and others safe when recreating in, on or near water. Learning how to swim, swimming between the flags, swimming at patrolled beaches and swimming with a friend or family member reduces the risk of drowning. Learning first aid including resuscitation increases the chance of survival should someone get into trouble.

For every minute a drowning victim waits for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)/defibrillation, their chances of survival fall by up to 10 per cent. WHO recommends upskilling members of the public in resuscitation techniques to increase the likelihood that a drowning victim will receive time-critical first aid while waiting for a trained medical responder.14 Increasing the availability of publicly accessible Automatic External Defibrillators (AED) is also an important strategy to support the provision of timely first aid from bystanders while waiting for AV paramedics to arrive.

Other water-specific protective factors, like letting a friend or family member know the location of a boating or fishing trip, and the expected time of return, mean others can raise the alarm if things do not go to plan. Having a reliable communication source including an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) helps rescuers locate someone more quickly when needed.

Wearing a properly fitted lifejacket suitable to the conditions and activity reduces the risk of vesselrelated drowning deaths. In 2016 the Coroners Prevention Unit investigated the contributing factors in canoe or kayak-related drowning fatalities. Of the 107 vessel-related drowning deaths between July 2000 and June 2016, 19 were of canoeists or kayakers. The unit found that not wearing a lifejacket was the most common contributory factor.15

Ensuring vessels and equipment are well maintained and fit for purpose also reduces the likelihood of an incident occurring.

Active supervision of children around all bodies of water, including around the home, reduces the risk of drowning. Keeping children under five years old within arm’s reach around water is recommended as best practice.

Assessing risks, resisting peer pressure and making safe decisions all help keep people safe while recreating in and around different bodies of water.

2.3 Water safety in Victoria

In Victoria, there are many strategies currently in place to increase water safety. These range from understanding hazards and drowning risks, through to the measures and services in place to reduce these risks and respond to people who are in immediate danger in the water.

Water safety is primarily managed within Victoria's emergency management structures. However, it involves many activities and portfolios that are traditionally quite removed from emergency management. It also involves organisations that pursue a range of objectives and outcomes in addition to water safety, for example physical activity or efficient port transport. This makes it difficult to conceive water safety as a 'sector' as there are clear streams of activity that are largely disconnected in their planning and delivery.

2.3.1 Overview of roles and responsibilities

Efforts to increase water safety rely on individuals taking an active interest in their own safety and responding appropriately to the information, advice and regulations established by government and others. Individuals must assess their own risk profile which depends on many factors such as their age, health, physical abilities and familiarity with water, and balance this against their appetite for risk.

The everyone everywhere nature of drowning risk means that many organisations need to have a role in water safety to ensure it is facilitated in all settings and environments for the entire population. It involves all levels of government, small and large businesses, not for profit organisations, community organisations and peak bodies.

Broadly, these organisations seek to support individuals to understand the risks associated with water and facilitate informed decision-making by building knowledge and skills to increase the safety of their interactions with water. There are also measures in place to enforce safe behaviour and assist people who find themselves in danger through lifesaving patrols and water rescues.

Figure 2 (p 43) demonstrates the many organisations that have a role in water safety. It illustrates how roles vary according to the setting. While the figure focuses on prevention and response, governance and risk assessment activities are also critical to focus these efforts.

This review considers four key elements of water safety: governance and funding, risk assessment and planning, prevention measures, and responding to people in danger.

These elements draw in a wide variety of organisations, some whose primary objective is to increase water safety and reduce drowning, and others who seek to improve water safety in order to achieve other organisational objectives. For example, water safety is an important consideration to facilitate participation in physical activity and its associated health outcomes. Likewise, water safety in Victoria's local ports is critical to the economic advantages achieved through safe and efficient port operations.

Finding 2.2

There are many organisations involved in water safety that influence drowning risks across numerous settings. Given the wide range of drowning risks, prevention measures and rescue options, many organisations operate independently to provide high-quality programs, services and expertise.

Governance and funding

Governance in water safety refers to the coordination and leadership arrangements that underpin effective strategy and policy development, investment and collaboration. It also includes the development of strategies, plans and actions which outline how to reduce drowning and enhance water safety.

Various government and non-government agencies including EMV, LSV, Department of Education (DE), Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS), and Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) have led and coordinated activities to enhance water safety. Funding for water safety initiatives is predominantly provided by the Australian and Victorian Governments.

Risk assessment and planning

Risk assessments are conducted by a variety of organisations that are responsible for keeping people safe in, on and around water. Organisations working in this area use a variety of risk assessment processes. They have a common aim – to identify and assess hazards or potential incidents that may cause death or serious injuries. Organisations such as LSV, Parks Victoria, STVic, councils, Ports Victoria and others undertake assessments and implement initiatives to mitigate the risks.

Risk assessment is reliant on the availability of data and access to information to quantify risks and allow for comparison between cohorts of the population, settings and activities. Risk is considered in many ways by those involved in water safety.

Victorian water safety stakeholder ecosystem (Adapted from: Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–2511)

Prevention

Prevention activities in water safety include a variety of initiatives aimed at reducing the risk of drowning. They play a critical role in equipping individuals with the skills and information necessary to keep themselves safe in and around water. These primary prevention activities focus on addressing key factors contributing to drowning. Activities include funded swimming lessons for at-risk cohorts, residential pool regulations, boating and fishing regulation and enforcement, and public communications and community engagement. Organisations such as Aquatics and Recreation Victoria (ARV), DE, Department Energy Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR), DJCS, LSV, STVic, VFA and others conduct a range of prevention activities.

Response

Response arrangements in water safety vary from a single agency activation through to a multi-agency activation. Activities include planned safeguarding – such as beach patrols – provided by LSV, which are designed to identify problems before they become emergencies. Marine search and rescue (MSAR) primarily refers to a rescue that takes place from a vessel encompassing both inland and coastal waters. Often MSAR incidents require multi-agency activation and Victoria Police (VicPol) is responsible for coordinating the incident response.

Organisations involved in response arrangements include VicPol, LSV, AV, MSAR units, Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES), and Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV), with Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) providing call-taking, dispatch and operational communications for responder agencies.

2.3.2

Water safety organisations

While many organisations have roles in water safety, only a few have drowning prevention and water safety as their primary focus. In Australia, these are RLSSA and SLSA, and each entity has state-based branches. In Victoria these branches are combined through LSV.

LSV was formed in 2002 by joining the Victorian branches of SLSA and RLSSA. The creation of one entity ensured greater fairness and financial stability across the state. While LSV functions as a single entity, it continues to be the Victorian chapter of each national association.

The two bodies created an Interim Board in 2002 and, in 2005, set in place a governance structure of a finalised Board with Councils. Currently, LSV has a Board, a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), councils governing its external-facing activities, and Standing Advisory Committees governing internal affairs.

LSV joined the emergency management sector in 2014. It was formally included as the specialist entity for the water safety component of EMV’s remit, providing the water safety equivalent of the Country Fire Authority (CFA) or VICSES.16 17 Even though it has government accountabilities, LSV remains a community organisation operating in partnership with government. Its mission and vision statements are:

To prevent aquatic-related death and injury in all Victorian communities.

All Victorians will learn water safety, swimming and resuscitation and be provided with safe aquatic environments and venues.

Life Saving Victoria

In Victoria, there are a number of other organisations that have played a critical role in water safety over many years. VicPol, STVic and volunteer MSAR units have all worked to reduce fatal and non-fatal incidents on the water. However, LSV is the only organisation whose whole focus is on water safety and drowning prevention. It undertakes activities in water safety governance and leadership, risk assessment, prevention and response, and actively works with partners to achieve water safety outcomes for the community. It also delivers government-funded programs for EMV and DE as a program delivery partner.

LSV is a recognised agency of EMV with a role and responsibilities under the SEMP, and a registered service provider under VicPol’s MSAR arrangements.

2.3.3 History of water safety in Victoria

With Victorians’ ongoing enjoyment of the water, many water safety measures have been in place for some time to reduce the risk of drowning and to rescue people in distress. As early as 1840, the state’s first Water Police unit was established to patrol Port Phillip Bay, expanding to include a station at Geelong by 1852.

Since 1894, organisations such as the RLSSA have been providing lifesaving services on beaches and delivering water safety messages. Victoria’s first life saving club was established in Elwood on Port Phillip Bay in 1912 and lifesavers in their red and yellow caps have been synonymous with trips to the beach ever since.

In 1924 Australia's dual system of lifesaving responsibilities commenced with SLSA assuming responsibility for ocean beaches and the RLSSA for all other waterways and still water environments. Red and yellow flags became standard on Victorian beaches from 1935, and in 1947 the Surf Life Saving Victoria State Centre was established. The dual system continued until LSV's formation in 2002, combining the state’s RLSSA and SLSA branches into a single organisation and becoming recognised as Victoria's peak water safety agency.

Victoria’s first recreational boating legislation was established through the Motor Boating Act 1961 and in 1964 VicPol’s Motor Boating Squad commenced duty.18 These initiatives introduced registration and safety requirements and authorised their enforcement. The Motor Boating Squad was renamed to the Water Police Squad in 1980.

Surf life saving clubs began to proliferate throughout the 1900s. Lifesaving was the domain of men until 1980 when women were allowed to become full members. The national Nipper program established in the 1960s for boys also became available to girls in 1980.

The establishment of volunteer MSAR units around the state was often as a response to a marine incident or death that occurred in the local area.19 In 1961, the Australian Coast Guard (now known as the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association, AVCGA) established the first volunteer MSAR service in Melbourne (Ormond). Since the 1970s, other independent units have been established, including two MSAR units affiliated with LSV and one with VICSES. In 1985, the first inland AVCGA service was established at Lake Eppalock.

Recognising the number of government, responder agency, industry and community partners interested in water safety, the Play it Safe by the Water (PISBTW) program was established in 1988. It is a collaborative program between the Victorian Government and the aquatics and safety sectors, established with the aim of reducing fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents in Victoria. The program continues to run and is described in more detail in section 5.1 (p 78).

Over time, water safety roles have formalised to support increased collaboration and coordination in some areas. Several multi-agency forums have been established, including the Water Safety Assembly led by LSV, and in 2019 the Water Safety Roundtable co-chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services and the Emergency Management Commissioner (EMC).

VicPol’s water rescue role was identified in the Emergency Management Manual Victoria when it was first published in 1997. The Inter-Governmental Agreement on National Search and Rescue Response Arrangements, first produced in June 2004, also identifies VicPol as the coordinator of MSAR incidents. In the SEMP, VicPol continues to be responsible for the coordination of MSAR incident responses in Victoria.

History of swimming lessons

For generations of Victorians, learning to swim during childhood was a rite of passage in a community where population centres hovered on the edge or just inland of the sea, or where access to a river, lake, dam or local municipal pool was easy.

In the 1860s Melbourne's sea baths became popular, but there were barriers for people learning to swimincluding the cost of lessons, entry fees to facilities, as well as gender discrimination. Bathing or swimming in public was considered inappropriate for women, and they were actively discouraged from learning to swim.

In 1898, amidst increasing numbers of fatal drownings, DE acknowledged the importance of people learning to swim. Certificates were created for students who could meet certain criteria, similar to those issued today.

The involvement of the department helped to drive the construction of local swimming pools in suburbs and rural inland towns. In 1911, it enlisted the help of Sir Frank Beaurepaire, Olympic medallist and world champion swimmer, to organise the teaching of swimming in schools. The use of high-profile swimmers and coaches continues to be used across Australia to promote the importance of swimming lessons and water safety.

As drownings continued to increase the Herald 'Learn to Swim’ campaign was initiated, beginning as ‘Learn to Swim Week’ in December 1927. The Herald-funded campaign was delivered in partnership with DE for almost 50 years and was central to teaching Victorian children to swim. The certificate referred to as ‘the Herald’ was awarded to children who demonstrated they could effectively swim 25 yards.

At its peak in the 1960s, more than 80,000 school children were learning to swim each year as part of the program, which by 1963 had taught over one million students.20

Joining the Herald & Weekly Times over the next few years were the Bendigo Advertiser, City Mutual, the State Bank of Victoria, Speedo, and the Commonwealth Bank, with in-kind support from Channel 7. In March 1976, VICSWIM was established and its first two-week Christmas holiday swimming program offered in 1977. It focused on providing an intensive five-day summer program teaching children from four years of age. Over the years, VICSWIM programs were partly funded through sponsorship arrangements.

The 1990s were marked by several organisations becoming involved in the delivery of water safety education and training, increasing competition for swim teaching, and the provision of swim facilities became a largely privatised industry.

Beginning with the 2018-2019 Victorian budget, LSV received funding from DE to deliver the Public Water Safety Initiative. This included the development of new resources and training for teachers to support schools and the aquatics industry to deliver quality swimming programs and promote the Victorian Water Safety Certificate.

The Victorian Curriculum F–10, implemented in all government and Catholic schools from 2017, now requires swimming and water safety education to be taught as part of the Health and Physical Education learning area, with the aim for students to achieve their Victorian Water Safety certificate by the end of primary school (see section 5.3, p 88).

Reach rescue training (Source: LSV - Victorian Water Safety Certificate User Guide)

3 Governance and funding

Opportunities to increase water safety and raise awareness of water-related risks exist across multiple portfolios of the Victorian Government, community organisations and commercial sectors.

As such, good governance is central to strong decision-making, planning and efficient operational activity. Key principles of good public sector governance apply equally to governance in water safety: leadership, effective collaboration, openness, accountability, transparency and integrity.

In water safety, centralised governance and strategic activity must incorporate the varying objectives of organisations with water safety roles and responsibilities, considering their respective values, aspirations and obligations when keeping people safe in and around the water.

This chapter considers the coordination and leadership structures in water safety and the ways in which key outcomes are identified and translated into tangible plans and actions to reduce drowning. It also covers broad funding arrangements and describes current water safety commitments across government.

3.1 Leadership

Historically, Victoria has followed a decentralised approach to leadership and coordination for water safety. No single organisation has had the accountability to provide cross-government leadership or a coordination function. Nor has there been any defined overall accountability for drowning prevention or water safety.

This remains the current approach, with numerous organisations leading and coordinating activities that improve water safety outcomes.

This is not unreasonable given the nature of water safety and the range of activities and organisations involved in each element. Organisations collaborate where there is alignment of interests or complementary roles. While this approach has not hindered individual streams of activity, it does not provide visibility of potential efficiencies, or facilitate new collaborations and overall progress towards reducing the drowning toll.

Organisations involved in water safety have recognised the value of convening as a group and the collaborative opportunities this brings. There have been several committees or groups established to address specific drowning prevention measures (see Chapter 5, p 77) and efforts to bring relevant stakeholders together to address all elements of water safety.

The Victorian Water Safety Assembly, convened by LSV and comprising of aquatic industry representatives involved in swimming education and aquatic recreation, led the development of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2016–2020. It had the broad support of the then Minister for Emergency Services and EMV. The 2016–20 strategy noted that drowning prevention was a shared responsibility, and that the community needs to develop a culture that owns the issue 21

In 2019 the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services requested EMV review ‘government-based water safety activity and consider actions that could be implemented and/or enhanced to help address drownings in Victoria’.22 This was in response to 26 deaths over the summer months – 59 per cent higher than the 10-year average.23

The Victorian Water Safety Round Table was established in 2019 to address the minister’s request. It was chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services and co-chaired by the EMC. In response to the 63 drownings in 2020–21, the round table reconvened as the Water Safety Taskforce in January 2021. The taskforce had a similar objective to the round table to coordinate and progress work to address drownings.

Throughout this review, IGEM noted a reasonably high level of activity, resourcing and commitment from various organisations in relation to water safety. Within streams of prevention activities such as swimming education, residential pool regulation, boating regulation enforcement and public communications, there is often strong leadership in place to assess risks and plan, resource and implement programs and policies.

For example, Sport and Recreation Victoria’s long-running VICSWIM program has partnered with a range of organisations to ensure lessons are accessible and teachers are available – a significant feat following the easing of restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (see section 5.3, p 88). Concurrently DE and its partners advocated for the inclusion of water safety education in the school curriculum and successfully secured program funding. These two programs of work have resulted in positive outcomes and have been evaluated separately. However, despite appealing to the same cohort (primary school children), the programs are largely independent. There are opportunities to create greater alignment between both programs, promote VICSWIM through schools and improve data collection to increase the understanding of participation patterns.

Despite these examples, organisations often work independently, creating siloes of work. Collectively, this work has generated many encouraging outcomes, however, the lack of collaboration and visibility of others’ work has resulted in missed opportunities for efficiencies and value-adding.

The dispersed accountabilities for water safety mean that standard emergency management approaches are sometimes ill-suited to provide leadership or coordination. In other hazards, the control agency often assumes a leadership role for risk assessment and prevention activities. As control agency for water rescues VicPol has a role in risk assessment and prevention for matters related to boating and rescues. However, it would not be suitable for VicPol to assume a coordination or leadership role for all water safety risk assessments and prevention measures as they are extensive and do not align with its core purpose and expertise.

Within government, EMV has informally assumed some accountability and coordination functions for water safety. This is mostly associated with its role as a key contracting entity for LSV and providing Water Safety Taskforce secretariat duties, rather than any defined function in legislation or other plans.

Given the nature of water safety risks, the range of prevention measures in place and the number of organisations involved, assigning accountability for drowning prevention to a single entity is not suitable. The downside of this scenario is that work is often disconnected and there is no common understanding of drowning risks and priority measures to address the risks. Greater coordination can increase visibility across the siloes of work and potential efficiencies from collaboration and/or information sharing.

Finding 3.1

While Victoria Police conducts risk assessments and some prevention activities in relation to its role as control agency for water rescues, there is no single entity providing overall coordination for water safety risk assessment, prevention and readiness.

Finding 3.2

The lack of a centralised coordination function or accountability for water safety has contributed to a siloed approach to risk assessment, planning, drowning prevention and response initiatives.

3.1.1 Water Safety Taskforce

The taskforce was established to provide strategic advice to the minister and relevant delegates, and coordinate or progress action to address drownings across Victoria. It provides strategic leadership and identifies opportunities to work collaboratively to address drowning risks and fatalities.

The taskforce’s key responsibility is to make recommendations to government for evidence-based interventions to improve water safety based on immediate and longer-term needs.24 Its role includes leading the development and implementation of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25.

The taskforce coordinated the development of the strategy, which was endorsed in December 2021. It began work on an associated action plan and provided some guidance for water safety budget submissions related to prevention activities and Victoria’s MSAR service.

Members are listed in Table 1. The EMC chairs the taskforce and EMV performs the secretariat role. IGEM observed meetings throughout the course of the review and sighted minutes of previous meetings. Membership was reasonably stable across the period, with additional organisations invited to participate as required.

Meetings occurred consistently over summer, typically achieving the four- to six-week frequency outlined in the taskforce’s terms of reference, but decreased over cooler months. Despite concurrent emergencies (COVID-19 pandemic and widespread flooding in late 2022), there remains a strong cross-government commitment to the taskforce.

Water Safety Taskforce members MEMBERS

Emergency Management Commissioner (Chair) Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions

and Recreation

Tourism and Events

Emergency Management Victoria (Secretariat)

Ambulance Victoria

Department of Education

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action

Department of Justice and Community Safety – Strategic Communication

Services Telecommunications Authority

Government Victoria

Saving Victoria

Association of Victoria

Victoria

Police

State Emergency Service

Fisheries Authority

The taskforce has increasingly become a forum for information sharing, rather than collaborative decision-making and action planning. It has helped to raise awareness of the range of water safety initiatives offered across the state and the organisations that are involved. The delivery of the Water Safety Strategy also provides organisations with guidance for future policy and program initiatives.

IGEM observed several instances of relationship building and explicit broadening of scope and participation for projects that were initially planned to be mostly agency-based. For example, the working group to improve emergency coastal markers has expanded to include local government representatives. Likewise, VFA was not an original member of the taskforce, but since joining has been able to support a range of water safety initiatives, particularly related to raising awareness of water safety risks among boaters on inland waterways.

Safe Transport Victoria

However, since the delivery of the strategy, there has been a reduction in the momentum of the taskforce. The delays in finalising the action plan have also slowed progress on new collaborative activities. The taskforce’s agenda is often limited to organisational updates and presentations related to work underway or completed (for example program evaluations and research outcomes). While this type of contribution is valuable, there is limited active collaboration or discussion to progress the strategy or drive new initiatives. Stakeholders commented that there was further opportunity for the taskforce to identify and progress priorities, clarify water safety roles and responsibilities, and establish a permanent structure and function.

In addition to their formal chairing and secretariat roles, the EMC and EMV have come to provide a coordination role to promote collaboration and information-sharing across the taskforce and generate activity among its members. LSV contributes to many of the agenda items, provides a trusted source of subject matter expertise, and promotes opportunities for programs, collaboration and research.

Future of the Water Safety Taskforce

The taskforce was originally intended to be a time-limited forum that preceded a permanent water safety governance structure. At the time of this review, the taskforce was considering its future role and format. The current proposed structure includes two streams, one to focus on policy and strategic matters, and an Operations Committee.

It is not clear whether the separate policy stream will provide a mechanism to drive the implementation of the strategy, support the delivery of an action plan or retain oversight of water safety risks and adverse events. Some stakeholders hold concerns that the proposed policy stream will not have the appropriate remit, level of membership and resourcing that will allow key strategic activities to progress.

Noting these concerns, EMV advised that it intends for the proposed policy stream to be responsible for strategic water safety policy, support the implementation of the Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and develop an action plan. EMV intends to continue its involvement in both the policy stream and operations stream and support the finalisation the action plan.

The existence of a centralised governance forum is articulated as a critical element of the strategy, and the taskforce is currently the only forum providing such a function. However, the taskforce was originally intended to be time-limited, and its current function requires strengthening to address increasing drowning risks in a financially constrained environment.

The original purpose for establishing the taskforce remains important and the nature of drowning risks and water safety means that an ongoing commitment is required to ensure consistent and wellresourced initiatives are in place.

The taskforce may have lost some of its momentum in light of a lack of dedicated funding for water safety actions, but it currently provides the only dedicated multi-agency committee established for collaboration in strategic planning and water safety policy.

Finding 3.3

The establishment of the Water Safety Taskforce provides a centralised forum to share information, develop relationships and raise awareness across organisations with roles in water safety. However, it is limited in its ability to coordinate cross-government planning and policy development and currently lacks the maturity to provide strategic advice to government on key water safety priorities.

Finding 3.4

Increases in the drowning toll and ongoing changes in drowning risks require a dedicated and ongoing coordination function to ensure water safety efforts are coordinated and government has appropriate visibility of risks and priorities.

Observation 3.1

There is an opportunity for the Water Safety Taskforce to review its ongoing role, function and format to ensure it continues to progress the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and continues to address the ongoing risk of drowning across the state.

Recommendation 1

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government strengthens the accountability, membership and resourcing of the Water Safety Taskforce to ensure it functions to:

(a) implement the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and monitor progress towards its outcomes

(b) assess statewide drowning risks and develop water safety policy to address these risks

(c) identify high-priority cross-government actions and ensure their delivery

(d) provide visibility and advice to government on emerging risks.

3.2 Strategic activities

Victorian water safety planning and strategy has been guided by both international and national strategies, plans and resources developed by organisations such as the Australian Water Safety Council and the WHO.

The first National Water Safety Plan was published in 1998 and the Australian Water Safety Council has developed an Australian Water Safety Strategy every four years since 2008.25 In March 2021, the Australian Water Safety Strategy 2030 was published with the aim to reduce drowning by 50 per cent by 2030.26

Over the last 10-plus years, drowning prevention has been steadily gaining international momentum, aiming to reduce the global burden of drowning, and promoting and supporting prevention research and interventions.

In 2017 the WHO released Preventing drowning: an implementation guide. In April 2021 the United Nations passed its first ever Resolution on Global Drowning Prevention, declaring World Drowning Prevention Day which is held annually on 25 July.

In Victoria, the first water safety strategy was developed in 2016 by the Water Safety Assembly. When the taskforce was established it coordinated the development of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25.

3.2.1 Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25

Throughout 2021 the taskforce collaborated to produce an updated water safety strategy, partnering with EMV and using Nous Group to support delivery. It was released in December 2021 but had already been used to inform planning for seasonal activity of the 2021–22 summer.

This strategy complements the Australian Water Safety Strategy 2030, recognising similar priority areas (people, places, activities, risk factors and populations). It places a stronger focus on priority areas and actions that target emerging risks. These priorities include improvements related to safety in open waterways, powered and non-powered vessel related incidents, swimming and water safety education, and incident response.

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 establishes a vision to:

Encourage more Victorians to safely participate and enjoy recreation in and around water, while reducing the number of drownings and water-related injuries to zero.

Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25

The strategy outlines the impacts of drownings and articulates the need for ongoing attention on drowning. It describes the key stakeholders involved in prevention and response and describes key risks facing Victorians.11

The strategy has a strong focus on collaboration and coordination, particularly through working with local partners and increasing shared responsibility in communities. It identifies three core actions, each with three corresponding targeted actions, for achieving this collaboration:

 establish better ways of working through effective governance establish a governance model clarify the roles and responsibilities implement sector-wide priority setting

 expand research and data to underpin policy and decision-making expand and refine connections between data sources build monitoring and evaluation frameworks develop a sector research strategy

 empower communities to better assess, and respond to, water safety risks develop a simple, coherent set of key messages promote the design and delivery of community education

 deliver timely and localised risk communications.11

The strategy outlines an action plan as the next step towards implementation and nominates the Water Safety Taskforce to develop and oversee the action plan.

Overall, the strategy provides a useful roadmap to improving water safety and reducing drownings. It balances broad concepts with priority actions and goes some way to achieving core and targeted governance actions by establishing broad roles and responsibilities and setting key priorities. It aligns with the national strategy but sets clear objectives that are relevant to Victoria.

Finding 3.5

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 articulates a common vision and priority areas for water safety and its collaborative development through the Water Safety Taskforce provides a strong foundation for the development and implementation of coordinated policy and initiatives.

3.2.2 Victorian Water Safety Action Plan

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 articulates the ‘Water Safety Taskforce commits to bringing the strategy to life with the development and oversight of a clear action plan’. It describes how the action plan will outline a series of initiatives to improve water safety identified through the development of the strategy.

The strategy intends for the action plan to identify specific initiatives to support its implementation, describe agency roles, and determine priorities and sequencing of actions to ensure resources are used efficiently. The plan should provide sufficient detail on actions to inform funding bids and outline clear timelines for delivery and measures for success.

At the time of this review, the action plan was yet to be finalised. In August 2022 a draft plan was endorsed by the State Crisis and Resilience Council, noting EMV would lead the development of a whole-ofgovernment business case to seek financial support for new initiatives from the Expenditure Review Committee.27

Stakeholders said the development of the draft action plan felt rushed and was not the collaborative effort anticipated by the strategy. Organisations put forward existing or previously planned activities already funded and to a more limited degree proposed (unfunded) new initiatives. However, there was little time or opportunity for the taskforce to leverage its diverse membership to develop new actions based on current and emerging drowning risks. There was also no rigorous process to prioritise actions for inclusion in the plan or the development of business cases for high-priority actions.

The draft plan aligned actions against priorities and articulated broad timelines. However, there was no defined prioritisation or planning done to ensure a sequence of actions optimised resources.

The drafting process itself and the draft action plan have generated some positive activity in water safety. Pending finalisation of the plan, some lead organisations have expanded existing programs of work to include proposed initiatives either in full or in part. They have used existing resources or sources of funding to drive this work.

At the time of writing, EMV intends to extensively revisit the draft action plan with the Water Safety Taskforce. This provides an opportunity to address the observations, findings and recommendations of this report and address data presented in the Aquatic Injury Prevention Agenda (AIPA).

Finalisation of the action plan is important to ensure there are tangible commitments to the implementation of the strategy. At this point the strategy is approaching the halfway stage of its commitment and there is considerable work to be done to ensure an endorsed action plan is available to guide existing and new programs of water safety work.

Finding 3.6

Despite preliminary work on a draft Water Safety Action Plan providing some opportunities for collaboration, it is yet to be finalised and there is no endorsed plan to support the implementation of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25.

3.3 Readiness in water safety

Coordinated readiness arrangements that are well understood by all relevant agencies are an important element of addressing risk. Readiness typically refers to activities that will facilitate an efficient response, but it can include a range of activities that raise awareness of risk and promote safe behaviour among the public.

Readiness increases the ability for timely response with activities immediately before and in anticipation of a potential or actual emergency.

State Emergency Management Plan

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 outlines ‘deliver timely and localised risk communications’ as a targeted action to empower communities to better assess and respond to water safety risks. Building stronger readiness arrangements would support this action and achieve greater levels of coordination and collaboration that are also outlined as key priorities in the strategy.

LSV’s ongoing research and analysis of drowning deaths has identified many factors associated with an increased likelihood of drowning. This understanding is currently used to inform some activities that increase readiness for responding to water safety incidents and reducing drowning risk. However, the maturity of Victoria’s readiness for high-risk water safety periods is variable. While some organisations build high-risk period planning into their annual schedule of activities, IGEM did not observe documented arrangements for water safety readiness.

There are multiple examples of increased activity before and during high-risk periods:

 DJCS – Strategic Communication bolsters traditional and social media presence during school holidays and over the summer, peaking specifically during public holidays in this broader period. As described in section 5.1 (p 78), these periods are scheduled well in advance and informed by LSV research regarding drowning trends.

 Paid lifeguard patrols, which supplement volunteer lifesavers at high-risk locations based on anticipated need, are recruited and rostered by LSV ahead of summer using previous seasons’ data to predict their number and location. Individual clubs and LSV can also adjust rosters of paid lifeguards, volunteer lifesavers and roving patrols based on short-term weather outlooks and water conditions.

 VicPol leads an Emergency Management Team (EMT) with other regulation and enforcement agencies including DEECA, DJCS, Parks Victoria, Ports Victoria, STVic and VFA. The team takes a riskbased approach to increase enforcement activity on popular waterways during high-risk periods.

 MSAR units adjust rosters and attempt to ensure vessel availability for high-risk periods, however it is not clear whether this activity is coordinated or consistent across units.

Over the 2022–23 summer period, the EMC asked the Water Safety Taskforce to consider additional actions that could increase public awareness of water safety and facilitate rescues. As an immediate response, LSV participated in State Control Team meetings and had an Emergency Management Liaison Officer at the State Control Centre at various points over summer.

LSV also positioned additional patrols at four inland waterways over the Australia Day public holiday weekend in late January 2023 (see Breakout Box 4, p 135).

Members were in general agreement across the taskforce that any opportunities to respond to shortterm increases in drowning risk should be considered. However, while some organisations were practiced in activating resources at short notice to address a risk, others were not familiar with the approach and not structured to respond in such a manner.

There are two key aspects to increasing readiness: determining the activities that would support readiness and then the arrangements to activate them.

While there are already some activities that support readiness and risk awareness, there are opportunities to learn from readiness arrangements related to other hazards. Some of the measures taken to improve readiness for other hazards could be leveraged to address drowning risk, particularly some of the most mature readiness arrangements (those related to grass and bushfire).

Local variable signage, emergency information and warnings and media placements on local networks are all potential opportunities to raise awareness of heightened risk.

There are also opportunities to learn from pre-positioning arrangements to ensure MSAR units are suitably resourced and positioned during high-risk periods. While LSV has trialled establishing additional patrols in high-risk locations, arrangements to inform the selection of locations and facilitate timely activation would be useful to increase this activity.

The taskforce recognises that messaging to raise awareness of risk is often most effective when it comes from trusted sources, and offered when the risk is present. There are opportunities to have agency personnel provide water safety information on site along the coast and near inland waterways.

Lifesavers, park rangers, council staff, MSAR volunteers, authorised officers from regulation and enforcement agencies such as STVic, VFA and VicPol could all be trained to provide water safety advice to members of the public they encounter during other activities. Depending on resourcing, there could be dedicated increases in opportunities to engage with the public during high-risk periods.

The taskforce and PISBTW also have strong connections with a range of community organisations that could be asked to share information through their channels to reach target audiences. For example, Kidsafe Victoria could share water safety information via social media, or the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) could ask its commissioners and Regional Advisory Council members to use appropriate means of spreading the information about heightened drowning risks.

Given the level of activity in water safety and the taskforce’s strong membership base, there is a solid foundation to explore opportunities to raise awareness and increase readiness for the community and organisations.

Building coordinated readiness arrangements to activate these activities at the most opportune time and in appropriate locations is essential. Arrangements are strengthened when a single agency takes a leading role to assess triggers and to activate readiness arrangements across the board.

In March 2023 the Water Safety Taskforce proposed the creation of an Operations Committee to complement the general business of the taskforce. The committee would function to provide an opportunity to build readiness arrangements and diversify the readiness actions currently in place.

The conditions that increase drowning risk are reasonably well understood and provide a strong starting point. There is scope to understand whether triggers for different aquatic activities or locations need to be articulated. For example, triggers for boating incidents, compared to beach-based swimming incidents.

Given VicPol’s role as water rescue control agency and coordinator of the EMT, it would be a natural fit for it to adopt a leadership role to activate coordinated readiness arrangements. Existing state-level structures and forums such as the State Control Team or State Emergency Management Team could facilitate the activation of readiness arrangements and ensure visibility of heightened risk across all agencies.

Finding 3.7

There are currently no coordinated readiness arrangements across all types of prevention activities to address high-risk periods for water safety.

Finding 3.8

During high-risk periods, efforts to promote community awareness of water safety and increase readiness to respond to drowning incidents have been largely successful. However, these efforts are under-resourced and not associated with an ongoing coordinated readiness strategy.

Recommendation 2

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police works with the Water Safety Taskforce to establish coordinated readiness arrangements to initiate relevant water safety measures ahead of high-risk periods. The arrangements should:

(a) specify organisational roles and responsibilities

(b) include triggers and procedures for activating the arrangements through the State Control Team

(c) be flexible to address local and statewide risks

(d) consider all relevant public communications, place-based education, regulatory, enforcement, patrolling and rescue methods.

3.4 Water safety funding

Water safety is funded through a variety of sources, including the Australian and Victorian Governments, fundraising, fees and charges, and commercial activities. While there is a substantial amount of dedicated funding for water safety and water rescue, water safety can be an outcome of many other investments through broader spending in other areas. There may be water safety features of expenditure in marine transport, infrastructure on or near waterways, recreation and elite sport, commercial boating and tourism. For example, local ports critical maintenance works, as well as the Growing Suburbs Fund, can include building or upgrading swimming pools in Melbourne’s interface councils.28

IGEM notes that both RLSSA and SLSA provide funding to Victorian organisations to promote water safety and deliver programs on their behalf. They may generate this funding through a variety of methods independently, but are also funded by the Australian Government to deliver water safety outcomes.

Many water safety initiatives are substantially resourced through in-kind contributions and volunteering. While this value can be substantiated in some areas (MSAR volunteering and lifesaving patrols), donated time, facilities, equipment and expertise provide a significant contribution to water safety.

Over time there has been considerable investment in water safety by the Victorian Government. It funds water safety initiatives through government portfolio programs of work and grants. It also directly funds LSV through service agreements and program funding (see section 3.5, p 59).

In Victoria many water safety initiatives are funded through departments’ direct budget appropriation from Parliament. Within each department, programs of work are planned and budgeted for through this base funding. Each portfolio or public entity must align its water safety activity with broader departmental objectives and advocate internally to initiate and maintain programs or activity.

Many water safety initiatives are also funded directly through the State Budget under Service Delivery and the State Capital Program. Infrastructure and equipment are typically funded under the State Capital Program, and funding may be allocated directly or through specific equipment and infrastructure grants and programs. There have also been instances where specific facilities and equipment have been funded by Service Delivery allocations.

According to State Budget papers, between 2018–19 and 2023–24 the Victorian Government allocated approximately $80.2 million to DE and $47.3 million in Service Delivery funding to DJCS for water safetyspecific initiatives. Table 2 (p 57) summarises the funded initiatives and demonstrates a significant level of consistent funding, with increases for both DJCS and DE in response to heightened risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Swimming lessons (Source: Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions)

Summary of Service Delivery funding allocated to DE and DJCS for water safety-specific initiatives (Source: DTF)

DJCS Towards lifesaving services, and safety programs at public pools

To set up MSAR office within EMV, subsidise volunteer MSAR unit operating costs and contribute to vessel replacement

DJCS To subsidise volunteer MSAR unit operating costs

For Surfing Victoria to expand its Surfers Rescue 24/7 program

DJCS Towards lifesaving services and facilities, and safety programs at public pools

To subsidise volunteer MSAR unit operating costs

DE For eligible schools to deliver swimming and water safety programs, and to introduce programs to government English language schools.

DJCS For volunteer MSAR units to purchase digital radios and access the Victorian Radio Network, and undertake essential fleet maintenance

* Note: Water safety-specific initiatives include facility funding and equipment where specified in associated Service Delivery Budget Papers.

The biggest expenditure by government has been in swimming and water safety education delivered by schools on behalf of DE. Funding the incorporation of water safety education into the curriculum has been a significant commitment for government. In response to the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these programs, DE received a further boost in investment in 2021–22 (see section 5.3, p 88).

Money allocated to DJCS through the State Budget is typically to support the volunteer MSAR service (infrastructure, vessels and centralised support – see section 7.3, p 141), lifesaving facilities and public water safety initiatives (broadly delivered in partnership with LSV).

DJCS has also received funding to upgrade, repair and maintain emergency services infrastructure and assets through the State Budget since 2018–19. The Community Safety Building Authority has managed emergency services infrastructure funding on behalf of DJCS since 1 July 2019, including the Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund. The Authority oversees the delivery of LSV infrastructure projects and leads the procurement and project management support of upgraded vessels for volunteer MSAR units.

DJCS manages several grant programs to prioritise and support capital works for volunteer and emergency services outside of the regular budget process. Volunteer MSAR units and LSV have benefited from both programs:

 Emergency Services Volunteer Sustainability grants program funded in 2016–17 and 2018–19 for eligible groups to address operational equipment and training needs, to fund minor facility improvements and/or for larger initiatives supporting volunteerism or community resilience.

 Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program funded each year since 2017–18 for eligible groups to address operational equipment needs and/or to fund minor facility improvements.

Collectively, LSV received approximately $3.8 million, or 15.9 per cent, of the total grant funding for the two funding rounds of the Emergency Services Volunteer Sustainability grants program. MSAR received approximately $2.2 million, or 9.3 per cent.29, 30

The Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program is a co-contribution grant program. For every $1 of funding a successful applicant contributes, the program contributes $2. Collectively, LSV has received approximately $4.7 million or 5.7 per cent of the total grant funding up to 30 June 2023. MSAR received approximately $2 million or 2.4 per cent.31

In summary, LSV and volunteer MSAR units can receive funding for their facilities and equipment from grants or through the state budget process via DJCS.

In recent years, Treasurer’s Advance payments have addressed unforeseen need for additional drowning prevention and water rescue activities. Both LSV and MSAR units have received Treasurer’s Advance payments via DJCS.32, 33 For example, a Treasurer’s Advance was approved in November 2020 to provide additional lifesaving patrols and increase public communications to address a forecast increase in water safety risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.4.1 Government revenue sources

The Victorian Government also manages two key trust funds that are used to support water safety activities: the Community Support Fund and the Better Boating Fund.

The Community Support Fund was established in 1991 and is governed by the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to direct a portion of gaming revenue back to the community. Councils and non-profit community-based organisations can apply to relevant government departments for a grant from the fund. Life saving clubs have received Community Support Fund grants towards the cost of designing and building new clubhouses.34-36

The Better Boating Fund was established in 2020 under the Marine Safety Act 2010 to ensure all money from marine licensing and vessel registration fees is used for improving recreational boating facilities and safety.37, 38 In 2021–22 the total amount allocated from the fund was $30.58 million. Of the amount allocated, $13.38 million, or almost 44 per cent, was invested in Safer Waterways. This amount includes $1.2 million to deliver Marine Radio Victoria which provides a 24/7 emergency radio communications and monitoring network for boaters across the Victorian coastline. It also includes $1.9 million for volunteer MSAR units which covers vessel maintenance, volunteer training and exercising. Most of the remaining Safer Waterway allocation supports regulatory and other business-as-usual safety functions carried out by STVic.

3.4.2 Water safety funding effectiveness

The Victorian Government has invested heavily in water safety. Expenditure covers community-facing services such as lifesaving, regulatory and compliance functions, infrastructure provision, water safety education and public communications. It also covers back-office activities such as administration, IT and financial management, data collection and analysis, research, policy development, and secretariat duties.

The government has been responsive to emerging risks by targeting specific funds to address missed swimming lessons for Victorian school children caused by restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic as well as additional activities across the state to mitigate heightened drowning risks following the easing of pandemic restrictions.

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy clearly identifies the value in coordinated investment and resourcing. However, the departmental funding model and State Budget process is inherently siloed, with relatively short funding cycles. While this approach has practical advantages, it means departments have to seek funding independently. Having separate streams of funding can make it difficult for organisations involved in water safety to work in partnership and plan for the long-term. IGEM recognises that many organisations have made concerted efforts to overcome these barriers to deliver positive water safety outcomes.

3.5 Government partnerships

As discussed throughout this review, water safety and drowning risk affect all parts of the population in any setting or scenario involving water. Government has a strong role to play to mitigate risks and facilitate safe behaviours, however, much of the subject matter expertise and resourcing required sits outside of government.

There are numerous organisations that deliver services to reduce drowning risks and increase safety. These organisations range from private swim schools and recreation centres to peak bodies for boating and fishing. Some reach highly specialised cohorts of the community, while others have much broader influence.

Organisations partner with other organisations based on need and opportunity. This has led to some positive programs and valuable activity. For example, Surfing Victoria delivers the Surfers Rescue 24/7 program funded through DJCS, and ARV are key partners for DJSIR, who has collaborated with many other swimming schools, training providers and aquatic facilities to deliver VICSWIM and respond to shortages in swimming teacher and pool availability.

Partnerships are a critical part of water safety and allow government to leverage existing levels of expertise and activity. The Water Safety Taskforce has increased visibility of work being done to promote water safety, facilitating greater collaboration and formal partnerships. However, the taskforce does not currently map partnerships to ensure activities, resources and objectives are clearly articulated and can be used to inform new and existing partnerships. The partnership model has created a system with many parts and inter-dependencies and a dedicated effort is required to ensure that water safety initiatives do not lose focus, generate duplication or fail to share learnings from specific partnerships and programs of work.

Finding 3.9

Government’s partnership approach to water safety research, risk assessment and many prevention activities is valuable and supports collaboration. However, there is a lack of coordination which limits the efficiency of water safety initiatives and overall progress towards water safety outcomes.

3.5.1 Life Saving Victoria

LSV is a key partner for the Victorian Government and works with departments to provide large-scale water safety initiatives but also smaller program-based partnership and fee-for-service arrangements. It is a state leader in risk assessment, research, service delivery and program development related to water safety. It advocates for the importance of water safety and actively leads or supports a large amount of work with both government and non-government organisations. LSV often acts as a key conduit in the establishment of partnerships and engagement of stakeholders across water safety. Its role is partly in service of its agreements with the Victorian Government, but largely due to its high level of subject matter expertise in drowning prevention and involvement in water safety activities across the state.

As a non-government organisation, LSV does not provide any formal leadership and coordination for water safety in Victoria despite having the necessary expertise and motivation. It must work collaboratively to ensure there is mutual benefit for participating organisations. There are many positive elements to this approach, but it does not allow LSV the autonomy to direct government strategy in water safety. Despite this, LSV is a significant contributor to strategy and activity through its involvement in the Water Safety Taskforce.

Victorian Government funding accounts for a significant proportion of LSV’s total revenue, providing 54 per cent of its revenue in 2020–21.39This funding is provided through various agreements with government entities to support water safety, primarily under two key agreements with DE and DJCS. Some of the requirements of these agreements address LSV’s prevention, response, and relief obligations under the SEMP. This includes but is not limited to input into water safety campaigns and public communications, supporting swimming and water safety programs at schools, public pool safety inspections, patrolling by paid and volunteer personnel, and air, water and land-based search and rescue services.

LSV’s State Budget allocation via DJCS is made up of a small amount of core funding and a larger, variable amount of output-based funding. LSV also receives an allocation of output-based funding via DE.

In addition to its annual Common Funding Agreement with DJCS, LSV negotiates a sizeable number of individualised annual contracts with land and waterway managers for paid lifeguard services over summer.

LSV also has a broad range of other non-government funding sources which in 2021–22 contributed approximately 40 per cent of its overall revenue.39 These include:

 fees for services including training, signage, retail sales, and aquatic risk assessments

 grants

 sponsorships for forums, activities or specific services like the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service

 donations and fundraising

 national funding through peak bodies such as RLSSA.

A key challenge for LSV is that its funding arrangements are primarily short-term and don’t reflect the ongoing commitment of each partner to water safety, or government’s reliance on LSV to inform and implement critical water safety initiatives. Annual funding arrangements for ongoing services are inherently inefficient. Preparing and reviewing Budget bids and funding agreements each year is resource intensive for both LSV and DJCS. LSV has noted that the uncertain nature of short-term and non-recurrent funding makes planning beyond a year’s worth of service and program delivery difficult and impedes its ability to make effective resourcing and contract decisions.

The State Budget 2023–24 initially allocated $12.6 million to DJCS for the Public Water Safety Initiative over a four-year period. This was a significant reduction from previous allocations and did not allow LSV to continue some vital services and programs, and decreased its ability to fund foundational activities that support multiple programs and services.

Although initial discussions with EMV suggested the four-year allocation provides an opportunity for a multi-year Common Funding Agreement to be established with LSV, the reduced funding was of greater concern to LSV, as was the lack of recurrent funding. LSV, DJCS and the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) have since been able to work together to provide LSV with a similar level of funding to previous years.

LSV also manages a range of contracts with numerous land managers to lease life saving club facilities and provide a range of water safety services, including patrols, signage audits and risk assessments. Currently, each agreement is developed individually with LSV and the land manager (or contracting party) to reflect the specific needs of the land manager, the risk and services required. The result of this arrangement is a high level of variability in the contracts and a rolling series of negotiations for LSV to manage.

LSV reports this arrangement is inefficient and creates complexity in the delivery of services which are arguably very similar. It has advocated for government support to streamline its service delivery agreements with government entities but has not been able to progress this issue or increase consistency across its agreements.

The volume of work performed by LSV on behalf of government, and its consistent involvement in water safety initiatives, are critically important for reducing the drowning toll. However, while LSV is motivated to improve water safety based on its organisational vision and mission, it does not have any legislated accountability to deliver water safety outcomes. It is only responsible to deliver outcomes and outputs that are associated with the agreements and contracts held with government, all of which are subject to funding.

Across parts of government there is a misunderstanding of LSV’s role that has resulted in an overestimation of LSV’s level of accountability. This includes a lack of recognition that, as a nongovernment entity, LSV is not accountable for delivering broad water safety outcomes and is not structured (or required) to maintain water safety services and programs if funding is reduced or agreements lapse.

The many ways in which LSV is engaged by government contributes to this misunderstanding, as does the work performed by LSV that is funded by non-government grants, sponsorship and social enterprise activities. Where resources allow, LSV also provides various in-kind contributions to water safety in service of their overall mission. This scenario often leads to an incorrect assumption that LSV’s contributions to water safety service a defined accountability, rather than a series of agreements and contracts.

An example of the complexity is LSV’s role statement under the SEMP which articulates many mitigation activities. Some of the activities form part of LSV’s Common Service Agreement with DJCS. However, for many of the activities, LSV undertakes the work on a fee-for-service basis, working with individual facility owners, councils and land managers to perform the activity. For example, the SEMP outlines ‘providing expert advice on aquatic risk management and water safety signage’ as one of LSV’s mitigation activities. The activity is undertaken at the request of various land and waterway managers through individual service agreements. LSV is not accountable for ensuring appropriate aquatic risk management across the state, or advising on safety signage for all waterways.

The lack of clarity surrounding LSV’s accountabilities for water safety and the ways in which it is engaged and funded to deliver water safety outcomes presents a risk for government. This risk was realised when the 2023–24 State Budget allocation for water safety was significantly reduced and required DJCS and LSV to determine priority activities and advocate for further funding from DTF. As drowning risks continue to increase and evolve, there is growing expectation that LSV will continue to deliver and expand on the many water safety activities it currently offers, and an increasing risks that gaps will emerge, and opportunities will be missed, because of this misunderstanding.

Finding 3.10

Life Saving Victoria has a central role in Victoria’s water safety arrangements, providing subject matter expertise and informal leadership to drive actions and interest in government and community.

Finding 3.11

Life Saving Victoria manages an extensive range of individual agreements to deliver lifesaving services and water safety programs across Victoria which is inefficient, burdensome and creates inconsistencies in service provision that can undermine safety.

Finding 3.12

Life Saving Victoria (LSV) contributes to water safety as a peak body, subject matter expert, coordinator of life saving clubs and service provider. This is beneficial but has led to a misunderstanding of LSV’s accountabilities which does not align with its capacity and funding allocations. This scenario presents a risk for government as there is growing expectation that LSV can deliver broad water safety activities it is neither accountable for nor funded to deliver.

3.6 Effectiveness of governance and funding

There is a significant amount of activity occurring across the state to promote water safety. It is occurring as a result of a collective recognition of the impact of drowning in the community. Across government, there are a range of explicit and assumed roles in water safety and various levels of accountability for water safety. No single government entity holds accountability. Given the diverse nature of water safety risks, this is reasonable.

Work to reduce drownings is largely siloed, with strong streams of activity for many prevention measures: water safety education, public communications, enforcement, signage and residential pool regulations. The Water Safety Taskforce has played a role to facilitate information-sharing and collaboration across organisations involved in water safety, largely through the development of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and the ongoing drafting process of the Water Safety Action Plan.

However, the future of the Water Safety Taskforce is currently being reviewed, and it is not clear how the taskforce will engage with policy and strategy matters. Some stakeholders hold concerns that the proposed changes to the taskforce and the delayed finalisation of the action plan indicate a diminishing level of commitment to water safety and implementation of the strategy.

EMV advised that the proposed policy stream of the taskforce will be responsible for strategic water safety policy, including the ongoing implementation of the Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 and the continued development of the action plan. EMV will continue its involvement in both the policy stream and operations stream, with the intent to serve as a conduit to finalise the action plan.

The government continues to invest strongly in water safety. However, investment is not necessarily linked to water safety risks or the Victorian Water Safety Strategy. In the 2023–24 State Budget, funding allocated to the Public Water Safety Initiative was initially significantly lower than in previous years, requiring DJCS and LSV to work together to secure for additional funding.

Although LSV is able to combine funding from a variety of sources to provide important programs, services and expertise, there is often a misunderstanding of LSV’s accountabilities across government, and a lack of recognition that its ability to deliver water safety initiatives is contingent on funding. Recognising this arrangement and ensuring appropriate funding (or securing alternatives in service provision) is important for ensuring consistent service provision by LSV.

The original purpose for establishing the taskforce remains relevant, perhaps even more so in light of the 2022–23 drowning toll, with recent increases in drowning figures indicating a growing need for oversight and coordination. However, the taskforce does not currently have the maturity to lead highly collaborative strategy and policy work in the context of a financially constrained funding environment.

IGEM considers coordination in water safety is beneficial as it can clarify target populations for investment and focus the attention of organisations involved in water safety. This would lead to efficiencies by streamlining activities and reducing the potential for duplication, as well as providing a consolidated picture of risk to government. While this may not directly impact drowning numbers, it may allow more resources to be dedicated to additional target audiences and activities. Over time, this may positively influence the drowning toll.

4 Risk assessment and planning

A strong understanding of risk is critical for improving water safety. It can focus the content, type and target audiences of communications and campaigns, guide planning decisions and infrastructure design and inform regulatory measures.

Given any body of water can be a hazard, the home environment poses many risks. Pools and spas are risks that are reasonably constant. However, for parents and carers of young children, undrained bathtubs, soaking laundry buckets, containers filled with rain and unsupervised paddling pools are all risks that are difficult to keep track of.

Drowning risks in natural water bodies are difficult to assess and monitor as aquatic environments change depending on the season and rainfall. As an example, the significant rainfall in October 2022 that led to devastating floods across Victoria also filled creeks and lakes that had been dry for years. The heavy rains caused fast-flowing water to modify the banks of rivers, lakes and dams, and swept debris into the water. For people recreating in these water bodies during the summer of 2022–23, water levels, currents and physical changes created very different environments and risks compared to just months earlier.

People can be at greater risk based on their age, physical ability, health, and familiarity with water. They may also engage in activities (unknowingly or by choice) that are high-risk. These individual risks overlay environmental risks to create many variations of risk profiles.

Organisations involved in water safety have public health, injury prevention, transport, and/or emergency management expertise. This range of knowledge, skills and perspectives influences:

 how water safety risk is understood

 the way roles and responsibilities for assessing water safety risk have been distributed or taken on

 how water safety risk is assessed.

This chapter looks at the effectiveness of existing arrangements for assessing Victoria’s water safety risks in the natural environment and understanding population risks. It considers the roles and responsibilities for risk assessment, how risks are understood and assessed, and multi-agency planning activities.

4.1 Roles and responsibilities

Organisations that manage land and facilities with aquatic features have many motivations to assess drowning risks. In most cases they are motivated to increase safety for residents, visitors and any personnel working in or near the water for moral, reputational and potentially commercial reasons. They may also have legislative or regulatory obligations to ensure safety through explicit requirements or broad duty of care roles.

The government expects organisations will identify, assess and manage water safety risks. Those organisations assess risks as part of their business-as-usual operations in line with government policy, legislated responsibilities, and/or government-funded service delivery.

Collaboration between organisations is both helped and hindered by these reasonably broad and abstract legislative obligations for water safety (see Table 3). Land and waterway managers are largely required to promote safety for communities using their land or water, and maintain infrastructure and facilities to reduce safety risks.

These broad requirements support – and do not limit – proactive activities and collaborative efforts between land and waterway managers when there is interest and resourcing available. However, they do not compel any assessment of risk and associated mitigation activity, nor do they outline a basic safety standard for people recreating in and around the water.

There is observable practice of risk assessment and preventative measures being implemented across the state by a range of land and waterway managers. However, these activities vary greatly and ongoing commitment to reassessing risks and maintaining or improving preventative measures is dependent on the availability of resourcing and competing interests.

Water safety roles and responsibilities required under Victorian legislation.

LEGISLATION

Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ORGANISATION

General safety provisions for land managed by Catchment Management Authorities

Emergency Management Act 2013 Emergency management coordination

Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958

Fisheries Act 1995

Local Government Act 2020

Marine and Coastal Act 2018

Marine Safety Act 2010

Parks Victoria Act 2018

Port Management Act 1995

Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005

Water Act 1989

Catchment Management Authorities

Rescue services that do not involve fires Fire Rescue Victoria

Ability to establish and enforce safety measures associated with fishing

General safety provisions for land managed by local government

Planning related to coastal areas of Victoria to ensure safe and appropriate use from an environmental, social and economic perspective

Ability to establish and enforce safety measures associated with recreational boating on coastal and inland waterways

Articulates voluntary requirements for waterway management

General safety provisions for land managed by Parks Victoria

Risk assessment for user safety in ports Port maintenance activities to ensure safety for users.

Rescue services and assisting search and rescue in Victorian waters

General safety provisions

Victorian Fisheries Authority

Local Government Authorities

Crown land managers

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action

Department of Transport and Planning

Safe Transport Victoria

Parks Victoria

Department of Transport and Planning

Victoria State Emergency Service

Waterway managers

4.2 Understanding and assessing risks

The Victorian Government Risk Management Framework (2020) describes the minimum requirements government departments and public bodies must meet to show they are effectively managing statesignificant, inter-agency and organisational risks.40 They must also consider and define their risk appetite within their risk management policies and show a positive risk culture based on this framework.

Organisations involved in water safety have a common aim to identify and assess hazards or potential incidents that may cause death or serious injuries. However, they each focus on the risks connected to their water safety function/s and any waterbodies within their remit.

Unsurprisingly this focus on function influences each organisation’s understanding of water safety risks.

For example, LSV considers risks from the perspective of the person at risk of drowning. LSV is involved in drowning prevention, lifesaving and lifeguarding, and MSAR. STVic has a different approach as Victoria’s transport safety regulator. It assesses risks for vessels and waterways, and monitors the safe operation of recreational marine activities, but does not consider safety risks faced by swimmers or others near the water unless they come in contact with a vessel.

Many organisations involved in water safety follow the risk assessment process in the Australian Standard because they are directed to do so. The Victorian Government Risk Management Framework directs government departments and public bodies to follow the Australian Standard or similar. The Australian risk management standard – AS ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – Guidelines (Australian Standard) is based on the International Standard ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – Guidelines. Risk assessment is central to the risk management process.

Using the Australian Standard process, risk assessors identify the sources of risk, analyse their likelihood and consequences, and evaluate the results to inform prevention measures.

4.2.1 Understanding individual risk

One of the most practical ways of understanding risk is to examine the characteristics of the people who drown, where and when they drowned, and what they were doing before they drowned. This information can be used to identify patterns, trends and risk factors to inform planning and investment in prevention initiatives.

This approach is used across many public health issues where risks relate to the person at risk and is used as the primary form of reporting drowning risk by both RLSSA and LSV. It allows the impacts of many different public health issues to be compared and can alert government to issues that are causing significant amounts of injury, disability and death.

LSV compiles and analyses drowning data to identify high-risk population cohorts, settings and activities, and, where possible, assesses how these variables interact. It publishes its findings in annual drowning reports based on information from the previous financial year. Its interim Aquatic Injury Prevention Agenda is released in April and includes data from the summer, with its timing scheduled to inform the coming year’s water safety public awareness campaign messaging.

LSV has been publishing its annual drowning report since 2006, which allows some variables to be assessed over time to analyse trends and the influence of key changes in drowning prevention strategies. It varies how data is reported, using a combination of rates per 100,000 of the population and percentages to inform a variety of audiences. The rates per 100,000 are useful for comparing between public health issues and drowning figures over time.

LSV has also modified its reporting methods over time. In its 2021–22 report, it shifted to presenting local data according to local government area rather than regions. This provides a more specific source of information to councils that can use the information to inform broader risk assessments or drowning prevention strategies.

In several forums observed by IGEM (including the Water Safety Taskforce), LSV was a strong advocate of the data being used to inform decision-making. LSV made offers to other organisations to support their analysis of existing reports or conduct additional analyses depending on the needs of the program. It provided regular updates through the taskforce in relation to ongoing drownings and provided commentary on whether short-term observations were unusual or aligned with past trends.

LSV’s drowning reports are well-received across organisations involved with water safety. They are seen as a comprehensive analysis of risk factors and strong representation of the adverse impacts of drowning in the community. Both LSV and other stakeholders reflected that the reports could be used to a greater extent, however, the clear trends were well-recognised across the state. In many cases, LSV would use its understanding of risks and trends to advocate and plan programs with relevant organisations, taking an active role in communicating the risks and promoting prevention measures. The quality of risk assessments that focus on individual factors is contingent on the quality and comprehensiveness of the data. LSV spends a considerable amount of time compiling and validating data to allow population-level assessments of individual risk. However, it is limited by the availability of data and its timely provision. This issue is discussed further in section 4.5 (p 75).

4.2.2 Environmental risk assessments

Environmental risk assessments are conducted for many reasons and may span large areas or specific aquatic locations. Land and waterway managers may assess risks to inform decisions related to access, design and infrastructure, or where to place patrols, rescue and first aid equipment.

There are three main types of environmental risk assessment occurring in relation to water safety: broad risk assessments of land and water managed by an organisation, assessments related to safe vessel use in Victoria’s ports and waterways, and targeted audits to assess a specific location and/or water safety measures that are (or could be) used to reduce drowning risks.

Victoria’s land and waterway managers such as Parks Victoria, DEECA, catchment management authorities and councils have broad obligations to ensure safety for visitors on land they manage. They have ongoing risk assessment programs to assess risks across their entire estates. Assessing risks in and around water typically falls within these broader programs of work.

Broad scale environmental risk assessments

Land managers have a duty of care to visitors and residents which requires them to assess risks related to the land and water they manage. The risk assessment methods and the planning subsequently required is highly variable, with few specific regulations or other requirements guiding work.

As a major land manager, Parks Victoria has a strong interest in assessing risks. It manages 70 per cent of Victoria’s coastline, 75 per cent of Victoria’s wetlands and 18 per cent of other land across the state. This includes 3000 land and marine parks which attract over 100 million visitors per year. One of its four strategic organisational goals includes connecting people and nature, indicating a strong motivation for encouraging safe use of the land and water it manages.41

Parks Victoria typically takes a broad approach to risk assessment and assesses all risks to visitors, including drowning risks. This activity informs decisions around signage, fencing and the location of walking trails and other infrastructure. It also assesses specific locations (for example Eurobin Falls) to develop a risk assessment matrix and outline basic risk mitigation strategies.

Parks Victoria recently conducted preliminary mapping work to identify visitation patterns and their proximity to waterways. It presented initial findings to the Water Safety Taskforce but the work is still underway and not yet informing prevention measures.

Other land managers take a similar approach where possible. However, for smaller land managers, the level of sophistication of risk assessment is understandably lower. There are no guiding principles or requirements to inform risk assessment.

LSV conducts waterway risk assessments for land and waterway managers (for example, statutory authorities and councils) on a fee-for-service basis. Waterway risk assessments have primarily been conducted along the coastline, however, LSV is working with land and waterway managers to increase assessments of inland waterways. The magnitude, focus and approach of the assessments vary according to the needs and available resources of the contracting party.

While LSV may advocate for assessments in certain locations, it is not accountable for ensuring waterways are assessed and requires the permission of the land or waterway manager to conduct the assessments. The land or waterway manager is then responsible for responding to any identified risks.

The marine transport sector considers the risks associated with vessels and how they are operated on waterways. It is guided by transport safety legislation including the Marine Safety Act 2010 and the Port Management Act 1995, developed by DTP.

The Marine Safety Act imposes a range of duties on those who make, sell, buy and operate vessels. It also specifies requirements for marine safety infrastructure and equipment. This Act describes the concept of ensuring safety but not explicitly how risks might be identified, assessed or managed. Under the Act, boaters, waterway and local port managers, STVic and the public share responsibility for managing marine safety. Of these groups, the Act only details the safety duties of boaters and local port managers.

The appointment of waterway managers is historical. Although appointed under legislation, STVic explained that the role is voluntary and waterway managers can step away at any time. The role of waterway manager is not specifically funded, so there are no financial obligations or agreements to acquit.

STVic directly manages a small number of waterways, together with statutory authorities like Parks Victoria, councils, regional water corporations and designated committees of management. Parks Victoria is also a local port manager. Statutory authorities like the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority are also local port managers, as are councils and committees of management. Ports Victoria manages the safe transit of vessels into and out of the state’s commercial ports.

Under the Marine Safety Act, accountability for risk management is the responsibility of the person best able to control that risk. Managers of waterways are appointed under the Water Act 1989 and the Marine Safety Act for different purposes: to manage water resources, and safe marine operations respectively. The Water Act appoints resource, environmental and storage managers, with each role having different obligations. There is no list of who manages which waterway and under which Act. Stakeholders said the roles and responsibilities are not clear and it is often difficult to determine who is accountable for managing a waterway, particularly inland waterways.

Land tenure arrangements add a layer of complexity. In many cases, the waterway manager is different to the manager of the land surrounding or adjacent to the waterway. The Murray River is a significant example of this (see section 6.4, p 128).

Parks Victoria signage at children’s ponding area Serendip Sanctuary (Source: IGEM)

Vessels, ports and waterway risk assessment

The Port Management Act explicitly requires port managers to identify and assess risks to the users of their port and the port environment as part of the development of their safety and environment management plans. In addition, port managers must report annually on their safety (and environmental) performance outcomes, and have their port safety and environment management plan independently audited every three years. This annual report may or may not discuss water safety risks and/or how they were identified and assessed. The audit, however, must include a review of the port manager’s identification and assessment of safety risks.

The Ministerial Guidelines: Port Safety and Environment Management Plans stipulate that local port managers must follow the Australian Standard, or similar, to identify and assess risk.42

Ports Victoria’s focus is on commercial shipping however it considers the safety risks for all port users in its navigational risk assessments. Interactions between commercial and recreational vessels are a key risk area, particularly inside or on the edges of shipping channels.

Stakeholders said that the water safety risk assessments of ports were more robust than those of other waterways. They attributed this to the Port Management Act, which has built-in assurance mechanisms and is more prescriptive in its requirements than the Marine Safety Act.

An independent review of the Victorian ports system conducted in 2020 found that the safety and environment provisions of the Port Management Act have been largely effective in assisting port managers to identify and manage safety and environmental risks in their port in a more coordinated or organised manner than would otherwise be the case.43

Finding 4.1

Many organisations appointed as waterway managers do not fully understand or accept their obligation to assess water safety risks because the roles and responsibilities of waterway managers are not clearly documented.

Targeted audits and risks assessments

An audit is an on-site verification activity to ensure compliance with a set of requirements. Checking compliance can be used to measure risk but the audit itself provides an opportunity to look at current hazards and risks.

STVic audits waterways against the scheduled Vessel Operating and Zoning Rules as part of its regulatory role and shares its findings with the waterway manager. STVic advised the audits are the primary way it ensures navigational aids and signs are compliant. However, hazards and risks associated with a waterway’s current conditions, including its physical characteristics, who is using the waterway and how, are also considered. This information also helps STVic assess the effectiveness of existing controls (navigational aids and signs) and recommend any changes.

LSV conducts signage audits on behalf of land and waterway managers, again on a fee-for-service basis. The signage audits check for compliance with the Australian water safety signage standard (AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags) and recommend new signs or changes to existing signs to ensure consistency across the waterway. Similar to its waterway safety assessments, LSV must work with land and waterway managers to determine the nature of the signage audit, and address any issues with signage.

4.2.3 Emergency management risk assessment

Although the emergency management sector is responsible for water rescues and has come to provide some structures to support the coordination for water safety, drowning risks are not traditionally considered in emergency management risk assessments. While devastating for those impacted, they are not considered to be major emergencies.

State level

Drowning risks are not considered in the statewide emergency risk assessment, Emergency Risks in Victoria (2020).44 Despite a cumulatively high number of fatalities, each single drowning incident is typically managed at the incident tier, seldom escalating to the regional or state tier, and treated as single incidents that are usually handled within business-as-usual operations. They do not have catastrophic or state level impacts or consequences.

…the community doesn’t necessarily see the risk as well. And probably the nature of the drowning incidents, because… it’s not like a major flood or fire, those sorts of things, where it’s very obvious to the community, about the dangers and hazards that are occurring. So, it’s not necessarily as obvious to the community, unless they’ve been directly affected.

Stakeholder

There is currently no dedicated state-level plan for water safety or water rescues. The SEMP articulates the water safety roles of some organisations but does not provide a comprehensive description of all water safety roles. Many risk assessment and prevention elements of water safety are not included in the plan. This is not unusual across other hazards as the SEMP is intended to outline broad responsibilities to guide planning and activity and is not intended to be a detailed operational plan.

The SEMP describes LSV’s mitigation and response roles, and responsibilities in relation to drowning prevention, water safety promotion, patrolling and water rescues. It specifies VicPol’s role as control agency for water rescue, and nominates VICSES and FRV as emergency responders. VFA is nominated to provide vessels upon request to assist in emergency responses.

VicPol and STVic have enforcement responsibilities in relation to safety on waterways, with STVic also being required to provide advice on transport safety matters. AV’s role in water rescue is not explicitly documented and VFA’s enforcement role is also not recognised. The EMC’s role and EMV’s water safety activities are not explicitly outlined either.

The SEMP’s representation of water safety largely reflects the nature of drowning and water safety in the context of emergency management. Many of the mitigation activities are conducted through other programs of work, outside of emergency management. For example, the role of DJCS in campaigns is not reflected but aligns with its broader portfolio of strategic communications. Many organisations with roles in water safety would have other guiding documents to drive their activities in drowning prevention.

The SEMP does not allocate broad responsibilities for assessing water safety risks at the state level. It does, however, include two water safety risk-related activities that are site or location-specific which LSV undertakes on a fee-for-service basis:

 pool safety assessments for aquatic facilities

 aquatic risk management services for managers of coastal, inland, and urban waterways.

Regional and municipal level

In Victoria the Regional Emergency Management Plans (REMPs) and the Municipal Emergency Management Plans (MEMPs) do not routinely include water safety as it does not qualify as a major emergency. While the plans and their associated planning committees provide an opportunity for a greater degree of local planning, neither the REMP or MEMP process requires the routine consideration of water safety.

No REMPs currently include water safety. Although the Barwon South West, Gippsland, North West Metro and Southern Metro Regional Emergency Management Planning Committees are responsible for planning to three nautical miles from their respective shores none of the committees identified drowning or marine search and rescue as a risk in their REMPs.

At the municipal level several Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committees (MEMPCs) have considered water safety either in the MEMP or assessed drowning as a risk in their Community Emergency Risk Assessment (CERA). Four MEMPCs included drowning in their risk assessments under the rescue category: Bass Coast, Colac Otway, Queenscliff and Surf Coast. In addition, the Mornington Peninsula committee identified drowning as a risk in its MEMP.45

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 advocates for working with local partners to manage local risk as one of three key pathways to improve collaboration and coordination in drowning reduction. While the MEMP and REMP processes would seem to provide opportunities to increase local planning, there are multiple constraints related to role clarity and resourcing which prevent this from happening effectively.

This is in part demonstrated by the lack of any MEMP subplans in the municipalities where drowning has been assessed as a risk. Of the four MEMPCs that have assessed drowning through the CERA, none have progressed with a comprehensive subplan to address identified risks as it becomes increasingly difficult to assign prevention tasks to organisations who have few direct obligations in relation to water safety.

Effective planning is also improved through the involvement of subject matter experts. Although LSV expressed interest in having a greater presence at both the regional and municipal level to provide subject matter expertise in risk assessment and planning activities, it is not currently resourced to provide this. The number of committees (79 municipal and eight regional) makes LSV’s participation a resource commitment it cannot currently meet.

A contributing factor to MEMPCs’ reluctance to assess drowning risks is ongoing concerns in relation to liability. As key drivers of most MEMPCs, councils are reluctant to formally assess water safety risks as part of the development of the MEMP without dedicated resourcing to implement prevention measures.

Regardless of these issues with local risk assessment and planning, LSV has developed tailored information to better support water safety risk assessment and planning at the municipal level. This includes developing disaggregated drowning data by council using the postcodes of drowning incident locations. It also listed high-risk municipalities where there have been more than five fatal drowning incidents between July 2012 and June 2022 in its 2021–22 Victorian Drowning Report 4

Observation 4.1

By their nature, water safety hazards and risks do not fit easily into Victoria’s arrangements for assessing emergency risks.

Finding 4.2

State, regional and municipal emergency management planning committees have not systematically considered drowning as a hazard in their risk assessments because a water safety incident is not considered a major emergency.

Observation 4.2

The Community Emergency Risk Assessment process may be a useful tool for municipal emergency management planning committees of local government areas with a high number of drowning fatalities.

4.3 Consultation and communication

In the context of risk management, consultation and communication are important to obtain information and feedback to support decision-making and promote awareness and understanding of risk.

Organisations involved in water safety have occasionally gathered information from communities of interest, local residents and visitors to specific locations to inform their general understanding of risks. The former Transport Safety Victoria, for instance, commissioned studies to assess the safety attitudes of two communities of interest: boaters (2014), and canoeists and kayakers (2016).46, 47 LSV surveyed Mornington Peninsula beachgoers in 2017 to determine their recall of safety signage information.48

However, organisations tend to consult with their stakeholder bodies or groups rather than communities. Local port managers are required under the Port Management Act to involve tenants, licensees and service providers in the development of their Safety and Environment Management Plans. The Marine Safety Act also includes the principle of participation, consultation and involvement of all affected persons – although this seems to apply more to the formulation of prevention strategies than the identification and assessment of risk.

In terms of communication, other than published reports, organisations involved in water safety only appear to share their risk assessment findings within their industry. This suggests there is little blending of ideas or ways of thinking about water safety risks.

Observation 4.3

Organisations involved in water safety do not systematically involve local communities, communities of interest or the public in the identification and assessment of water safety risks.

Recreational kayaking (Source: Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions)

4.4 Data and information

Data and information demonstrating drowning risks are essential to inform strategy, policy and actions. While there is a reasonable amount of water safety data available, there are gaps and inconsistencies in the metrics used, and organisations can be limited in their ability to collect accurate data in a timely manner. Organisations involved in water safety use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data from different sources to inform their identification and assessment of risks. As a result of these challenges and differences in practices, it is not possible to collate the available data to form a statewide picture of drowning risk.

Collecting quality data to inform risk assessments is challenging, particularly as organisations rely on others to provide at least some of the data they need. In many cases, organisations are not able to obtain all the data they need to fully understand risks. These gaps in datasets can be due to inconsistent or infrequent data collection and/or errors in data entry and coding.

As an example, STVic manages only a small proportion of Victoria’s waterways. Building a current, statewide picture of vessel-related risks relies on the availability and good will of many waterway managers providing STVic with up-to-date information on their waterways’ hazards and risks. Identifying and assessing hazards and risks takes resources, as does extracting and sharing this information.

Gaps are also due to relying on data that has been collected for other purposes. For example, there is no routine collection of non-fatal drowning data. Instead, organisations rely on emergency department presentation or hospital admission data which is collected and coded to suit medical purposes, not water safety risk assessments.

Collecting data from bereaved family members or friends is sensitive. It is unsurprising therefore that data variables like the swimming ability or cultural background of people who have died by drowning are common gaps.

There is, however, a reasonable level of depth and consistency for coastal risk assessments, based on the database compiled from the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. The program is funded by the Australian Government and coordinated by SLSA. It has catalogued and rated the safety of more than 11,000 beaches including most of the beaches of the Victorian coast and Port Phillip Bay.49

Unfortunately, there is no equivalent to this program for inland waterways, and data and information on the physical characteristics of inland waterways remains a significant gap. Drowning data for inland waterways is also missing.

LSV can conduct risk assessments of the physical characteristics and water safety infrastructure for any aquatic setting – inland or coastal. These assessments are conducted on a fee-for-service arrangement and can be tailored to the needs of the land or waterway manager. While helpful, their uptake is not widespread enough to inform a statewide picture of risk.

How data is collected and reported, and the timing of its availability can make it hard for organisations involved in water safety to make evidence-based decisions. Stakeholders said sourcing accurate, relevant data was challenging and that their ability to validate data was limited. Many compile their own datasets, however this approach is cumbersome, inefficient and does not address all information gaps.

As an example, in order to identify the cultural background of people who drown, LSV compiles data from a variety of sources to produce the metric ‘born overseas’. While the information demonstrates an increased risk for people born overseas, it cannot be used to target specific programs and campaigns for specific cultural groups.

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 recognises the variable quality of current data and the impact this can have on decision-making. It includes the expansion of ‘research and data to underpin policy and decision-making’ as a foundational initiative. With the strategy’s action plan still to be finalised, there is no endorsed pathway to progress this initiative. However, IGEM supports the initiative as it would have broad impacts on the prioritisation of other water safety actions in prevention and response, and help to focus attention on scenarios where people are most at risk.

4.4.1 Risk exposure

A major limitation in Victoria’s understanding of water safety risk is the lack of knowledge about population risk exposure. Knowing a cohort’s level of exposure helps organisations assess relative risk and target safety interventions appropriately.

Data continues to demonstrate that males are the most at-risk cohort in Victoria. However, it is not clear if this is because they participate in water-related activities more often (significantly higher risk exposure) or some other factor.

Knowing more about risk exposure helps organisations understand why a particular cohort is at risk, or why specific locations or activities are particularly dangerous. This knowledge can influence the way those working in drowning prevention design and deliver water safety interventions.

Participation and visitation data is one way to improve our understanding of risk exposure. Participation data, however, is generally only available for organised events or activities. Visitation data provides a slightly different perspective of risk exposure as it includes those who intend to engage in water-related activities and those who do not (but could still be at risk of slipping, tripping or falling into water).

However, visitation data is limited. To collect it accurately, organisations need to have pre-existing, proven mechanisms in place.

In the absence of participation or visitation data, organisations involved in assessing relative water safety risks tend to use population figures. This assumes that everyone in the selected population could potentially visit a waterway and be exposed to risk. It provides a crude drowning rate per 100,000 population. The resulting figure does not account for visitors to the area, so is less accurate for locations that attract tourists (increased risk exposure).

4.4.2 Communicating data

How organisations choose to present data usually depends on the audience. It is commonly thought that numbers and percentages are more easily understood by non-public health audiences than rates per 100,000 population. LSV’s drowning reports use percentages and likelihood ratios (for example twice as likely or 3.5 more at risk) to capture major risks and trends. This makes it easy for readers and decisionmakers to understand the extent of the issue in isolation.

However, numbers and percentages do not factor in population growth, so comparing them over time is difficult. Differences in how percentages can be calculated also make it hard to compare between settings, cohorts and activities.

The number of drowning-related fatalities in a given period is relatively low – in the tens rather than the thousands. Calculating percentages from small numbers can make a result look more, or less, important than it may be, especially when comparing them over time.

LSV uses a mix of numbers, percentages, likelihood ratios and crude drowning rates per 100,000 population in its drowning reports. Numbers, percentages and likelihood ratios are typically highlighted, with crude drowning rates mentioned in the text. In some reports the toll is described as the crude drowning rate per 100,000 population for that year, and in others as the number of drowning deaths that year. The slightly different presentation of data in LSV’s drowning reports can make it difficult for readers to use them to compare data over time or in different contexts. However, IGEM recognises that the annual drowning reports are intended to be a broad account of risk and impact and LSV is open to providing greater levels of analysis and data sharing upon request.

4.4.3 Sharing data and information

Across all organisations involved in water safety, there is a reasonable amount of data available. However, it is not readily available to all interested parties and it may not be in a format that is useable.

Sharing data and information is not straightforward and has been problematic across the emergency management sector more broadly. The Strategic Roadmap for Emergency Management in Victoria 2022–28 recognises the need for a more informed approach to how data is collected, used, analysed and shared – particularly for risk assessments.50

Data and information sharing can be inhibited by privacy and confidentiality concerns, particularly when the information involves individual medical information or relates to a fatality. However, the obstacles can be practical as well. Incompatible data management systems, variations in the data metrics used and a lack of awareness of the potential value of specific information to others can limit data and information sharing.

In relation to water safety data, stakeholders said making formal arrangements with organisations is one solution to the challenge of relying on data sharing. For example, LSV and STVic have done this with numerous organisations to build the evidence base from which they make decisions and recommendations.

LSV maintains long-term agreements with the Coroners Court of Victoria for the provision of material or information on suspected drownings, as well as AV for the provision of data regularly throughout each year.

STVic has agreements with VFA and VicPol enabling it to share and receive data from these agencies. It has recently taken data sharing one step further, giving VFA officers access to a portal that allows them to look up registration and licensing data, and input vessel inspection details while in the field and at any time.

Example of Life Saving Victoria data (Source: Life Saving Victoria)

Stakeholders also talked about the value of sharing information and intelligence informally through regular meetings. LSV and AV routinely provide monthly drowning data as part of their agency updates at the Water Safety Taskforce (see section 3.1.1, p 49). STVic regularly meets with Parks Victoria because it manages two of Victoria’s busiest waterways – Port Phillip Bay and Western Port. STVic and VFA highlighted how worthwhile the regular meetings of the emergency management team convened by VicPol’s Water Police Squad are for sharing information and coordinating activity (see section 5.4, p 93).

Observation 4.4

There is significantly more information available about the physical features and potential hazards of Victoria’s coastal beaches compared to what is known about inland waterways.

Observation 4.5

Most organisations involved in water safety identify and assess water safety risks as best they can with the data available to them.

Finding 4.3

Collating quality data to inform the identification and assessment of water safety risks is challenging, and the resulting information gaps limit the accuracy and reliability of the risk assessments.

4.5 Effectiveness of risk assessment arrangements

Organisations involved in water safety assess risks and use the results to inform decisions on how to control and mitigate identified risks.

Understandably, organisations focus on assessing water safety risks within their remit and from their viewpoint. Stakeholders said they had a relatively good understanding of water safety risks within their domain, based on experience and available data.

However there is no overarching coordinated approach to assessing Victoria’s water safety risks to leverage the assessments conducted by individual organisations. Risk assessments are largely done in isolation to meet the needs of the organisation, and data sharing is limited and not supported by common agreements or systems.

Given the nature of water safety risks – demographic, social, behavioural and environmental – and the wide range of settings where water hazards are present, no organisation or entity has oversight of Victoria’s water safety risks. Without dedicated efforts to report risks and align risk assessment metrics and reporting methods, government’s visibility of statewide drowning risks is limited.

Individual organisations are motivated to understand risks related to the land they manage or the cohort of the population they interact with, mostly under broad obligations related to duty of care and safety. However, there are few specific requirements for conducting drowning risk assessments to increase water safety. Organisations conduct risk assessments based on their own level of resourcing and organisational needs.

The Port Management Act is an exception as it includes provisions for identifying and assessing water safety risks. While other organisations do not have the same legislated assurance mechanisms, there are good examples of high-quality risk assessments. Parks Victoria and LSV both have strong risk assessment processes, and both use a range of approaches and techniques to understand risk.

Organisational risk assessments will always be necessary and there are opportunities for organisations to share their individual strategies and processes to provide guidance to smaller organisations with fewer resources or lower levels of maturity in risk assessment. However, current practices lead to a fragmented and variable understanding of risk across the state.

One of the key limitations to a comprehensive understanding of drowning risks and impacts is incomplete datasets and inconsistent data collection. Across the many organisations with roles and responsibilities in water safety, there is a large amount of variability in data collection practices, and many measures are used to demonstrate risk and impacts. Organisations are often constrained by a lack of timely access to data, limited resources to collect and report data, and competing priorities which can result in inaccuracies and incomplete data.

Organisations assess risks to meet a variety of objectives, with drowning being one of many risks considered in and around the water. This may lead them to focusing on demographic, social, behavioural, vessel-related or environmental data to demonstrate risk and impacts. The different lenses through which organisations assess risk can also result in gaps and inconsistencies in data collection and makes it challenging to compile a statewide picture of risk.

While there are many examples of strong risk assessment processes in place, and an overall recognition of the importance of data, organisations have a variety of priorities to address, as well as different levels of ability to collect and report consistent data. Data-sharing may be delayed or inhibited by reporting processes and privacy concerns, and fragmented due to the use of different metrics, inaccuracies and incomplete data collection. The overall result is a piecemeal understanding of risk that makes it difficult to identify high-priority drowning risks and determine the most appropriate means of addressing them.

Finding 4.4

Existing forums and risk assessment practices do not provide an effective mechanism for organisations to build a comprehensive statewide pic ture of all water safety risks which makes it difficult for them to collaborate on identifying and prioritising activity, resources and funding.

Recommendation 3

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establishes an ongoing process to develop and maintain an evidence-based statewide picture of water safety risk. The process should:

(a) be collaborative and involve all organisations with roles and responsibilities in water safety

(b) consider demographic, social, behavioural and environmental risks

(c) identify data needs and collect data to resolve gaps

(d) include data and evidence sharing mechanisms and permissions

(e) be used to identify and implement priority actions to reduce drowning risks.

5 Prevention

Drowning is a major global public health issue that requires a comprehensive public health prevention approach. Primary prevention strategies focus on addressing key factors contributing to drowning:

 lack of knowledge, disregard or misjudgement of the hazard

 uninformed, unprotected or unrestricted access to the hazard

 lack of supervision or surveillance

 inability to cope once in difficulty.51

Primary preventions include removing the hazard (for example draining a bathtub or pond), creating barriers around the hazard (such as fencing around a residential swimming pool), or protecting those at risk through training, awareness raising or regulating certain activities.

Secondary prevention activities aim to prevent injury or death once a person is in a hazardous situation. This might include distress beacons, rescue equipment, and training lifesavers or community to assist with rescue and resuscitation operations, including the use of publicly accessible AEDs. These elements are covered in Chapter 7 (p 133).

Tertiary prevention focuses on reducing the risk of injury or death once a rescue or other direct intervention has been applied. This might include first aid, referral to AV, or aftercare.

Drowning prevention initiatives vary across Victoria. While commercial aquatic environments have strategies that use the prevention tactics outlined above, Victoria’s natural waterways are too vast and varied to provide the same level of vigilance or access to immediate healthcare.

In natural environments, everybody has personal responsibility to protect their own and others’ safety. This requires correct identification of hazards, knowing what to do, and making safer decisions. Much of Victoria’s drowning prevention work is focused on ensuring people have the right skillsets as well as influencing behaviour and decision-making around water.

Water environments can be unpredictable, but people’s decision-making contributes to risk. In many cases, people make choices between safety and risk. People choose to consume alcohol or wear a lifejacket. They choose to swim between the flags or seek out remote locations. Drowning prevention initiatives attempt to influence these choices. It may be that people do not fully understand unsafe conditions or diminish the risks in favour of the reward of doing what they want. Human behaviour is subjective and influenced by many things.

The primary prevention strategies discussed in this chapter address attitudes, knowledge and physical access to areas of risk. The secondary prevention strategies discussed address the regulation of equipment.

5.1 Water safety campaigns

Government communications and campaigns use marketing strategies to influence community behaviour through safety messages. Communications are often straightforward, such as instructions or information-sharing. Campaigns have the more complex aim to raise awareness of issues and create behaviour change.

No single government organisation is responsible for administering water safety campaigns and communicating water safety information to the public. LSV and DJCS have the primary role in leading water safety communication, with other agencies providing amplification of those messages or supporting messages relevant to their function. 52

5.1.1 Safety themes

Water safety applies to everyone, and this presents a challenge to find consistent messages that are relatable and translatable to everyone, under every circumstance. There are common themes across international, national, state and local water safety messages. These include the importance of:

 learning to swim

 swimming under lifeguard supervision (between red and yellow flags)

 avoiding alcohol and drugs around water

 wearing an appropriate flotation device

 having a buddy or making sure someone knows where you are

 knowing the weather and water conditions

 keeping small children within reach around water.53

Surf safety also includes common general messaging about how to identify a rip and what to do if caught in one. The core of common messaging is a desire for people to actively assess the risk each time they approach the water and have a healthy respect for the danger.

Royal Life Saving Australia Keep Watch campaign

Australia’s national water safety campaigns deliver high-level messages to broadly appeal to Australians and visitors. The primary campaigners at this level are RLSSA, SLSA and Kidsafe Australia. These not-forprofit organisations manage campaigns with financial support from the Australian Government. The campaigns consist primarily of creative digital assets such as images and video, with media promotion through syndicated television shows and newspaper articles.

Risks vary across Australia, but some are consistent across states and territories. National water safety messages include both surf and inland waterway safety. They target men and parents of young children, supported by campaigns intended for all Australians and visitors.

Data indicates that men and young children are also overrepresented in Victorian drowning statistics. As such, LSV and DJCS target the same audiences, using slightly different, but complementary, campaign strategies.

Observation 5.1

State and national campaign activities complement each other as there are common target audiences and consistent water safety messages. The overlap in both target audiences and water safety messages has served to reinforce safety messages.

5.1.2 Play it Safe by the Water

Victoria has benefited from a collaborative approach to water safety messaging for over 25 years. The PISBTW program represents Victorian organisations with roles and responsibilities in water safety across government, industry and community. It was established as a Victorian community and government partnership in 1998 in response to a surge in drowning incidents.

Over the summer of 1997–98, Victoria experienced 16 drowning incidents over 19 days, including the tragic loss of four children from one family at Gunnamatta Beach in the Mornington Peninsula National Park. The first water safety TV commercials aired later that year.

Over the decades, the PISBTW program has maintained the annual Water Safety Campaign with additional communications and activities during Water Safety Month in December. It evolved and expanded from the initial campaign remit to include practical, open-water swimming programs, multicultural swim safety programs, advocacy for home swimming pool fences, and the standardisation of beach safety signage.

The committee provides subject matter expertise and support for public relations activities such as media articles, social media and LSV-managed events, and the high-profile seasonal campaign managed by DJCS. Member organisations can apply for funding support for programs and activities (known within PISBTW as industry tactics) that align with PISBTW priorities.

PISBTW community and industry organisations lead a variety of programs and activities that are funded wholly or in-part through a grant process. They cover a range of activities including organisation-specific campaigns such as backyard pool safety messages from Kidsafe Victoria, practical water safety skills for high-risk groups, and events and sporting clubs dedicated to open water activities and safety skillsets.54

The PISBTW committee continues to broaden. Current members include: LSV, DJCS Strategic Communication, ARV, Surfing Victoria, STVic, Australian Sailing, AUSTSWIM, Swimming Victoria, Kidsafe Victoria, Triathlon Victoria, Kiteboarding Victoria, Canoeing Victoria, YMCA, Belgravia Leisure, Parks Victoria, VFA, Boating Industry Association of Victoria, VR Fish and Dragon Boating Victoria. LSV advised that anyone with a vested interest in water safety messaging may join. This allows water safety messaging to reach diverse audiences, and for people to hear from the organisations they trust.

The committee itself holds no accountability for water safety but provides a valuable platform for networking, collaboration and access to the program’s longstanding brand recognition and reputation. LSV’s drowning reports and its interim AIPA guide all PISBTW activities.

The committee uses LSV’s AIPA which is timed to capture the previous summer’s drowning statistics and describes existing and emerging water safety trends to inform upcoming seasonal campaigns. The AIPA also informs the annual campaign target audiences and provides the basis for prioritisation of funding for programs and activities.

Drowning deaths dropped after the introduction of the campaign in 1998 and the delivery of water safety programs in the following years, but this number has since plateaued, and recently surged again.55, 56

Observation 5.2

Play it Safe by the Water has evolved beyond an enduring and trusted brand with a 25-year legacy to become a useful platform for collaboration that aligns messaging across broad groups of stakeholders and delivers targeted initiatives to high-risk groups.

5.1.3 Campaigns and target audiences

PISBTW participants conduct a range of communications activities, targeting their activities according to their respective causes and communities. These activities are largely targeted at the two highest risk audiences identified by the AIPA as being overrepresented in drowning statistics. The primary target audience is males – particularly from multicultural backgrounds – and a secondary audience of parents and carers of young children aged 0–4 years.57, 58

Play it Safe by the Water campaign

These cohorts are the respective target audiences for the Unsinkable Guy, and 20 Seconds is All it Takes (20 Seconds) campaigns. DJCS manages both campaigns, providing communications expertise while maintaining close consultation with LSV and Kidsafe Victoria.

Reducing child drowning injuries and deaths has been PISBTW’s core focus across 25 years, reflecting the enduring risk of this cohort. The national Keep Watch campaign, delivered by the RLSSA, began in 1995 and PISBTW joined the cause with its first campaign in 1998.59

Seasonal campaigns

In 2015 DJCS launched the 20 Seconds summer campaign for parents and carers of children aged 0–4 years. The campaign showed how quickly a child can drown in a pool, bathtub or dam. This key message continues to be reinforced in the present campaign that urges parents to always keep children within arm’s reach around water.

Campaign assets are delivered using paid advertising on channels such as digital, social and radio. LSV and Kidsafe host paid advertising on their social media channels as these are organisations known and trusted by parents. They are available in multiple languages and also distributed through multicultural community radio and social media channels.60 PISBTW committee members are provided with a stakeholder kit annually to help further disseminate campaign messages to their communities.

Raising awareness and changing behaviour among parents and carers of young children is complicated as people only care for young children for a few years before their family risk profile changes. As such, Victoria’s ongoing campaigning to raise awareness of water safety risks for young children has been an appropriate and worthwhile approach.

DJCS evolves campaign key messages based on focus group research. Currently, DJCS is planning to refresh the creative campaign materials to address gaps in awareness, such as times of distraction or the risk posed by small, daily-use water containers such as buckets and eskies.61

Unfortunately, the overrepresentation of men in drowning statistics continues to be an issue. Each year, three out of every four fatal drownings are males.4 In response to this, PISBTW has targeted men’s water safety since 2015, with the Don’t Drink and Drown campaign focused on men aged 25–39. In 2019 the Victorian Government launched the Know Your Limits campaign with a broadened target audience of men between 25-64 and inclusion of a strong focus on multicultural community representation.

In 2021 DJCS continued to refresh the campaign with the introduction of four Unsinkable Guy inflatables that engage in risky behaviours such as not wearing a lifejacket or consuming alcohol around water.

Over the 2022–23 summer, the Unsinkable Guy campaign challenged men to consider how the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted their fitness and their familiarity with aquatic environments.60 This approach was supported by the existing Think Again campaign, which targeted younger men from Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese and Arabic cultures. The male audiences continue to be the primary priority of the campaign, which is delivered via television, radio, press, digital and social media (including inlanguage).

The annual Water Safety Campaign budget has been fixed at $1 million for more than a decade, and while funding has remained stable, it has reduced in real terms against consumer price index and inflation. The program’s target audiences and broader schedule of work have evolved and expanded, requiring the budget to be used to reach two key target audiences and address specific sub-groups through supporting campaign activities.

The budget has been used for a short-burst seasonal campaign focused on the primary audience, with some market testing and evaluation. A smaller portion of annual funding is channelled toward the secondary audience of parents and carers of young children, using graphic-based, paid social media advertisements.

To increase overall effectiveness, DJCS applies a strong evidence base to manage both campaigns. It uses the AIPA to prioritise target audiences and qualitative focus groups to better understand them. It also conducts annual evaluations of reach and engagement that show that target audiences have strong unprompted recall of key messages, which continues to improve over time through message reinforcement. Regularly refreshing the campaign messages and creative design supports stronger message recall over time.

Finding 5.1

Campaigns to raise awareness of water safety use drowning data to identify target audiences, and conduct thorough testing and evaluation to inform key messages and assessments of effectiveness.

Finding 5.2

Communications funding has effectively reduced over time as it has not increased with the consumer price index and is now used to resource more sophisticated campaigns for multiple target audiences.

Water Safety Month

Water Safety Month is an annual communications campaign by all participating PISBTW members, centrally coordinated by LSV. It takes place during December when the weather warms up and participation in water recreation activities surges.

LSV provides PISBTW members with a pack including weekly themes, target audiences, digital campaign assets and localised statistics. Member organisations are encouraged to boost all water safety messaging efforts while LSV boosts public relations engagement through media and community events.

SwimSafe

SwimSafe is both a program and a localised communications campaign designed for public pools and aquatic centres. Aimed at adult vulnerable swimmers, it primarily targets people with known medical conditions or disabilities that impact their swimming ability, as well as people from multicultural communities who may not have had much exposure to swimming lessons and water safety.

SwimSafe campaign materials include brochures, posters, pull-up banners, endorsement stickers and reusable silicon wristbands that allow attending lifeguards to easily identify and keep watch over unconfident swimmers.

LSV evaluated the SwimSafe communications across participating aquatic and leisure centres and events in 2016 and 2017. The evaluation found several barriers to effective implementation including visibility of the posters and brochures among other promotional material; language accessibility; and that the models looked too confident or did not represent those who had identified themselves as vulnerable swimmers.

Positively, the evaluation also identified that people who noticed the material were more likely to notify a lifeguard that they were a non-swimmer or not confident in the water. The evaluation led to several improvements to the print materials, while also demonstrating strong support for the program outcomes.62, 63

Multicultural communities

Any water safety campaign in Victoria must consider its reach and relevance among multicultural communities. Victoria is the most culturally and linguistically diverse Australian state or territory, with just under a third of Victorians speaking a language other than English at home.

Unfortunately, there is limited evidence collected on the key language and cultural characteristics of people who drown, which would support more direct resources to specific multicultural communities. The available metric bluntly assesses whether the person was ‘born overseas’. This makes it difficult to target high-risk multicultural communities.

As such, DJCS produces content in a range of languages most commonly spoken in Victoria.64 It then tracks reach into and engagement of multicultural communities. Communications are distributed to multicultural audiences using a range of tactics, including publishing online and in print news such as Times of India and Viet Times as well as video platforms like WeChat.65

VFA has much greater interactions with fishing communities and has developed a strong understanding of the language spoken and cultures represented among fishers. It uses this knowledge to extensively tailor its information and safety messages to many different languages and cultural contexts.

Boating also has high participation among multicultural communities. STVic promotes safety information in Chinese, Vietnamese and Greek during peak boating season. However, language may still be a barrier for many, as the STVic website information, including Prepare to Survive content and video, is only available in English. Objective five of the Victorian Recreational Boating Strategy 2021-2030 includes the translation of boating safety education into other languages.66 Engagement with boating communities is further discussed in section 5.4 (p 93) and in a case study (section 6.1, p 110).

5.1.4 Effectiveness of campaigns

Communication campaigns can influence people’s awareness of and attitudes toward personal risk in and around water. As water safety applies to everyone, developing messages that are powerful, relatable and can reach target audiences presents a challenge.

Victoria prioritises its target audiences through research data provided by LSV’s drowning reports and the AIPA. These audiences had good recall of key messages post-campaign, but behaviour change takes time.

In-line with the AIPA, DJCS, LSV and VFA have a strong focus on reaching multicultural communities and providing culturally relevant safety information. STVic also provides some information in languages other than English, but most of its online and printed content is only available in English.

Victoria’s PISBTW program provides a useful platform for collaboration between organisations invested in the water safety agenda as well as a powerful brand reputation and legacy. There is an opportunity to apply a shared behaviour change methodology across participating organisations. While individual organisations may affect behaviour change within their spheres of influence, a behaviour change methodology applied across water safety would connect and integrate all prevention activities.

Despite strong campaign recall among the Water Safety Campaign's target audiences, general community recall of water safety messaging has declined steadily since LSV began tracking in 2004 (see Figure 3).

Participant recall of water safety information in the past 12 months (Source: PISBTW consumer tracking report and program evaluation 2021–22)67

Across the intervening years, stronger message recall has correlated with the refresh of campaign creative and messaging. Recall declines over subsequent years and this trend is supported by examples from Know the Five (see section 5.3.2, p 88) and the Think Again campaigns. This drop in awareness prompted DJCS to invest in new creative designs during 2022.57, 68

General community recall amongst Victorians was higher for national level, long-term campaign messages. In 2021–22 the most recalled message was swimming between the flags at 38 per cent, followed by supervising children at 36 per cent.67 Each of these messages have been consistent elements through decades of national campaigns.

The overall decline in message recall reflects several issues facing water safety campaigns, including a rapid increase in population and broader diversity in that population without an associated increase in investment to achieve message cut-through.

Observation 5.3

Water safety campaigns receive a boost in awareness among target audiences when the creative concepts and assets are refreshed every couple of years.

Finding 5.3

While the target audiences of specific campaigns show good recall of key messages, general awareness of water safety messaging has significantly declined since 2004.

Swim between the flags is the most recalled message (Source: Life Saving Victoria)

5.2 Community engagement

Community engagement is an important means of raising awareness and promoting safer behaviours in and around the water. Organisations with roles in water safety typically understand the characteristics of the communities they engage with, and the water safety risks they are exposed to. They are well placed to plan appropriate community engagement opportunities and conduct them as part of business-as-usual operations. Government, industry and community organisations tailor their style and method of engagement to suit community risks, preferences and participation trends.

The ways in which various organisations engage with communities varies greatly. Communities may be high-risk cohorts, groups of people who participate in aquatic activities or place-based communities, and the varying nature of these communities require different engagement approaches. For example, members of boating, paddling, or fishing communities engage as individuals or small groups, and may travel significant distances.67

Other communities may be at risk because they visit a particular location. AV’s Summer Smart campaign material incorporates water safety messages with other summer health and safety tips such as heat stroke and hydration. Materials are distributed via public outlets at Victorian summer holiday destinations and through welfare check-ins with vulnerable community members.

As it suggests, face-to-face engagement means connecting with people about their points of interest. This can be through parental support services, clubs and associations, recreational-centred events such as boat shows and field days, promoted education opportunities, and during the day-to-day interactions of regulation enforcement.

Most water safety engagement occurs as a component of broader engagement. It often forms part of a conversation to encourage participation in particular activities or visitation to certain places. The information can be explicit about the drowning risks associated with a particular activity or location, or built into discussion to encourage water safety. For example, park rangers may suggest visitors explore aquatic attractions that are known to be safer and encourage people to follow the trails and look for signage.

STVic and VFA engage the community through targeted engagement activities such as hosting safety education events in the community or at boating and fishing clubs. They also hold pop-up stalls offering safety inspections of lifejackets.

STVic’s community engagement strategy also includes attendance at non-boat-related events such as agricultural, four-wheel driving, and camping shows. This strategy has had some success as these events draw on many of the same people who enjoy outdoor and water recreational activities.

Unfortunately, engagement with communities that participate in popular but unregulated or niche activities continues to be an issue, particularly when the activities are not centralised at a single location. For example, it is difficult to engage open water swimmers and anyone can swim in an inland waterway or off the coast. As there is no need for any license, membership or purchase of equipment, there are also limited touchpoints for engagement about safety. In these environments, engagement relies on individuals noticing and adhering to local signage, and applying the safety messages they may have heard or seen through communication campaigns and water safety programs.

Observation 5.4

Engaging people at events that are not water-related but draw the same target audiences can be an effective way of imparting safety information, especially to audiences who may not gather as communities at any other time.

5.2.1 Online community engagement by land and waterway managers

There are good examples across Victoria of website and social media being used to raise awareness of water safety and provide practical information to people visiting waterways.

Online methods are a cost-effective way to share information with residents and visitors and provide an opportunity to link website visitors to content prepared by water safety subject matter experts.

Several councils link to the national SLSA-run beachsafe.org website, which contains extensive safety information as well as information on patrolled beaches and how busy each beach is. The Surf Coast Shire embeds this information onto its beaches page, making it easier for daytrippers to find a safe location to swim between the flags.

Parks Victoria provides online general water safety advice for a range of natural settings, including beaches, rivers, lakes and waterfalls. This information is linked through general visitor information and when accessing information about national parks and waterway or coastline attractions (for example Erskine Falls – Great Otway National Park, and Wilsons Promontory National Park).

Currently, this type of online engagement is not guided by any standards or principles, and each land and waterway manager can include information based on its own consideration of water safety risks.

Tourism related websites are similarly variable with some online content promoting Victoria’s beaches and inland waterways including safety messaging, but not all do. DJSIR Tourism and Events works in partnership with LSV to embed water safety messages into mainstream tourism information, such as the Victoria Map. The official state tourism website visitvictoria.com.au includes beach safety advice and further links. Regional tourism sites such as Visit 12 Apostles or Visit East Gippsland include safety information, but the amount and its placement within websites varies considerably. It can also depend on how a website user accesses the content. For example, water safety information may be linked at a general tourism page, but not on site-specific content. Despite being readily available, there is no consistent leverage of national or Victorian water safety information provided by LSV, RLSSA or SLSA.

Surf Coast Shire online information (Source: Surf Coast Shire)

Water safety information in online content needs to be considered among other useful information, particularly when the content aims to encourage tourism. Water safety is one of many safety issues visitors must consider. There is a risk that overwhelming the online user with information about the myriad of risks they face when visiting a particular location may deter their visit completely, or reduce enjoyment.

Observation 5.5

The presence of water safety information is highly variable across government websites, tourist information sources and the online content of land and waterway managers. There are opportunities for greater coordination and collaboration to increase the amount, consistency and value of online information by linking to trusted information sources.

5.2.2 Effectiveness of community engagement

Community engagement to improve water safety occurs as a part of many organisations’ business-asusual interactions with communities. In many cases there are no specific strategies or programs to guide engagement, and the promotion of water safety occurs alongside promotion of participation in particular activities (for example boating and fishing) or visitation to attractions and regions.

Currently, there are no multi-agency strategies to coordinate community engagement. Although the Water Safety Taskforce and ongoing relationships between some organisations has provided opportunities for greater collaboration, this is not widespread. In addition, despite recognition that community engagement provides a good opportunity to promote water safety in a targeted manner, there are no active strategies to increase current community engagement activities. In the absence of strategies to increase engagement activities, there are opportunities to use materials and resources produced by key water safety organisations to greater effect in online and face-to-face mediums to increase the consistency of messaging and make more efficient use of resources.

Finding 5.4

Organisations recognise the value of community engagement in raising awareness of drowning risks, however there is a lack of collaboration and planning to increase the consistency, reach and efficiency of engagement opportunities.

Safe boating demonstration at Elmore Field Days October 2022 (Source: Safe Transport Victoria/Facebook)

5.3 Education and skill development

Education is an important preventative tool that can be used to improve water safety for all Victorians, especially those most at risk. Well-rounded water safety education includes both skill development (swimming and survival skills) and water safety knowledge.

A basic swimming ability is critical for safely enjoying water-based recreation. International research has shown that people who cannot swim 25 metres are 4.5 times more likely to drown.69 In Australia, being able to swim 50 metres and tread water for two minutes has become a recognised standard for water safety.

However, even people who can achieve this standard in a pool may still find themselves in trouble in coastal or inland waterways.

5.3.1 Background

In 2013, LSV conducted research that estimated 60 per cent of Victorian children were unable to swim 50 metres and 26,000 (40 per cent) were unable to float for more than two minutes by the time they finished primary school. Further, teachers estimated that 39 per cent of students lacked the knowledge necessary to avoid getting into danger in and around water.70

RLSSA subsequently convened the National Swimming and Water Safety Education Symposia which brought together subject matter experts from across government, the water safety sector, and academia. The symposia resulted in several action statements:

 strengthen school and vacation swimming and water safety programs in the community

 revise the National Swimming and Water Safety Framework

 set and report progress against a National Benchmark

 devise strategies to increase access and participation for those ‘at risk’

 improve availability and access to aquatic facilities

 increase the swimming and lifesaving skills of secondary school students.

Many of these aims have been achieved, but the more recent increases in drowning rates highlight the ongoing work required.

Recent research into the increased rates of drownings identified that many Australian children (47 per cent) missed out on swimming and water safety lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was more prevalent among children from low socio-economic, rural and remote locations, First Nations and multicultural communities.71 This research highlights the importance of supporting equitable access for school water safety education.

5.3.2

Swimming and water safety education

Swimming and water safety education have been embedded in the Victorian Curriculum since 2017. The Victorian Curriculum includes swimming for both Health and Physical Education and includes the Victorian Water Safety Certificate as a benchmark. This is leading practice in Australia. Other jurisdictions follow the Australian curriculum which does not make swimming and water safety education compulsory.

There are many differences in funding and delivery across the states and territories. For example, Tasmania is the only jurisdiction with a mandatory swim program, and other jurisdictions – except South Australia – require financial contributions from parents to cover the costs. The South Australian approach is fully funded but optional and has shifted away from swimming to focus purely on water safety.

In Victorian Government primary, English language and specialist schools, school swimming is funded through the School Resource Package to achieve the benchmarks outlined in the Victorian Water Safety Certificate. Catholic schools receive funding directly from the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.72 Funding for the initiative has continued to increase on a per student basis. Schools' funding is now based on the number of year six enrolments for primary school students and the total number of enrolments for specialist and English Language students. Schools in regional and rural areas receive a greater amount in recognition of the higher costs involved in running a program in regional areas.

On top of this, the Victorian Government announced Positive Start in December 2021 to assist students to get active and improve their emotional health and wellbeing after the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the $112.9 million, $16.3 million is provided to deliver more than 690,000 swimming lessons for students at government and low-fee, non-government schools.

For many schools, water safety education involves travelling to a pool with accredited teachers. In some cases, schools will have a suitable pool and qualified teacher(s) onsite. Regardless of the arrangement, teachers must be employed in line with RLSSA Guidelines for Safe Pool Operations requiring a:

 current CCP certificate issued by a Registered Training Organisation (RTO)

 Working with Children Check

 current swimming and Water Safety Teacher skill set endorsed as part of the Sport, Fitness and Recreation Training Package as delivered by an RTO, or a statement of attainment of other specific competencies delivered by an RTO.

The guidelines outline further competencies needed to teach infants, pre-schoolers, and people with a disability.

At the completion of the Swimming in Schools Initiative, students should be able to demonstrate a range of skills including:

 water rescue skills with a focus on land-based rescue

 a survival sequence (includes treading water for two minutes)

 the ability to swim continuously for 50 metres.

Once these benchmarks are met, students may receive their Victorian Water Safety Certificate from LSV on behalf of the Victorian Government.

In 2018 certificates were awarded online, simplifying the process and increasing visibility of recipient numbers. The effectiveness of this change was difficult to assess due to the COVID-19 pandemic preventing swimming lessons throughout large parts of 2020 and 2021. LSV and DE are currently working with schools to improve data capture to better assess students’ progress, attainment of certificates, and the types of water safety programs being delivered.

It is less clear the extent to which Victoria’s independent schools incorporate swimming and water safety education. These schools adhere to the national curriculum, of which swimming is a fundamental movement skill. However, they don’t align to the Victorian Water Safety Certificate or monitor student ability against its benchmarks. Anecdotally, independent schools often provide this education but there are no specific water safety benchmarks required and no mechanism to monitor student participation rates.

Non-curriculum swimming and water safety education

Many providers, government, community organisations and commercial businesses, offer a range of swimming and water safety education programs. These include government-supported lessons and education programs, private swimming schools, community-driven initiatives and LSV’s many education offerings.

A long-standing government-funded initiative is VICSWIM, currently delivered by ARV in partnership with DJSIR. VICSWIM has offered low-cost learn to swim and water safety holiday programs across the state since 1978. The program had record attendance in 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic and numbers are now recovering. The 2023 VICSWIM program had 19,460 enrolments across 191 venues and was supported by 380 staff.

Across the state, there are many swim schools that provide lessons to children and adults. The lessons may be run completely by private businesses, or offered by councils and other community groups with a cost-recovery or low-cost approach to lesson fees.

LSV water safety programs

LSV is funded to develop programs under the Victorian Government’s Public Water Safety Initiative. It currently offers multiple programs in coastal and inland waterways in response to the increased rate of drowning in these environments. LSV works with numerous schools, community groups, government organisations and councils to develop programs, run activities to build water safety and lifesaving skills, advise on program content and support program evaluation.

LSV’s activity in water safety programs is funded through a variety of sources, including government funding, philanthropic grants, fee-for-service and in some cases, in-kind support. Some of the government-funded programs are captured through LSV Common Funding Agreements with DJCS and DE.

One of the strengths of LSV in water safety education is its ability to be flexible and trial new ideas and adapt programs to different cohorts of the population or settings. It frequently pilots new programs on a small scale, working with a variety of partners or contracting parties to meet the needs of the cohort.

LSV typically embeds a program evaluation into its water safety programs to allow it to improve and expand on its programs, and uses the results to promote participation among other cohorts of the community. It also uses its internal research capacity to integrate best practice from water safety programs around the world, and test new concepts and ideas.

One example of this is the expansion of LSV’s iconic Nipper Education Program, or Nippers, which introduces children from five to 14 years to lifesaving. Nippers has been delivered at all coastal life saving clubs over summer for many years. In 2020, it trialled an expansion of the program to inland locations with further expansions in January 2023 school holiday to six regional locations, albeit with modifications made due to summer flooding. The program can now be offered at any location (beach, river, lake, or pool) through LSV’s education team, or its delivery partners.

LSV has developed and trialled a range of other programs, identifying target cohorts based on drowning data, emerging risks and community interest. For example, it expanded on the RLSSA Open Water Grey Medallion program at Torquay Beach in response to data demonstrating an increasing number of drownings among those over 55 years.

Driven out of necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic, LSV has also expanded its online and technologybased programs to provide water safety education options when practical lessons were not possible. The success of these programs has seen them continued and expanded in schools and other settings to complement practical lessons. For example, virtual reality water safety education through Google Expeditions was piloted as an immersive learning experience for students in the classroom. Run by a trained LSV instructor, the one-hour session included identifying and surviving rip currents, the importance of swimming between red and yellow flags, the dangers of rock fishing and how to signal for help.

Breakout Box 3: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of almost two years of swimming lessons across Australia. A 2022 Royal Children’s Hospital national poll found that almost half (47 per cent) of children missed out on swimming lessons and opportunities to develop water safety skills due to lockdowns.71

In Victoria, it is estimated that over five million lessons were missed with many swim teachers leaving the sector due to the casual nature of their employment and the ongoing closure of pools. LSV advised that there is currently a shortfall of more than 1800 swimming teachers.

A recent LSV survey highlighted that 82 per cent of swim schools are also concerned about staff shortages. 73 This exacerbates existing problems including the lower attendance at learn to swim programs by multicultural, lower socio-economic populations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and people with disabilities.74

There has also been a significant drop in the attainment of Victorian Water Safety Certificates. The sector is now concerned that a substantial proportion of eligible students lack the competencies required to achieve the benchmarks. The number of certificates declined from 26,717 in 2019 to 3501 in 2020, and 3723 in 2021. By December 2022 the numbers had increased to 7911.75

In response to this, the Victorian Government announced initiatives to reduce the lasting impact of COVID-19 restrictions including the School Swimming Outside of School Hours Voucher, providing catch-up lessons to students who missed out, and the Positive Start initiative.

To address the swimming teacher shortage, the Jobs Victoria Swim Teacher initiative provides $3.4 million to train 280 people through a partnership between Jobs Victoria and the Australian Swim Coaches and Teachers Association.76 DJSIR is also providing the Youth Aquatic Accreditation Program to provide young people with skills to pursue or continue career opportunities in the aquatic sector. At the time of writing 663 successful candidates had participated and there is ongoing work to encourage greater renewals of qualifications and more regional participation.

Finding 5.5

There has been significant investment by the Victorian Government to compensate for the large number of missed swimming lessons and shortage of swimming teachers caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.3.3 Effectiveness of education and skill development

One of the key strengths of Victoria’s education arrangements for both children and adults is the leveraging of research to inform program prioritisation, design and delivery. Extensive work by RLSSA and LSV has identified key risks and trends, and this information has been used to develop targeted education programs. Another key strength is the embedding of water safety within the Victorian curriculum.

Despite the extensive research, there are still many gaps in knowledge of water safety competencies across the Victorian population. A key issue remains the lack of available data from schools on children’s water safety competency. This issue was also highlighted in a DE Parliamentary Secretary Inquiry into swimming in schools in late 2019. DE is addressing these gaps by adding questions to the principal’s survey and utilising a new attendance code for schools to track lessons delivered under the Swimming in Schools Initiative. These changes helped DE capture the increase in participation and completion of the Victorian Water Safety Certificate for 2022.75

Despite the increase in completion of Victorian Water Safety Certificates in 2022, the numbers are still low. Increasing student certificate attainment was a specific focus of the Parliamentary Secretary Inquiry. As discussed in Breakout Box 3 (p 91), the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated closure of public swimming pools and swim schools disrupted the positive momentum in swimming education and issuing of certificates.

There are also compounding issues with swim teacher availability and the maintenance and safety of public swimming pools, especially in regional and rural areas. This means that in some areas, even if there is demand for water safety lessons, there may not be the teachers or facilities required to deliver them. There has been significant government investment in swimming lessons to support the achievement of the Victorian Water Safety Certificate benchmarks, however there is no specific requirement for swimming lesson providers to issue the certificates. Some private swim schools are receiving government funding through the Swimming in Schools Initiative, but do not align themselves to the certificate. For example, some private schools have comparable certificates with different branding. DE and LSV are aware of these issues and are working with the private swim school sector to improve uptake of the Victorian Water Safety Certificate.

Outside of the school setting, there are numerous programs available to adults and children that focus on water safety education, recognising risks and developing practical swimming and rescue skills. Currently, programs vary considerably, with some widely available long-standing programs such as VICSWIM, alongside location or population specific community programs highly tailored to meet the needs of the community.

Currently there is no way to monitor participation of children in the school and non-school programs. Programs are not coordinated to ensure equitable access across all parts of the state and to all cohorts of the population. That said, organisations such as LSV are highly responsive to community needs and will endeavour to support programs where there is interest and resources permit.

Observation 5.6

There is ongoing work being undertaken by the Department of Education and Life Saving Victoria to increase the uptake and monitoring of student attainment of the Victorian Water Safety Certificate. Additional data collection will improve monitoring and evaluation of student water safety progress and competence.

Finding 5.6

Victoria's approach to funding and embedding swimming and water safety within the school curriculum is leading practice, providing equitable access to students at Victorian Government primary, specialist, English language and Catholic primary schools.

Finding 5.7

Victoria has well-established swimming and water safety programs funded by the Victorian Government including low-cost learn to swim programs delivered through VICSWIM and a range of indoor, coastal and inland waterway programs delivered under the Public Water Safety Initiative by Life Saving Victoria.

5.4 Recreational boating and paddling safety

Recreational use of boats and personal watercraft (PWC) is a high-risk aquatic activity that is steadily increasing in popularity. Recreational boating includes powered vessels and watercraft, stand-up paddleboards, kite surfing, kayaks, dinghies, yachts and towed water sports. One in ten Victorians now regularly participates in recreational boating along Victoria’s coastline and inland waterways.

Boating is also associated with 11 per cent of Victoria’s drowning fatalities and many more instances where boaters require assistance. In 2020–21 alone there were 1248 boating-related incidents recorded.

Flat batteries and old fuel cause the highest number of marine incidents in Victorian waters. They occur most commonly in early summer when boaters take vessels out for the first time after a winter of inactivity. While commonplace, marine incidents like these are rarely deadly if boaters can remain safely in the vessel while waiting for assistance. However, if the wind picks up or the weather turns, the risk of a vessel capsizing increases. Victoria’s cold waters can quickly become deadly, especially without a lifejacket.

The Victorian Coroners Court has made numerous recommendations to the Victorian Government on recreational boating safety based on the circumstances of avoidable deaths. Recurring themes include:

 vessels not being fit for purpose, particularly second-hand and ageing boats

 lack of a practical component to marine licence testing

 people not wearing lifejackets.

Further coronial recommendations have been made on distress beacons and flares, signage, and intoxication. There has been extensive effort in responding to these recommendations, often through new or strengthened regulation.

Four organisations manage Victoria’s on-water recreation regulations – DTP, STVic, VFA and VicPol’s Water Police Squad. DTP coordinates policy and support for the Minister for Fishing and Boating and is responsible for setting marine safety legislation and regulations. STVic regulates marine licencing and vessel registration for recreational boating.

VicPol’s Water Police Squad, STVic and VFA are the main enforcers of marine safety compliance. Parks Victoria, port authorities and other waterway managers provide additional resources, with STVic appointing staff from these agencies as Transport Safety Officers (TSOs).

DJSIR administers the Better Boating Fund, which was established in 2020 to invest marine licence and vessel registration fees back into boating infrastructure and programs. VFA coordinates the fund, which also provides funding to STVic and EMV’s MSAR unit to deliver components of the program. While VFA primarily manages fishing resources, fishing is one of the primary reasons for recreational boating. Rock fishing along Victoria’s rugged coastal shorelines is also a popular but dangerous activity which is further discussed as a case study in section 6.3 (p 123).

5.4.1 Legislation

Four main legislative frameworks provide functions and powers to the Victorian Government to oversee marine safety.

 The Marine Safety Act 2010 covers recreational licencing and offences, as well as management of waterways and harbours, pilotage services, and the Better Boating Fund.

 The Transport Integration Act 2010 establishes the Office of the Safety Director which is responsible for administering marine safety regulations as per the Marine Safety Act.

 The Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 prohibits vessel operators from being under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

 The Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 empowers the enforcement of compliance monitoring and investigation.

Together these Acts guide the Marine Safety Regulations, covering registration, licencing and offences. DTP recently reviewed the regulations under its 10-year renewal cycle with the amended Marine Safety Regulations 2023 coming into effect on 11 June 2023.

STVic’s Approach to Regulations guide states these should be set at the option with the lowest impact that will achieve the desired outcome. With this in mind, awareness and education are the priority.

5.4.2 Awareness and education

Research conducted in 2015 identified that the majority of Victorian boaters and paddlers did not consider their recreational trips to be risky, while agreeing that it is a dangerous pastime for novices.46 In 2019, Maritime Safety Victoria, now part of STVic, launched a campaign to improve safety preparations and boating behaviours. The campaign targets all boaters and paddlers in Victoria, using the VicRoads database to reach boat owners and industry campaign research methodologies to reach paddlers.77 The campaign focuses on five specific behaviours for a safer boating and paddling experience:

 know the weather

 practise getting back on your vessel

 lock in a buddy plan

 carry a distress beacon

 wear a lifejacket.

Prepare to Survive | Know the Five campaign

Over four years, the campaign evaluation noted consistently strong agreement among boaters that preparation is the best way to be safe on the water, but a reduction in agreement among paddlers. It also noted few boaters and even fewer paddlers do all five behaviours.

Stakeholders advised that there has been a recent increase in paddling activity but that it can be difficult to reach paddlers with safety messages as the activity does not require any registration, licensing or training and paddlers often participate without affiliating with a club.

A large proportion of boaters also engage in fishing. VFA promotes Prepare to Survive safety content and tailors all its fishing information and safety messaging to multiple communities. Multi-language content is based on the communities most regularly encountered during field operations.

In discussions with IGEM, VFA described its current approach to working with community leaders to review and provide feedback on material to ensure translations have the right context and phrases. STVic and VFA also engages face-to-face with boaters and fishers from multicultural communities through regulation enforcement duties, hosting lifejacket safety and awareness sessions and fisheries education.

VFA also undertakes strategically targeted education activities with priority multicultural communities. It adopts a support-to-comply approach by identifying cultural fishing practices and working with leaders from targeted communities on how to provide culturally relevant and trusted messages to their communities.

Observation 5.7

The Victorian Fisheries Authority plays an important role in providing boating and water safety education, particularly to multicultural communities.

5.4.3 Marine licensing

There is no national approach to boating and watercraft skills education. Each state and territory sets different learning requirements for marine licensing.

In Victoria, a marine licence is required to operate a powered recreational vessel of any kind. Victoria’s marine licence test is designed to be passable by a person aged 12 years or older and is primarily bookbased. A person may study the Victorian Recreational Boating Safety Handbook on their own to take the test or attend a course by a certified training provider. STVic publishes the handbook with information on regulations, compliance, emergency procedures, licensing, and registration. The handbook also includes rules and safety requirements for PWC.

To attain a licence applicants must successfully answer a multiple-choice, knowledge-based test at a VicRoads customer centre or through an approved registered training provider. There are additional questions to gain an endorsement for PWC such as jet skis, wave runners and other motorised personal vessels. There is no practical skills assessment.

Victoria’s licensing requirements differ from Queensland, NSW, Western Australia and Tasmania where applicants are required to prove their practical skills and capabilities to obtain a marine licence. This takes the form of an approved boating course, a series of practical tests under the observation of a licenced person, and/or a skills assessment on the water.

In 2008, Monash University evaluated the competency of people who sat Victoria’s knowledge-based test against the Western Australian practical assessment. During the evaluation, only one participant passed and 30 per cent failed more than half of the tasks.78 A 2011 DTP internal options paper included this research to inform the 2012 Victorian Marine Safety Regulations. The paper recommended a practical assessment, but it was not introduced. DTP cited cost-benefit reasons for not including a practical assessment and that doing so would present barriers to entry for new boaters.79

As early as March 2004 the Victorian Coroner recommended a practical component to marine licensing. It has been recommended numerous times since. Predecessor organisations to STVic response letters to the coronial recommendations showed support for the initiative, pending departmental changes to the Marine Safety Regulations. The change was not proposed during consultation in 2022 and the updated Marine Safety Regulations 2023 do not include a practical component requirement for marine licences, despite receiving support from a variety of stakeholder submissions.79 Support was especially strong for requiring a skills assessment for PWC.80

STVic advised there is an appetite in the community to participate in practical training. STVic also noted that, for the past 15 years, most marine licensed operators sought out a boating course before obtaining a licence.

Objectives five and seven in the Victorian Recreational Boating Strategy 2021–2030 contain actions to revise boating safety education and consider strengthening licensing reform. This includes a consideration of practical licence testing and hands-on training and assessment. However, the regulatory window for this will not open again until 2032.

The Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 recognises that the popularity of both powered and nonpowered recreational vessel use has increased substantially in recent years and acknowledges that some operators are taking vessels into the water with limited experience. However, associated proposals to address this issue and increase the entry-level knowledge of new boat users do not currently involve any additional skills testing as part of marine licensing.

Finding 5.8

There is no requirement for new boaters to demonstrate skill proficiency before they go onto the water as marine licence and personal watercraft endorsement tests are paper-based. Practical tests have been repeatedly recommended by the Victorian Coroner since 2004.

Observation 5.8

Community consultation on the proposed 2022 Marine Safety Regulations showed strong support for introducing a practical component to marine licencing, particularly for a personal watercraft licence endorsement.

5.4.4 Boat ownership and operation

Victoria’s marine regulations stipulate how fast vessels may travel, how much distance to maintain from other people and vessels using the waterway, the safety equipment onboard, boat registration, and licensing requirements. As noted previously, the Victorian Government aims to regulate water safety proportionately. Whether regulations apply at all, or how much, depends on the level of risk. This is assessed through consideration of the size of the vessel, speed, distance from shore, and type of marine environment.

Paddle craft like kayaks and stand-up paddleboards are only capable of low speeds and remain relatively close to shore. Paddlers therefore do not need to hold a marine licence or register the vessel. People onboard can easily end up in the water, so Victorian paddlers must wear a lifejacket at all times. Wind-powered sailing boats, or any vessel up to 12 metres in length, have a similarly low level of regulation, with requirements limited to the need for lifejackets to be worn at all times.

Regulations require that any vessel with a motor must be registered and the person operating it must hold a marine licence. Yachts and motorised vessels capable of travelling faster and further require additional safety equipment such as torches, bilge pumps, smoke signals, a radio and a beacon.

In Victoria, owners and masters are both responsible for ensuring they are aware of and confident in their vessel’s physical integrity and safe use. However, there is no requirement to seek an independent, qualified person to provide assurance or certification of the vessel. The same is true when purchasing, transferring, or registering a vessel. The onus is on the buyer to satisfy themselves that the boat is safe and suited to their intended purpose.

Vessel fitness is defined in marine regulations by seven criteria relating to hull integrity, steering, ventilation, flammability, buoyancy, and an engine kill switch. The Marine Safety Act contains prosecutable offences under section 87(3)(4) that owners and masters of recreational vessels must not operate, or cause or allow a person to operate, the vessel if they know it to be unsafe. Stakeholders reported that prosecuting this offence is problematic as proving prior knowledge of safety is difficult.

DTP has previously considered adding regulations on vessel fitness. For example, requiring all recreational vessels to be inspected at prescribed intervals to ensure they meet relevant Australian Standards.79 These industry standards do not yet exist. DTP found that further regulation would not provide sufficient benefit against the cost of implementation. It maintains this position.

Deaths attributable to boating incidents are low when compared to other causes of death in the transport risk profile. STVic advised IGEM that there are approximately 5-10 deaths per year and that around two per year can be attributed specifically to poor vessel quality.

There are no current means of reporting on boating non-fatal drowning incidents and injuries, nor granular detail as to how or why incidents occurred. Under the Marine Safety Act, boaters must report accidents and serious near misses to VicPol, however, if the boater did not require marine rescue, this information often goes uncaptured. Without non-fatal drowning and injury data, the Victorian Government’s basis for assessing boat safety risk is incomplete.

There has been a recent surge in the number of second-hand vessels on the water. Stakeholders reflected that boat owners are keeping their vessels longer and an increase in vessel transfers shows that more boaters are purchasing second-hand. STVic and VFA observed that the number of ageing and potentially unsafe boats on the water is an issue. While research conducted in 2015 showed that boaters self-report good routine maintenance for their vessels, no objective data is collected on the fitness of Victoria’s recreational fleet.

Victoria does not have a system in place to accurately track vessels as they age, their condition or ownership history – the boat registration process tracks boat owners, not their vessels. The vessel registration form includes a description of the boat that covers the make, model and type and whether the vessel is new or second-hand. A boat owner may modify a vessel, let a registration lapse or sell the vessel, and the next owner may fill out a new registration form instead of a transfer form. As a result, a second-hand boat can be registered as a different vessel.

There are two initiatives that support boaters to ensure their vessel is fit for purpose: the Australian Builders Plate (ABP) and the Hull Identification Number (HIN). Victoria participates in the ABP initiative, requiring a plate to be affixed to all recreational boats built after 21 October 2009. The plate provides information on where and how a powered recreational boat may be safely operated, loading capacity, maximum engine power and floatation performance. The boat builder or importer is responsible for affixing the plate. Second-hand vessels are exempt from this scheme. The ABP itself contains generic information and does not identify an individual vessel or its owner.

Victoria does not currently participate in the HIN scheme, also known as the boat code, which has mixed take-up across Australia. The boat code identification system is mandatory in Western Australia, South Australia and NSW. It identifies a vessel by an individual code that can be tracked through owner registrations and transfers.

Heading out (Source: Better Boating Victoria/Twitter)

Tracking ageing vessels captures data to support compliance operations and inform future policy. The boat code provides second-hand purchasers with information about the age of the vessel, its ownership history, and any outstanding financial obligations. IGEM notes that the Victorian Recreational Boating Strategy includes actions to improve and implement the ABP Standard and promote desirable vessel safety features, as well as to examine the implementation of the national HIN scheme.

DTP advised that a targeted compliance approach to vessel safety would be the most cost-effective, efficient, and preferred way of addressing the issue of ageing vessels. Under this model, compliance officers would conduct risk-based operations to spot and detain unsafe vessels or conduct inspections as part of compliance duties.

Enforcing vessel safety is beyond the current scope of most compliance officers, other than ensuring the carriage of correct safety equipment. In December 2022, VFA implemented guidance for Fisheries Officers to watch for and direct unsafe vessels back to shore. While a compliance officer may direct a vessel to shore if they suspect it to be unsafe, they do not have the authority to detain it under the Marine Safety Act. While they may advise STVic, which may then issue a direction, this process takes weeks and is rarely used. Stakeholders also advised that relying on regulators in this way would first require clear and mandated safety parameters to assess vessels against.

DTP maintains the position that a new initiative for vessel inspection would need major and sustained investment which is not supported by cost-benefit analyses undertaken by the department. STVic also advised that despite having likely benefits for safety, a comprehensive vessel inspection program would be costly and is not currently resourced.

Observation 5.9

Victoria does not have a system in place to track ageing vessels or require owners to undertake a safety check. This means vessels can be used with significant safety flaws and authorised compliance officers are limited in their powers to prevent unsafe vessels from being operated or compel appropriate safety improvements.

5.4.5 Lifejackets

Water temperature can greatly affect the ability of even strong swimmers to remain afloat for long. A lifejacket is a crucial piece of safety equipment that keeps a person afloat and with their head above water. It protects the wearer through the initial danger of cold shock and buys time until assistance or rescue arrives. The importance of wearing a lifejacket increases with proximity to and the likelihood of ending up in the water.

Personal flotation devices come in a range of buoyancies suited to different water environments and activities. The term ‘lifejacket’ is usually restricted to devices with the highest buoyancy and a collar design that keeps the head above water. IGEM uses the term lifejacket for simplicity and plain English purposes.

Victoria is a leading state on having strict lifejacket laws. Victoria’s Marine Safety Regulations 2023 stipulate that lifejackets must be worn under specific circumstances, which vary depending on the wearer, activity, time, vessel, and environmental conditions. Victoria has also introduced a trial of mandatory lifejacket wearing for rock fishers at 10 hotspot locations across the state, issued through a Fisheries Notice under the Victorian Fisheries Act. Rock fishing is discussed in greater detail as a case study in section 6.3 (p 123).

Different rules apply to vessels of different sizes and whether that vessel will encounter times of heightened risk such as ocean bars and low light. Children under 12 years old must wear a suitable lifejacket at all times. This age increase from 10 years to 12 years was included in the amended Marine Safety Regulations 2023 and aligns with other states and territories.

While Victoria’s lifejacket laws are strict, enforcement can be challenging as the complexity of lifejacket regulations can be difficult to communicate. ‘Times of heightened risk’ is a nuanced concept and compliance officers only have small windows of opportunity to observe boaters during these times.

Observation 5.10

Victoria is a leading state for lifejacket regulations in Australia, requiring lifejackets to be worn during more boating and fishing activities than many other states, reflecting the heightened risk of Victoria’s cold waters.

5.4.6 Monitoring and compliance

Marine Safety regulations are enforced by VicPol’s Water Police Squad and STVic’s TSOs or Maritime Safety Officers. Staff from external agencies can be appointed as TSOs, including staff from VFA, Parks Victoria, port authorities or other waterway managers.

STVic and VicPol’s Water Police Squad resources are concentrated in populated areas close to Melbourne, including Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay. They may also be deployed to regional areas for strategically targeted enforcement operations, where visitation has increased at particular locations or there has been an identified uptick in unsafe behaviours.

VFA conducts high-volume inspections in regional areas. It has 18 stations across Victoria, strategically located by waterways. VFA inspections are focused on regulating recreational fishing activities. Given its strong regional presence, VFA also undertakes safety checks on lifejackets, licensing, registration and other safety equipment such as flares and navigation lights. VFA shares regional data and safety concerns with the Water Police Squad and STVic.

Patrol operations are targeted using seasonally popular locations and non-compliance trends. This approach is an efficient use of resources and is necessary due to the impossibility of patrolling the extent of waterways across Victoria. There is a heavy reliance on VFA to conduct both fisheries and marine safety checks in regional areas beyond the two bays of the central Melbourne area. VFA advise that the arrangement works well, particularly with recent opportunities for joint patrols.

In 2020, key organisations involved in the regulation, policy and enforcement of water-based recreation formed an EMT, led by VicPol and involving Parks Victoria, Ports Victoria, DEECA, DJCS, STVic, and VFA. The EMT’s initial scope was to ensure consistency when enforcing COVID-19 pandemic regulations. This arrangement proved so mutually beneficial that the team continues to meet regularly to focus on joint tactics for the prevention of incidents at high-risk locations or events. The EMT will develop a forwardlooking co-regulator plan that improves efficiencies and supports greater cooperative operations between organisations.

Finding 5.9

The Emergency Management Team coordinated by Victoria Police provides a valuable forum for boating and fishing regulators, enforcement agencies and waterway managers to increase efficiency and effectiveness of safety patrols.

5.4.7 Summary of boating and paddling safety

Drowning deaths and marine safety incidents occur because of numerous contributing factors in an already inherently risky environment. When analysed individually, the numbers for each cause or contributing factor are low. This poses a problem for marine regulators who seek to balance the need for safety rules and equipment against the burden or impost on the community, as well as the cost of administering and upholding the law. Any regulation must also be accompanied by effective, ongoing communication and culturally sensitive interactions with the community.

Voluntary uptake of safety behaviours is the preferred option for both government and the community. However, there is little consistency in knowledge and skills across the community, especially where cost, inconvenience and language pose a barrier. Although boat safety information is available in multiple languages – especially where there is a crossover with fishing information – key resources such as Prepare to Survive content and the Victorian Boat Safety Handbook are only available in English.

Paddlers of all kinds are an emerging priority for safety messaging. This activity has become increasingly popular, but paddlers are difficult to reach, given they are not a cohesive community and have no requirements for licensing or registration.

Stronger safety interventions could be added to existing, regular interaction points with government processes. For example, including a practical component to marine licence testing or adding a HIN to the registration and transfer of vessels. There is community support for introducing a skills assessment for marine licensing, particularly for the PWC endorsement to operate a jet ski. This would align Victoria with most other states. In addition, the HIN scheme provides opportunities to gain independent assurance that vessels are safe and fit for purpose, and to capture valuable data to target campaigns and investments.

Currently, many of the options for strengthening boating and paddling safety measures are undermined by a lack of information and data to demonstrate the impact of boating incidents. Increasing licensing and regulatory requirements comes with economic costs and can potentially deter participation, therefore it is highly appropriate that the benefits of changing safety measures are balanced against potential negative outcomes and costs. However, reliable and accurate data demonstrating the impacts of boating incidents is largely limited to fatality information. This means that costs (economic and social) associated with non-fatal drownings, injuries, damage to other vessels and infrastructure, and rescue and enforcement activities are likely to be considerably underestimated.

Victoria has examples of strong regulatory safety measures and positive enforcement practices. It is a leading state for lifejacket requirements. Victoria also has a strong network of regulators and marine transport agencies in marine safety across the state. While there are opportunities to improve coordination between and resourcing of regulators, there are also existing plans underway toward those goals. The Victorian Recreational Boating Strategy 2021–2030 identifies the issues raised in this section with commitments to consider, examine, and investigate options.

Finding 5.10

The data available to demonstrate the impact of boating incidents is limited to drowning fatalities, which leads to the likely underestimation of costs and benefits associated with strengthening licensing requirements, safety inspections and other safety measures.

Sunset paddlers at Bonbeach (Source: Laura McDougall)

5.5 Pool safety

5.5.1

Public swimming pool safety

The safe operation and management of Victoria’s public swimming pools is guided by the Safer Public Pools – Code of Practice.81 The code aims to provide practical guidance for owners, operators, and duty holders to meet their legal obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and associated regulations. Application of the code is not mandatory but is recommended as a leading practice approach to meet these regulatory requirements.

The code of practice is based on a collaborative approach across EMV, LSV, DE, DH, DEECA, WorkSafe, and pool operators and owners. The code includes important minimum standards such as training requirements for lifeguards, swimming and water safety teachers, and staff administering first aid. The code also endorses other relevant documents such as the RLSSA Guidelines for Safe Pool Operation.

The code currently applies to public pools, including council-owned, learn-to-swim, early childhood, tertiary and higher education pools. It also applies to any pool where swimming lessons are being conducted. In its current form, the code excludes commercial accommodation providers such as resorts, motels, caravan parks and aged care facilities which are classified as residential pools.

Pool safety assessments are another tool outlined under the code. These assessments, undertaken by LSV, encourage pool owners and operators to improve the safety of their facilities. The process provides an overview of a facility’s performance against industry standards and expectations. They result in a safety assessment and risk treatment plan based on compliance and practical solutions to reduce identified risks.

Pool owners and operators are recommended to undertake a safety assessment on a regular basis informed by attendance numbers. For example, facilities with over 100,000 visits annually are recommended annual assessments. Assessment cost varies from $950 to $1950 based on the type of facility and are undertaken by qualified pool safety assessors in line with the code. The voluntary nature of the audits and costs associated reduces the incentive for broad uptake.

Since mid-2018, LSV has managed Victoria’s public swimming pool register, providing a publicly available list of all facilities and associated safety assessments. Of the 580 pools registered, 198 Victorian public pools undertook a pool safety assessment in 2021–22. This was an increase from 127 in 2020–21, representing just over 34 per cent of all public swimming pools in Victoria. Of the pools assessed in 2021-22, 40 per cent were undertaking annual assessments and overall there was a small decline in mean safety and compliance scores. LSV advised that since 2019–20, the proportion of public pools that have completed a pool safety assessment at least once in the last three years has dropped slightly from 57 per cent to 54 per cent.

Observation 5.11

Public pools managed by commercial accommodation providers (motels, hotels and caravan parks) are classified as residential pools meaning they do not have to comply with the more stringent safety standards associated with commercial swimming pools.

Finding 5.11

Most public pools do not conduct Life Saving Victoria’s voluntary pool safety assessments on a regular basis to ensure that they are performing in line with industry safety standards and the Safer Public Pools – Code of Practice, making it difficult to maintain oversight of safety.

5.5.2 Residential pool and spa safety

Drowning in a home swimming pool or spa is one of the leading causes of preventable death in children.82

Between 2000 and 2019 there were 27 fatal drownings of children in home swimming pools and spas. In 2020–21 there was a 90 per cent increase in drowning deaths in private or home swimming pools in Victoria, and a 61 per cent increase in bathtubs compared to the ten-year average.

The key contributors to drowning in the home are lack of supervision and non-compliant safety barriers.82 For example, the Victorian Coroner found that non-compliant safety barriers were associated with 20 of the 27 deaths outlined above. At least 12 of the children who died were visiting the property, and one child gained access from a neighbouring property.

A concerted effort over many decades has led to a significant reduction in these tragic events. This includes the introduction of pool fencing laws in 1991 and ongoing public awareness campaigns, advocacy, research, and policy development. Longitudinal national data indicates these measures were associated with a significant reduction in drowning deaths of young children aged 0–4 years, with estimates suggesting these measures saved 567 children’s lives between 1993–94 and 2017–18.

On 1 December 2019, in response to the repeated coroners’ findings on non-compliant safety barriers outlined above, new Victorian regulations came into effect. The Building Regulations 2018, under the Building Act 1993, require landowners to register their swimming pools and spas with their council. This applies to all pools and spas that can hold more than 30 centimetres of water (except for some relocatable pools). The laws also required landowners to lodge compliance certificates for safety barriers. The certificate can only be issued by a registered building surveyor or registered building inspector following an inspection.

A survey of council municipal building surveyors' experiences with pool barrier compliance was undertaken in late 2018 by the Victorian Municipal Building Surveyor’s Group Inc. in consultation with the Victorian Building Authority, MAV and DEECA. The survey of prior pool barrier compliance and enforcement activities across Victoria's councils raised several issues. These included high levels of variability across council audit processes, a lack of available council resources and all councils recording high rates of non-compliance with the regulations.83

The original deadline for registration of pools was extended to 1 November 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first lodgement of compliance certificates was also extended to 1 June 2022. Failure to register pools and spas by the deadlines can result in a fine from the relevant council.

The high level of non-compliant safety barriers coupled with extended lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have contributed to the doubling of children under five drowning in Australia during 2020–21. Of these deaths, the most common location was residential pools.4

In 2023, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office completed a performance audit to determine how effectively councils had implemented the private pool and spa safety barrier regulations, with a specific focus on residential pool and spa safety. The audit highlighted extensive backlogs in registration and certification processes. For example, the audit found that across Victoria 13 per cent of pools were not registered, and 44 per cent of pool and spa barriers that were required to be certified by 1 June 2022 remained uncertified.84 Several recommendations were made for councils to address these issues and develop improved procedures for regulation and compliance.

Observation 5.12

Despite regulatory efforts to increase water safety around the home, there are low levels of compliance to safety standards across residential pools and spas, as demonstrated by a Victorian AuditorGeneral’s Office performance audit.

5.6 Place-based intervention

Many of the locations people like to visit within state and national parks are associated with dangerous aquatic environments such as rivers, waterfalls, and surf beaches. Careful planning, design and use of infrastructure seeks to balance making public access as safe as possible while encouraging visitors to take personal responsibility for their safety.

Infrastructure design, location and use are important prevention tools for water safety. Primary prevention focuses on avoiding risky situations in the first place. Siting walking tracks, amenities, and other public facilities away from hazardous aquatic areas is one of the first opportunities for preventing water-related injury and drowning. The appropriate placement and maintenance of piers, jetties, and boat ramps is important as they facilitate public access to aquatic environments. Other structures, such as fencing and signage, can be used to restrict public access and alert people to the dangers posed by waterways.51

5.6.1

Roles and responsibilities

Requirements for the establishment of infrastructure and signage to prevent drowning are currently unclear, with accountabilities for safety complicated by complexities with land and waterway management roles and the nature of the risk. Land and waterway managers reported difficulty in understanding whose responsibility it was to assess localised drowning risks and subsequently plan and implement safety measures to reduce the risks.

There are numerous relevant legislated requirements requiring land and waterway managers to promote safety, however, none specifically pertain to drowning risks and water safety. Victoria’s planning schemes under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 outline appropriate use and development for all public and private land, including land covered by water. Any aquatic infrastructure within these environments must be engineered and constructed to safety requirements outlined under the Building Act and associated regulations.

Within national and state parks, the National Parks Act 1975 also requires a management plan be developed, which should focus on natural values, cultural heritage, bushfires, and visitor experiences, but also include broad consideration of safe public access. The associated National Park Regulations 2013 provide powers to prohibit or restrict public access within national and state parks for safety purposes. For example, dangerous aquatic environments in popular locations can be fenced off with signs to alert the public to the risks.

Similar powers exist under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and can be exercised to prohibit or restrict swimming in reserves for reasons of public safety. There is a current proposal to introduce new regulations under this Act to prohibit or restrict swimming within metropolitan and regional parks unless otherwise authorised.

Additional water safety considerations are found within some management plans including Joint Management Plans between Parks Victoria and Traditional Owner Land Management Boards. For example, the joint management plan for the Barmah National Park includes visitor safety, compliance and enforcement goals and strategies that focus on water safety risks such as drowning and diving accidents.

The lack of clarity is particularly relevant in settings where multiple organisations have specific responsibilities to address safety and/or general obligations for the safety of the public. For example, Parks Victoria may have responsibility for the land surrounding the waterway and STVic may be the waterway manager. The relevant council would also have a broad interest in the safety of its residents and visitors to the municipality. In this example, the water itself poses the hazard, but infrastructure and signage are likely to be placed on the land managed by Parks Victoria.

There is currently limited guidance to support land and waterway managers to determine roles and responsibilities in relation to preventing drowning risks, and the legislation and regulations assigning accountabilities are ambiguous. This was demonstrated in a review assessing Australian policy and case law for public safety in inland waterways which found:

The law is reluctant to find any acts of negligence by public authorities, owners and operators of inland waterways when serious injury or death occurs because there is no authoritative guidance to follow in this area.

Australian policy and case law for public safety in inland waterways (2022)

It highlights that even in dedicated court proceedings to determine liability, the law is unclear and accountability for assessing and responding to risk is open to interpretation. While the review focused on inland waterways, stakeholders involved in this review reported the lack of role clarity also applied to many coastal settings.

In most settings, organisations work together or take the initiative to independently establish infrastructure and signage to prevent drownings. However, resource constraints, combined with concerns related to accountability, can deter organisations from assessing risk and implementing place-based interventions to address this risk.

5.6.2 Infrastructure siting and design

Once a land or waterway manager has determined the need to establish some form of place-based infrastructure to address drowning risks, the type, siting and design of the infrastructure are largely at their discretion. There are some guiding frameworks available to inform decision-making and organisations may also consider coronial recommendations and the advice of organisations such as LSV, RLSSA and SLSA.

Upon recognising a drowning risk, there is a broad requirement to implement reasonably practicable measures. However, there are no standards or criteria to guide land and waterway managers in their decision-making on their level of intervention and the type of infrastructure. Individual organisations must balance the risks of allowing public access to waterways against restricting access partially or completely.

Draft national Guidelines for Inland Waterways, released by RLSSA for consultation in November 2021 provides some guidance on possible prevention measures and risk reduction strategies for land and inland waterway managers. IGEM observed early discussions encouraging Victorian participation in the national guidelines as it progresses in 2023–24 and notes that there is an intention to develop a Victorian Code of Practice.

Within the marine and coastal environment there are additional frameworks and guidelines for safe buildings, structures, and facilities. This is due to the environmental sensitivity of these areas, inherent water safety risks, and the importance of protecting natural amenity.85 As an example, under DEECA’s marine and coastal policy there is a requirement to use strategic and spatial planning for safe and sustainable recreation and tourism. The policy requires the design and location of marine-based facilities (including boat ramps, marinas, and ports) to consider and minimise safety risks and reduce potential conflicts between uses.85

It is evident that public land and waterway managers are using existing plans and guidelines to improve public safety in and around waterways and coastal environments. However, In the absence of more prescriptive water safety guidance, organisations are left to determine the level of risk that warrants intervention, and then the most suitable infrastructure to address the risk.

Finding 5.12

Waterway and land managers are adhering to general duty of care and safety provisions for visitors and users. There are no specific regulations or guidance in place for water safety on public land.

5.6.3 Water safety signage

Signage provides a low-cost option for drowning prevention. Signage can be used to encourage people to do the right thing, and to alert and educate them about the inherent dangers associated with surrounding waterways.

The use and design of water safety signage is guided by the National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, which outlines three important reasons for signage: informing users of dangers and other relevant information; protecting the land manager from litigation through a duty of care; and providing an economical alternative to ‘employing a person to stand at every access track into the reserve to inform people of dangers’.86

The manual provides clear guidance to land managers and facility operators on best practice siting and design principles. The manual draws on compliance standards for road, coastal and water safety signage and includes standardised symbols, sizing, font, wording, and guidance on positioning. It notes that some hazards are easily identified, such as cliffs and waterfalls, however, others are less obvious such as strong currents and dangerous marine life. Figure 4 provides an example of some standard hazard symbols used for water safety.

Water safety signage (Source: National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual 86)

On-water signage is also used for boating and watercraft safety. Information such as speed limits, navigation aids, hazards and restrictions are displayed for recreational water users in line with STVic’s vessel operating and zoning rules for Victorian waterways. STVic assists waterway managers such as DEECA, Parks Victoria, Gippsland Ports and Goulburn Murray Water to provide and maintain navigation aids and other signage for water levels, hazards, and water-based rules such as speed limits.

In 2006 STVic standardised its safety information signs at boat ramps. The new integrated information signs received positive feedback from boaters in a 2016 review. STVic is currently undertaking a review of navigational aids and boating safety information signs. Parks Victoria also upgraded boating safety information across Western Port Bay in response to an STVic audit.

There is ample guidance and standards in place for water safety signage on land and water. Audits have generally found signage to be compliant, with most of the upgrades focused on replacing aged and damaged signs.

In 2016 Parks Victoria undertook an audit of safety signage to determine effectiveness in influencing visitor behaviour. The audit focused on sites where serious incidents had occurred, including aquaticrelated incidents and fatalities. It found that overall, most signs met best practice principles and would be reasonably effective in influencing visitor behaviour. In addition, most signs were consistent with Australian Standards and the National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual.87

In December 2021 the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority also undertook an audit of signs across 80 beaches.88 It focused on the extent that accurate and relevant public safety information was being provided in line with Australian signage standards. This included an assessment of sign placement, style, and the included hazards are limited to four per sign for ease of interpretation. The audit found many absent, damaged and/or weathered signs along the Great Ocean Road and work is now being undertaken to improve the quality and consistency of signage along this coastline.

Over the years, the Coroners Court has also made recommendations to improve signage at car parks, boat ramps and other public access points. These recommendations seek to reduce the risk of harm and prevent other deaths by providing appropriate information about the risks associated with the aquatic environment, boating and other water-based activities. Many of these recommendations have led to improvements over time. For example, City of Port Phillip – the subject of several coronial investigations –now has over 200 signs covering all entrances to its beaches.

There remain, however, ongoing concerns in relation to roles and responsibilities for signage. Many land and waterway managers are unclear on the requirements for signage, particularly when tenure for land and water is held by different organisations, where facilities and infrastructure are managed by private or commercial owners, or in cases where public access is discouraged or prohibited. For example, there are many locations where the water is managed by one organisation, but the banks and surrounding areas are managed by another. While the water poses the risk, it is not clear who should erect the signage.

While signage provides important public information, studies have found its effectiveness in influencing people’s behaviour is limited. A study by LSV in 2013 into the effectiveness of beach signage found that signage recall was poor, with approximately half of all respondents not recalling seeing any signage at all.89 For respondents who did recall seeing signage, most recalled seeing hazard symbols, but when pressed, fewer than a quarter could recall the specific hazards.89

There is ongoing work by public land managers to conduct audits and evaluations of signage and infrastructure associated with water safety prevention. Given the broad reliance on signage, additional research is warranted to improve knowledge of effectiveness.

There are also further opportunities to integrate signage across land and water management boundaries for safety prevention purposes. Ongoing refinement and modernisation of signage is warranted; however, there are no current plans for when and if this work will commence.

It is important to note that appropriate siting and design of aquatic infrastructure, utilising barriers, and employing signage near dangerous waterways are of limited effectiveness without people taking personal responsibility for their safety. These preventative measures must work in conjunction with broader water safety campaigns and education.

Finding 5.13

There is clear guidance in place to improve standardisation in signage symbols, information and positioning. However, land and waterway managers are often unclear about the roles and responsibilities for determining the need for signage and then installing and maintaining appropriate signs.

Observation 5.13

Available research on water safety signage suggests that they provide limited effectiveness due to low levels of visitor engagement and recall of symbols and information.

Observation 5.14

There is a strong reliance on signage and personal responsibility across public land due to the practical limits associated with more direct engagement and enforcement activities across the vast public land estate.

5.7 Evaluating effectiveness

Water safety applies to a wide variety of people and circumstances. In Victoria, many different organisations engage with these audiences, meeting communities at their point of interest and in culturally relevant ways.

A range of measures are used to increase water safety, ranging from communications, skill development, regulation and education. For the most part, drowning prevention activities are based on available data and leading practice, and there is a strong culture of evaluation across many prevention programs.

This has led to the development and expansion of many high-quality prevention initiatives. There are numerous programs that range from wide-reaching, policy-based programs, such as DE’s curriculumbased swimming and water safety education program, to niche community engagement activities, such as the lifejacket safety sessions and fisheries education hosted by STVic and VFA.

Some measures such as communications and education aim to influence attitudes and knowledge to promote safer decision-making. Regulation and enforcement measures aim to deter unsafe and risky behaviour. There are also many measures in place that attempt to mitigate the risk by inhibiting access to the water, such as fencing around residential pools and spas, and the siting of pathways and fencing in Victoria’s inland and coastal parks.

IGEM notes that much of the work in drowning prevention is siloed. However, given the nature of drowning risks, it is necessary to have many prevention measures in place to influence safer behaviour in and around the water through as many mechanisms as possible. A well-rounded approach to drowning prevention involves a variety of organisations that focus on different types of risk, populations, settings and intervention measures. A siloed set of initiatives is not an inherent flaw of the system, however, it needs to be recognised and measures introduced to facilitate collaboration and coordination where there is value to do so.

IGEM observed very strong and long-standing examples of collaboration that has seen programs delivered in partnership, or has leveraged the strengths of multiple organisations to access high-risk populations with innovative and tailored programs and services. Examples include collaborative campaign work, facilitated through PISBTW where members with strong links to target audiences have taken a lead role in sharing content developed by others with expertise and capacity to develop and test the content.

A strong example of collaboration is related to recreational boating where VicPol coordinated a multiagency EMT, initially to support adherence to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, but continued and expanded to focus regulatory compliance efforts in high-risk locations or certain problematic behaviours. The EMT initially involved other recreational boating agencies but has expanded to include land and waterway managers facilitating relationship building and information sharing, as well as better outcomes in regulatory compliance.

While there are good examples of collaborations and coordination, there is no overall coordination of drowning prevention efforts and collaboration is isolated to programs and highly-connected streams of activity. In many cases this is reasonable as there is limited value for very disparate activity leads to convene to share information and decision-making. However, IGEM identified several common challenges faced in drowning prevention that would benefit from greater opportunities to collaborate to share learnings and develop solutions that are coordinated to increase efficiency of effort and funding.

One of the key challenges is access to data and evidence. Many prevention efforts are constrained by a lack of data to demonstrate the need for change and specific risks, and evidence demonstrating the potential value of making a change. This challenge arose in the identification of high-risk populations and influenced the level of specificity possible to target prevention efforts and increase their effectiveness. It also prevented change to regulatory and licensing measures to improve safety for recreational boaters.

A related challenge is limited forums to drive new collaborations and information-sharing. In some cases, there is a lack of visibility of programs of work where there is a high level of crossover in target audiences or where similar drowning risks are addressed. This is partially resolved through the establishment of the Water Safety Taskforce which has provided a forum for greater collaboration and visibility of all prevention measures. While some programs of work have benefitted through information sharing and contributions from other taskforce members, new prevention initiatives and practical collaborative work is only just beginning to emerge. Without a dedicated action plan, organic collaboration and relationshipbuilding takes time and demonstrates a need for ongoing forums to discuss water safety initiatives.

Government continues to invest strongly in drowning prevention efforts and responds to changes in risk. Individual organisations advocate for funding through various pathways, committing to specific deliverables and outcomes. However, there is limited coordination in resource allocation or discussion related to where efficiencies could be made when there are similar risks and activities involved.

Evaluating effectiveness of any prevention effort in a changing risk environment is difficult. This is true for water safety, as drowning risks continue to evolve and people’s individual risk characteristics change over time. However, while there is a reasonable amount of program evaluation occurring and good assessment of statewide impacts, it remains difficult to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of drowning prevention initiatives and identify the priorities for future water safety work.

This is in part due to limitations and variability in data and evidence demonstrating effectiveness, but there is currently no mechanism to provide a collective account of prevention work being done and describe the impact it has on drowning risks. It is not possible to determine where resources are best placed to address the most risks and lessons learned are not routinely shared.

As mentioned the Water Safety Taskforce provides some opportunities for greater collaboration and information sharing. However, without any endorsed mechanism to demonstrate progress against the implementation of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25, it does not currently function to provide advice to government and the community on the effectiveness of drowning prevention initiatives.

Ultimately people are responsible for managing their own risks and acting safely around the water. Prevention activities recognise this by focusing heavily on protecting those at risk through training, swim education, and awareness raising either through communication and campaigns or place-based signage and infrastructure.

Regulations are limited and cannot always be enforced; their effectiveness relies on individuals knowing the rules, understanding the reasoning, and complying when unobserved. The government and water safety organisations (for example LSV) have a role in raising awareness of water safety risks and facilitating safe behaviours. Across the state, there are many positive examples of organisations working together to increase water safety, however there remain opportunities for greater collaboration to increase efficiencies and deliver better outcomes for the community.

Finding 5.14

The nature of drowning risks and the diversity of measures used to prevent these risks has resulted in a reasonably siloed approach to prevention programs and policies and limited sharing of lessons learnt. Organisations collaborate, plan and coordinate within these siloes of activity and draw on available evidence but there is no overall coordinated approach to drowning prevention.

6 Water safety case studies

The review has identified a range of strategies Victorian organisations use to identify high-risk populations, scenarios and locations. It has also identified key prevention techniques in place to minimise aquatic risks across the state and raise awareness of risks that cannot be completely mitigated.

The case studies demonstrate how risks are present in a variety of environments and affect various cohorts of the population differently. Collectively they outline the role of numerous organisations in supporting water safety and the range of prevention measures used to increase awareness of risks and safe behaviours.

A prevailing theme throughout the review has been the positive but dispersed activity across many portfolios of government, and the decentralised accountability that comes from this scenario. There are a variety of supporting legislative drivers and enablers, each with its own constraints and specific applications. In most cases, government’s legislative obligation to promote water safety is part of a broad obligation to support safety on publicly accessible land and waters and ensure appropriate duty of care.

Each case study reveals the need for a high level of personal responsibility. Government and community organisations can create an awareness of the risks, encourage safe behaviour and regulate safety measures. However, individuals must maintain a level of vigilance for themselves or those in their care when in or around the water, assessing their own skills, knowledge and the risks present based on how they interact with the water.

This chapter presents four case studies that demonstrate the range of risks and established prevention measures in relation to:

 multicultural communities

 dams on residential properties

 rock fishing

 the Murray River.

6.1 Multicultural communities

Particular population cohorts in Victoria have different drowning risks for a variety of reasons. Understanding why a particular cohort may be high-risk is essential for informing appropriate and effective prevention measures to reduce the risk.

As a case study, reviewing the work done to increase water safety awareness, swimming skills and familiarity with Victorian waterways among multicultural communities provides many positive examples of ways to engage with any high-risk cohort. People from multicultural backgrounds (particularly men) are considered to be at high-risk as they are significantly overrepresented in the drowning toll. Successful initiatives focus on building long-term relationships with specific communities and working closely to understand their needs, while identifying strategies to ensure water safety opportunities are accessible and enjoyable.

The terms multicultural and culturally and linguistically diverse are often used by government organisations to describe individuals and communities with unique cultures, languages and faiths. IGEM acknowledges that these terms do not describe everyone’s cultural identity and not everyone identifies with them. For the purposes of this review the term multicultural is used.

Swimming, fishing, boating and recreating near water offer newly arrived migrants and refugees, and others from multicultural backgrounds, opportunities to experience and appreciate Victoria’s waterways.

Experience and research provide insight into why people from multicultural backgrounds are at risk of drowning. It may be a lack of familiarity with Australian waterways and the risks they pose, less developed swimming skills or difficulty understanding water safety messages. These factors may apply to those entering the water themselves and those supervising children swimming or playing near the water.

6.1.1

Drowning incidence

Data available on the cultural and linguistic characteristics of people involved in a fatal or non-fatal drowning incident is limited and variable. VicPol, AV, rescue personnel, and medical personnel do not routinely capture this information. They only record information that is critical to the incident or providing appropriate care to the injured person. It is hard to analyse fragmented data, or to use it to inform strategic decision-making. Without a solid evidence-base it is also difficult to monitor the effectiveness of multicultural water safety programs at a population level.

In order to increase its understanding of the demographic characteristics of people who drown, LSV pieces together information from incident and injury reports. It builds a more complete assessment of the case by extracting information from other sources such as discussions with those on the scene, media and coronial investigations. This approach can vary in terms of timeliness and specificity. For example, coronial investigations are typically conducted well after the incident.

Given these limitations, LSV uses a blunt metric of born overseas. The metric provides some indicative information about the extent of the drowning issue facing multicultural communities. However, it does not provide an opportunity to analyse the community characteristics that increase risk. The data cannot be used to inform targeted public communications strategies or investment in other population-scale prevention activities.

Collecting data about the cultural and linguistic background of people who have died or been injured in a drowning incident is challenging for practical reasons, and the value of collecting this information must be balanced against the privacy and wellbeing of the person, their family and friends.

6.1.2

Prevention activities

Many organisations work with multicultural communities to provide a greater number of tailored and accessible water safety opportunities. These programs recognise the cultural, language and religious preferences of Victoria’s many communities and are offered by a range of government and nongovernment organisations. The drivers of these programs include water safety, but also recognise that the ability to recreate safely in and around the water has many health and social benefits for the individual participating and their family.

Programs developed for multicultural communities are linked to specific activities or bodies of water or both. While programs originally targeted newly arrived communities or refugees, greater emphasis is now being placed on people from multicultural communities who have been living in Victoria for some time.

Previous Australian and Victorian water safety strategies identified reducing the number of drowning incidents in high-risk populations as a priority goal. The term high-risk covered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, multicultural communities, international tourists, and international students. Both strategies identified multicultural communities as a high-risk cohort and set associated targets to reduce fatal drownings.

The current Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 also aims to better coordinate and streamline messages, education, and communications to empower communities (including those most at risk) to better assess and respond to risks. This builds on the expectation that greater awareness of general risks will contribute to increased community participation in water safety education.

Despite the strategy identifying multicultural communities as being at risk of drowning and promoting shared responsibility in communities, the VMC told IGEM that it had limited visibility of the strategy and its associated action plan. Currently, the VMC does not sit on the Water Safety Taskforce but it would welcome the opportunity to represent multicultural communities and to ensure their needs were being addressed at a strategic level.

There are many considerations to be made when attempting to improve water safety program accessibility and participation, and these vary across multicultural communities. For example, privacy may be a necessity for women from cultures where it is not appropriate for them to participate in swimming classes with men, or in spaces where they feel uncomfortable removing cultural dress items or wearing swimming attire.

Newly arrived migrants and refugees may also require safe spaces to learn and practise, especially if they lack confidence or familiarity with water, water safety practices or instructions in English. The cost of swimming lessons and water safety measures (for example lifejackets) may also be a barrier.

For more than 10 years, LSV has been leading the way in providing education and swimming programs targeting multicultural communities. It has a strong culture of evaluation to drive improvement across all its programs, and takes a leadership role in initiating programs where it has assessed a need. It also plays a supporting role, providing subject matter expertise, resources and skills to community groups, government portfolios and other organisations that have strong relationships with multicultural communities.

LSV identifies and works with community leaders from a range of organisations including schools, faith settings, sporting clubs and peak bodies to actively promote what programs it can offer. This approach builds trust and rapport and ensures that programs are flexible and adaptable for each community. LSV’s approach prioritises the development of long-term relationships, and although reliant on short-term funding, it has a core team that can sustain communication to preserve relationships with communities if funding is not available. This has been a key driver for success in increasing the number of people participating in its education programs.

VFA also takes a similar approach, recognising that elders and leaders in multicultural communities play an integral role in providing input and advice on how to tailor messages and programs. Face-toface interactions have worked well especially when programs or engagements are delivered by people from similar multicultural backgrounds. VFA tries to balance compliance with education in a culturally appropriate way.

6.1.3 Diversity and inclusion

Traditionally, emergency services organisations and the aquatic and recreation industry have lacked diversity, making it challenging for people from multicultural communities to see themselves represented. Over recent years LSV, VFA, Parks Victoria and emergency services organisations have been working hard to increase representation from multicultural communities within their paid and volunteer roles.

LSV actively supports the ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ adage by employing people from diverse cultural backgrounds to deliver its programs and training. To drive this approach, LSV has embedded a range of programs that offer a pathway from basic education through to specialist skills training in both water safety, and emergency management – informally referred to as its pyramid model. LSV offers a range of onsite and classroom education programs directly or delivered by its partners. This provides an opportunity to build awareness and relationships, and encourage further participation in learn to swim programs.

Building on these introductory programs, LSV works with communities to target and train influential community members and young people to become lifesavers, pool lifeguards, swim teachers and first aid practitioners. At the top of the pyramid, LSV facilitates opportunities to introduce other emergency management careers to multicultural communities.

These top two ‘tiers’ of the pyramid directly increase relevant skills, but also increase community representation in water safety, which can encourage a wider range of participation and generate more culturally appropriate opportunities to improve safety. The increased diversity of the workforce also helps break down negative stigma associated with uniformed personnel and government and helps communities realise these organisations are there to keep them safe.

The model has proved to be highly successful, directly leading to increased participation from multicultural communities in water safety programs. In the Multicultural Water Safety, Settlement and Social Cohesion 2020 report, LSV states that 60 young people are placed in employment or volunteer roles annually across both the aquatics and recreation industry and emergency management sector.

The VMC told IGEM that there are benefits in expanding both the reach and visibility of these programs through greater promotion and incentivisation. The VMC noted that such representation can be a direct and indirect enabler of inclusive practices by providing cultural and linguistic skills, lived experience and knowledge.

6.1.4

Program funding

Organisations developing and delivering water safety programs for multicultural communities rely on a range of funding arrangements. Some programs are funded through business-as-usual activities or core funding provided by the Victorian Government. Core funding is often used to cover corporate overheads and, in some cases, additional funding is sought to cover participant costs.

As a leader in water safety, LSV has a stream of work dedicated to multicultural communities specifically as part of its Common Funding Agreement with DJCS. These commitments reflect a high level of awareness of the importance of targeted engagement with multicultural communities. However, many of these programs are subject to short-term funding, which makes it difficult to make clear, long-term commitments with multicultural communities.

LSV regularly submits grant applications to various bodies such as local government, philanthropic organisations and peak bodies. LSV advised IGEM that in 2011, annual participation numbers were 4000 and this has steadily grown to 20,000 per year. To continue to grow its programs and meet community need, LSV is looking to increase its core funding. Additional funding will still be sought to reduce costs for participants.

Long-term funding is critical to the success of programs for multicultural communities. As it takes time to build trust and rapport with communities, short-term funding through activities such as pilot projects are problematic. The VMC told IGEM that funding for water safety programs for multicultural communities needs to be consistent and not just one-off. Longer term funding builds capacity within communities, embeds a culture of safety and leads to more successful water safety outcomes.

Beach Program

Life Saving Victoria’s Multicultural Beach Programs educate participants on life saving techniques and water safety messages. The programs offer a practical approach to familiarising participants with the beach activities.

Resuscitate a Mate

Life Saving Victoria’s Multicultural Resuscitate a Mate / Introduction to CPR program is designed to introduce participants to basic anatomy and emergency response

Golden Square Pool – SwimAware program

SwimAware at Golden Square Pool in Bendigo offers basic water safety and swimming lessons to adults and kids who haven’t had the opportunity to learn to swim. Forty children, from diverse backgrounds, are involved in a ten-week swimming and water safety ed by Life Saving Victoria.

Training and paid employment pathways

Several training and employment options exist for entry into the sport and recreation industry or emergency services including:

• Emergency services trainee

• Swimming teacher

• Pool lifeguard

6.1.5 Summary

There are numerous risk mitigation strategies and prevention activities in place that aim to understand the needs of multicultural communities and provide opportunities for people from this high-risk cohort to learn to swim and become more familiar with Victorian waterways. Addressing the needs of newly arrived communities and those already living in Victoria remains a high priority for organisations involved in water safety and government.

Multicultural communities are included as sub-categories of high-risk cohorts in broad public communication initiatives. However, the most effective water safety programs are those where considerable time has been spent engaging directly with multicultural communities through key representatives and peak bodies to develop, adapt and change programs. This involves explaining the options and opportunities but also listening to community concerns and preferences and working together to find solutions.

You can achieve generational behavioural change within CALD communities, if you want to stay the distance and hang around long enough, which is what we want to do.

Stakeholder

Face-to-face community engagement has been shown to be a very effective method for educating multicultural communities about water safety. The VMC told IGEM that organisations such as the VFA and Parks Victoria were making a concerted effort to get out and speak with multicultural communities about water safety risks, and LSV prioritises face-to-face and highly tailored community engagement as much as resources permit. Engagement with local communities needs to be ongoing as local knowledge is central to the successful development of water safety communications and programs.

LSV has undertaken a significant amount of positive work to increase participation and accessibility for swimming lessons and water safety education and this has led to high quality program evaluation data that drives continuous improvement of programs.

In Victoria, there are many opportunities for collaboration and partnerships to improve safety among multicultural communities. For example, at the state level the VMC offers a range of expertise and opportunities to facilitate water safety program development. Its Regional Advisory Councils also provide a more localised opportunity to engage with trusted community leaders and representatives. The VMC discussed how there were more opportunities for organisations to collaborate with the commission directly and its Regional Advisory Councils for more targeted local water safety initiatives.

The VMC also advised there were opportunities to engage with organisations such as the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria and its Regional Councils, Refugee Communities Association of Australia and other community and settlement agencies to build relationships and partnerships so as to better inform and disseminate information about water safety.

Observation 6.1

The Victorian Multicultural Commission and Regional Advisory Councils are an underused resource for agencies and organisations working to reduce the risk of drowning of people from multicultural communities.

In August 2022, the Victorian Council of Social Service and the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria published Valuing strengths, building resilience – Improving emergency management outcomes for multicultural communities in Victoria. As a result of this collaboration, a cross-sector Multicultural Emergency Management Partnership was established. It includes 16 community leaders from a range of multicultural communities and representatives from the peak Victorian emergency services organisations, LSV and other community organisations. This partnership model provides another opportunity to enhance coordination and collaboration on water safety.

Working with community leaders and building capability within the community has been shown to be a powerful model to increase participation, but also increase diversity and representation in volunteer and paid water safety roles. LSV has done this particularly well through its pyramid approach, and there are opportunities to apply the lessons from these approaches to other high-risk communities and other hazards.

In order to observe the impact of work dedicated to any high-risk cohort, data is important. LSV embeds evaluation across its range of programs and has a strong research division to build knowledge. However, population data is limited, incomplete and often delayed. This makes it difficult to understand the extent of the issue and prioritise strategies to increase water safety across Victoria’s many diverse multicultural communities.

Observation 6.2

Life Saving Victoria is a leader in delivering water safety programs with multicultural communities based on its long-standing partnerships developed through targeted engagement with communities.

Observation 6.3

Water safety programs targeting multicultural communities are most successful when partnerships are ongoing and longer-term funding is provided.

6.2 Dams on residential properties

Drowning is the number one cause of on-farm child deaths in Australia92. Between 2001 and 2019, across Australia 70 children under 15 years died on farms by drowning. The majority of the children who drowned were male, and most were under five93. Dams were the most common location of drowning incidents (45 deaths or 63 per cent).

As a case study, dams on residential properties demonstrate the high level of personal responsibility involved in water safety and drowning prevention. While the Victorian Government has established registration and regulations to require pool fencing around residential pools, imposing similar requirements for dams on residential properties is untenable due to the wide range of properties and dams. Therefore, it is up to property owners to understand the dangers and respond based on their own individual assessment of risk.

Farms and rural residential properties have a wider range of drowning hazards than private properties in urban settings. This includes natural waterways like rivers and creeks, as well as dams, irrigation channels and wells built by property owners.

During the course of this review stakeholders regularly identified dams on private property as highrisk locations for drowning incidents. This includes dams on rural lifestyle properties, hobby farms and working farms. It does not include dams managed by commercial enterprises or water corporations that are not open to the public. While work-related drowning incidents are out of scope for this review, farm dams are included because almost all farm businesses in Australia are family-owned and operated94. This results in a farm being both a home and a workplace.

Quantifying the risks posed by dams is challenging. The total number of dams in Victoria is unknown. Unlike private swimming pools, dams on residential properties are not required to be registered with councils and only those that meet specific criteria need to be licensed with rural water corporations.95

How drowning statistics are reported also makes it difficult to identify whether an incident occurred in a dam on a residential property or one that is publicly accessible. Most of the information about dams on residential properties comes from national research into on-farm injuries and fatalities, which potentially misses drowning incidents that occur on hobby farms or rural lifestyle properties and contributes to an under-estimation of the overall risk.

6.2.1 Drowning risk factors for dams on residential properties

Three factors contribute to drowning incidents in dams:

 the age of the person at risk

 the physical characteristics of the dam

 the rural environment.

Age is a significant contributory factor in drowning incidents in dams. Children under five are most at risk of drowning in dams, particularly those aged between 18 months and two years.96

A child’s age usually determines the extent to which a parent or carer watches over them. Coroners and researchers frequently identify a lack of supervision as a major contributing factor in childhood drowning. They have attributed this to competing demands on the supervising adult’s time as well as a lack of awareness of how quickly young children can come to harm. For example, by underestimating how quickly and how far young children can move.96 97

The physical characteristics of compacted earth dams also make them hazardous. The condition of their banks and water change according to the weather, especially if the dam relies on rainfall and run-off and is not fed by another water source. Slippery or crumbling banks make it easy to overbalance and fall into the water. Dam floors can also be mushy and unstable, making it difficult to keep upright.

Dam water can be muddy or dark making it difficult to see the bottom or any submerged objects. Even on hot days dam water can be very cold and can quickly affect a person’s core body temperature or cause cold water shock. If a dam is used for irrigation or firefighting the floating water pipes can also be a potential hazard.

In addition, the rural environment also presents particular water safety challenges. Rural property owners do not usually fence their dams, even when there are no animals or crops to water. Working farms tend to have multiple dams, increasing the risk of drowning. The proximity of dams to a house and their accessibility also contribute to drowning incidents among young children.

A study of child deaths in Victorian dams found that most of the dams were within 100 metres of the house. It also found that in cases where there was a fence between the house and the dam, it was not effective in stopping the child from accessing the water.96

When an incident does occur, accessing timely medical assistance can also be a challenge. Many rural properties have poor mobile network coverage and are a long way from services. Distance also limits access to swimming lessons or first aid courses.98

6.2.2 Responsibility for dam safety

Private property owners are responsible for ensuring people on their land are safe. In the context of water safety this means identifying drowning risks and doing something to reduce them. It is reasonable to expect rural property owners would identify their dams as high-risk.

Under the Water Act dam owners are legally responsible for dam safety and accountable for any damage caused to people, property and the environment if their dams fail. The Water Act focuses on mitigating the risk of a dam bank failing and water spilling out uncontrollably, endangering people and animals in the path of the water. It does not, however, consider the drowning risks posed by the water held within dams.99

6.2.3

Dam-specific drowning prevention

There are no fencing regulations for dams on residential properties like there are for residential swimming pools. In the absence of such regulations, the most common drowning prevention strategy used for farmers is awareness-raising via media campaigns.

Peak bodies in child safety, farm safety and water safety have independently driven efforts to alert, inform, and remind farmers about drowning risks. This includes Kidsafe Australia, Farmsafe Australia and RLSSA.

These organisations usually deliver this information as part of their broader safety campaigns, rather than as dam-specific drowning prevention messaging. For example, Kidsafe WA includes a chapter on general water safety in A Parent’s Guide to Kidsafe Farms and RLSSA has adapted its Keep Watch campaign to the farm setting (Keep Watch @ the Farm).

Current recommendations on how farmers can manage the water safety risks on their properties include:

 creating a securely fenced child safe play area

 actively supervising young children

 teaching children water safety and swimming skills

 learning CPR.

Securely fenced and safe play areas are considered to be the most effective intervention for reducing child drowning deaths.100 Many existing and new houses on rural properties do not have these.

Farmsafe Australia has promoted safe play areas for young children on farms since the mid-1990s. Many farmers used strand wire fences to create a yard to keep stock and wildlife from getting into the home and garden area. As awareness about the on-farm dangers to children grew, farmers used these fences to keep children in and animals out.101

However, strand wire fences have limited effectiveness as young children can crawl under the fence or through the wires. In 2005 Farmsafe Australia added detailed information about the effectiveness (and cost) of different fencing options to its Safe play areas on farms: A resource package.102 Basic information about fence height, ground clearance and type of material (no footholds) is included in its more recent factsheets.

Active supervision is where a parent or adult carer constantly watches a child and is close enough to be able to reach them should they need help. Organisations emphasise that parents should actively supervise the children in their care, and never make older children responsible for supervising younger children around water.

(Source: Kidsafe Victoria Farm Safety Creative Competition/Emma Ford)

Setting and reinforcing rules like ‘don’t go near the dam without me’ is an important part of water safety on rural properties, as is explaining to children as they get older why dams are dangerous.

Kidsafe Victoria advised that it works with a family impacted by drowning to run the Hunter Boyle Children’s Swim Program. Set up in memory of two-year old Hunter who drowned in a dam in 2020, the program provides water safety education and free swim lessons to vulnerable children in the Goulburn Valley region.

Child, farm and water safety peak bodies also encourage people to learn CPR and to update their skills regularly. According to RLSSA, a family member is usually first on the scene in a drowning incident involving young children. This is especially likely in rural areas.

Given the number of people moving to the country who do not see themselves as farmers but rural lifestyle property owners, dam safety campaign materials need to ensure they target all relevant audiences.

6.2.4 Summary

Rural property owners must typically consider a wider and more varied range of drowning hazards than their urban counterparts, with dams particularly high-risk. Despite the significant risks and high fatalities, the Victorian Government does not regulate dams or other water bodies on rural private properties. Instead, awareness raising and education are the key strategies for supporting private property owners to ensure the safety of those who live on or visit their land.

IGEM acknowledges that fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents are devastating for those involved. This includes families, friends, communities and first responders. Given young children are frequently involved, dam drownings are understandably an emotive issue.

The extent of drowning risks posed by dams and other water bodies on rural properties in Victoria is likely to be much higher than what mortality data suggests. There is little information about non-fatal drowning incidents on rural properties. Without non-fatal incident data, it is not possible to build a true picture of drowning risks on rural properties or fully understand the impact of drownings.

Child, farm and water safety peak bodies all encourage farmers to implement water safety measures. While they cross-promote each other’s material, they run their awareness-raising efforts separately and are restricted by limited resourcing and few opportunities to come together to identify and target at-risk rural population groups.

These organisations act within their areas of expertise, but all target farmers. IGEM notes that while their water safety messaging is consistent, it has not kept up with changes in rural populations, such as the increase in the number of people moving to live in the country for the first time.

Images and language used in water safety campaigns and resources needs to reflect the different situations and types of properties where dams might be located. Although property owners are responsible for researching potential hazards on their properties and ways to manage them, information must be appropriately targeted.

The methods child, farm and water safety peak bodies recommend for mitigating the risks posed by dams are appropriate. For example, fencing water bodies on rural properties is impractical so suggesting property owners build a secure child safe play area is a sensible solution. However, child safe play areas reduce some but not all drowning risks facing young children, and they are not a replacement for constant and active supervision of children.

Observation 6.4

Government regulation of water safety measures on rural properties is impractical, so assigning responsibility for identifying and managing drowning risks to rural property owners is appropriate.

Observation 6.5

Child safe play areas have been promoted for more than three decades as a way to reduce the risks posed by private dams but many existing and new houses on rural properties in Victoria do not have these.

Observation 6.6

Organisations with responsibilities in child, farm and water safety have worked hard to raise awareness of drowning risks on farms but they have limited resources and few opportunities to come together to identify and target at-risk rural population groups.

6.3 Rock fishing

Rock fishing provides an example of where education through campaigns alone has not been enough to encourage stronger safety behaviours and prevent deaths along Victoria’s coastlines.

Drowning prevention measures targeting rock fishing have escalated from awareness-raising and education, to include program-based intervention and targeted campaigning to increase lifejacket wearing. Despite these initiatives, deaths associated with rock fishing continue to occur and observed compliance with recommendations to wear lifejackets remains low. The Victorian Government is now trialling regulatory measures and associated penalties for non-compliance with lifejacket wearing requirements.

This rock fishing case study demonstrates a progressively stringent approach to encouraging water safety. Regulation and enforcement are typically used as a final measure to promote safer behaviour, as they involve a high level of resourcing and do not promote positive relationships between community and regulatory bodies. However, they can be effective measures when coupled with other prevention strategies.

Rock fishing is a popular but dangerous activity, with a high risk of injury and fatality. These fishers use rocky surfaces next to the sea to access deep water species without the need for a boat. Locations can include outcrops, submerged rocks and cliff faces. VFA estimates there are up to 100,000 rock fishers participating in the activity along Victoria’s coastlines.103

The rocky outcrops best for fishing also present enormous risks. Rock fishers can slip on wet rocks or become unbalanced by large waves and find themselves unexpectedly in deep, cold water. The waves can then push fishers against the jagged surfaces of the rocks above or below the waterline. As such, a rock fisher should not attempt to climb back to the fishing site, but swim away from the rocks and toward sandy beach areas. This action can be counter instinctual.

Research conducted by the University of Melbourne noted that a strong understanding of active and quiet wave periods is central to reducing rock fishing incidents. Contrary to the myth of freak waves, sets of larger waves come along every half hour or so, even in calm conditions. While experienced rock fishers may look at offshore wave activity and have a strong understanding of ocean conditions, inexperienced fishers are more likely to be caught off guard by larger waves.104-106

On average, 13 people die per year while rock fishing in Australia, with one or more per year in Victoria.107 Victorian rock fishing deaths are intermittent but persistent. In 2009, three rock fishers died within a five-month period, prompting a coronial inquest and recommendations to improve signage, lifejacket wearing, education in multicultural communities, and locator markings.108 109 Although most of these recommendations were acquitted, when VFA conducted a consultation with the rock fishing community on mandatory lifejackets, it received considerable resistance and did not pursue this further at the time.

Between 2012 and 2015, LSV and VFA conducted a campaign to educate rock fishers by highlighting the inherent dangers of the activity. The campaign’s key messages focused on safety behaviours such as wearing a lifejacket, fishing with a friend, informing others of your plans, and checking the weather. The campaign incorporated feedback from industry experts and rock fishers, particularly from Chinese and Vietnamese communities.

While a lifejacket may not prevent a person from injury against the rocks, it significantly reduces the risk of drowning death by keeping the head above the waterline until a person can safely exit the water or be rescued.103

NSW has taken a stronger stance than Victoria with the Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016 (NSW) mandating appropriate lifejackets at high-risk locations for both rock fishers and attendants, including children. Councils opt in to the arrangements by defining a new location and requesting that the Minister for Local Government declare it as high-risk for rock fishers. Unlike Victoria, NSW beaches are predominantly managed by councils. This approach allowed the legislation to function as a trial, beginning with well-known sites of rock fishing tragedies and expanding the list over time to include other appropriate locations. The legislation authorises enforcement by authorised officers across fisheries, councils, National Parks and Wildlife, and police.110 111

The NSW approach to rock fishing legislation does not easily transfer into a Victorian context. Victoria’s beaches are managed by different organisations operating under a patchwork of national, state and local laws. In addition, many of these organisations are not designed or resourced to conduct monitoring and enforcement duties along Victoria’s vast and sometimes remote stretches of coastline.

As a result of these complex land tenure arrangements, Victoria lacks a statewide legislative lever to require and enforce lifejackets at high-risk locations. In 2016 the Coroners Court of Victoria noted that mandating lifejackets may be necessary, given evidence during the education campaign conducted by LSV and VFA that rock fishers would not wear them voluntarily.112 This option was recommended to the then Victorian Minister for Sport, but subsequent deferrals to other ministers highlighted the complexity of identifying a suitable head of power for effective regulation. This chain of deferment highlighted a fundamental issue on how to apply consistent regulation across multiple land tenures.

To understand how well Victoria’s three-year rock fishing campaign had been on influencing safety behaviour, LSV and James Cook University conducted an evaluation. They found that there was a strong recall of safety messages among the target audience and an improvement in the number of fishers ensuring that they never fished alone. There was, however, no improvement in voluntary lifejacket wearing.

Research respondents agreed with all the campaign’s safety messages and self-reported good safety behaviour. However, independent observation of those same rock fishers recorded less than five per cent voluntarily wearing a lifejacket, and nine out of 10 turning their backs to the sea.113

In October 2021, as Victorian rock fishers continued to experience injury and deaths, VFA prepared a rock fishing safety discussion paper which proposed a two-year trial of new laws to mandate the use of lifejackets when rock fishing at high-risk locations.114 VFA sought feedback on the proposal via extensive community engagement. Reactions to the proposed trial were mixed, and it modified the trial based on feedback. VFA added an additional high-risk location to the list and adjusted minimum requirements to a less buoyant lifejacket, although still consistent with NSW regulations.103

6.3.1 Regulatory intervention

Victoria’s two-year trial of mandatory lifejackets began in March 2022, with an initial six-month phase of education before written warnings would be issued. Instead of introducing new legislation, VFA issued the requirements via the Fisheries (Rock Fishing Safety) Notice 2022. A fisheries notice may be issued primarily to protect fish species and their habitat but may also provide for the ‘preservation of good order and safety among fishers in Victorian waters’.

There are benefits and limitations to this approach. The fisheries notice approach provides one consistent set of requirements across Victoria regardless of land tenure. However, it applies only to the act of fishing or the intent to fish. This benefit is also its limitation. Bystanders exposed to the same risk are not subject to the requirements. Fisheries notices also lack nuance in enforcement. Fines cannot be issued as a deterrent so there is no level of escalation between written warnings and prosecution in court.

The trial is still underway and concludes in 2024. To date, VFA has conducted numerous monitoring and compliance operations and encountered significant non-compliance, resulting in written warnings that may escalate to court in cases where multiple warnings have been issued.

An additional limitation of the trial is that high-risk areas are identified where one or more deaths have already occurred. Using this approach, as modelled by NSW, areas would be added as deaths occur in new locations. While this meets the Victorian Government’s minimalist approach to regulatory intervention, ongoing tragedies should not be the guiding metric for safety measures where the benefits are already clearly established.

6.3.2 Community information and engagement

Alongside campaign and regulatory efforts, VFA conducts ongoing and extensive fishing-related education. This occurs primarily through face-to-face engagement, supplemented by safety videos and print materials. VFA shares rock fishing tips and safety information in multiple languages and works with community leaders to ensure key messages resonate. Safety videos include the key behaviours identified in the 2012–15 campaign, as well as important skillsets like observing active and quiet wave sets over time. VFA also hosts pop-up events in suburbs with a large demographic of known rock fishing communities.

VFA observed that the upfront cost of lifejackets would be a barrier for some refugee and multicultural community members. To address this, it hosted free community training and rock fishing safety sessions in October and November 2022, with a free lifejacket available at the end of the event. These proved popular, but with mixed safety outcomes. VFA notes that family members often attend in place of the rock fisher to get the free equipment.

VFA displays messaging about the legislation on the VicFishing app, social media, signage, videos and fact sheets as well as employing variable messaging signs at sites with high non-compliance.

6.3.3 Summary

The introduction of Victorian lifejacket regulations follows significant efforts to educate and raise awareness of the risks for rock fishers. VFA in particular has conducted extensive and ongoing campaigns and community education since 2012. More recently these efforts have become more targeted, such as recent initiatives to provide free lifejackets on attendance to a safety briefing, specifically focusing on rock fishers who find the upfront cost to be a barrier.

Despite these efforts, rock fishing fatalities remained high and provided cause for the introduction of regulations. While regulations provide an enforceable means of increasing safety, their development and implementation require appropriate resourcing to ensure their effectiveness. Imposing regulations on any behaviour is intrusive and typically only considered when other safety efforts have failed to address a high level of risk.

Early monitoring of the Victorian trial shows the merit of the lifejacket regulations. There is alignment with preliminary results of the outcomes and effectiveness of the NSW rock fishing legislation changes which show a 45.5 per cent drop in drowning deaths occurring in declared areas.115

While VFA is monitoring compliance during the trial, regulations rely on individuals knowing and understanding the reasons for the rules and complying when no-one is watching to ensure their own and others’ safety. The lifejacket requirements have been coupled with monitoring, education, promotion and strategies to facilitate adherence to the regulation and inform further implementation of the regulations.

The lifejacket regulations demonstrate a well-evidenced progression of prevention measures from public communications, education and signage to encourage safer behaviour. Pending the final results of the trial, there are learnings for other activities and settings where drowning risks remain high despite targeted public communications and education. It demonstrates the value of a detailed understanding of the risk and the success of other prevention measures for justifying the resources required to impose regulations on the public.

Observation 6.7

The introduction of regulations to improve safety for rock fishing follows a series of less intrusive measures that aim to raise awareness of drowning risk and educate rock fishers on safe behaviour. The resources required to implement the regulations and their higher level of intrusiveness were justified by a detailed understanding of risk and the effects of other measures to increase the safety of rock fishers.

6.4 The Murray River

Land tenure arrangements can complicate accountability for water safety. In many cases, it is not clear who holds responsibility for the waterway and promoting safety among those who use it. For popular aquatic attractions (for example waterfalls, beaches and rivers), there may be a significant number of visitors who are not local to the area and therefore not typically engaged by the land and waterway managers. There is often misalignment between organisations with levers to promote safe behaviour and those with responsibilities to implement water safety measures or monitor and enforce public compliance.

The Murray River provides an interesting case study of jurisdictional limitations affecting the ability of Victorian Government entities to introduce water safety initiatives and monitor fatal and non-fatal drownings, unsafe behaviour and near-misses. Data indicates that many of the drownings and other adverse incidents occur among Victorians who enter the river from Victorian towns. However, NSW has jurisdiction over the Murray up to and including the southern bank which limits the ability of the Victorian Government to increase prevention activities through regulatory, enforcement and patrolling measures.

In 2014 RLSSA identified the Murray as the number one river drowning blackspot in Australia and that a significant number of Murray drowning fatalities are Victorian residents.116 From 2012–13 to 2021–22, almost half of the people who drowned in the Murray lived in Victorian postcodes4 and the majority of populated centres along the Murray are also on the Victorian side of the river.117

The Murray is subject to physical risks that impact both swimming and boating, including strong currents, submerged objects, slippery banks and cold water. The river surface itself can also hide dangerous currents and snags (for example, dead trees that have fallen into the water). The topography can also change quickly.116

Speaking on the hidden hazards of the Murray, one volunteer rescue diver said:

The current in many places isn’t predictable… in certain areas of the river, it will actually flow backwards

One victim of near-fatal drowning on the Murray told RLSSA they were very familiar with the section of the river where they had their accident. They had swum there ‘thousands of times’. Unfortunately, a sandbank shifting underwater led to the typically deep water of a popular diving location suddenly becoming just 50 centimetres deep.118

No organisation has a formal responsibility to identify water safety hazards on the Murray, however, RLSSA believes there is a need for physical audits of all river blackspots to determine common hazards.116

Volunteer

6.4.1

Legislation and enforcement

Like any waterway, the Murray is governed by laws and regulations to promote safe behaviour for boaters and other members of the public recreating in and around the river. Being a NSW waterway, NSW laws and regulations apply, and NSW agencies are responsible for their enforcement. However, visitors come from both Victoria and NSW, and evidence suggests significantly more boaters visit the river from the Victorian side.117

There are many similarities between NSW and Victorian boating regulations and recent changes to the Marine Safety Regulations 2023 (Vic) increased this alignment. For example, in circumstances where children are always required to wear lifejackets, the age limit in Victoria has changed from ‘less than 10 years’ to ‘less than 12 years’. However, for boaters who are familiar with Victorian rules, there are some differences between NSW and Victorian rules which may be confusing.

To help Murray users understand and adhere to safety regulations, Transport for NSW and the then Maritime Safety Victoria co-produced Get to know your interstate boating rules – NSW and Victoria (2018), which one stakeholder noted was a good example of cross-border collaboration.119

NSW is responsible for enforcement of regulations on the Murray. NSW police officers are responsible for breath testing on the Murray, while Transport for NSW is responsible for the operational delivery of marine safety.117 120 As part of its enforcement role, Transport for NSW boating safety officers conduct regular on-water patrols and inspections throughout the Murray-Riverina waterways to provide education and ensure compliance with safety requirements.117

Data indicates that many of the infringements and complaints are directed to Victorians for failing to comply with safety requirements on the Murray. From 2009 to 2013, approximately 78 per cent of the 2600 penalty notices issued within the Murray-Riverina region were issued to Victorian residents. The infringements for which the most penalty notices were issued were for failure to carry the correct safety equipment including lifejackets, inadequate or no vessel registration, and towing in an unsafe manner or contrary to restrictions.117

In January 2015, NSW Roads and Maritime Services had seven boating safety officers conducting enforcement activities along the Murray River. Considering the length of the river, this number of officers makes widespread enforcement of regulations very difficult. In recent years, officers from STVic have joined forces with their NSW counterparts to conduct joint boating safety and compliance campaigns on the Murray.122 123

6.4.2

Alcohol use

Alcohol use is prevalent in inland waterway drownings, and on the Murray River in particular. Between 2002 and 2015 just under 40 per cent of Murray drowning deaths (27 cases) involved alcohol. More than half of the victims recorded a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of more than 0.1mg/L (twice the legal driving limit). Compared to drowning deaths related to alcohol and/or other illegal drugs in Victoria in that same period (31 per cent), the Murray was significantly higher.124

In 2018 RLSSA and James Cook University conducted a joint study on drinking behaviours at four highrisk inland waterways, including the Murray.125 At the Murray, data was collected from Monday 22 January to Sunday 27 January, with the Australia Day public holiday falling on a Friday. Due to the public holiday, the Murray site was a designated alcohol-free zone by the council. There were no location or date specific limits on alcohol consumption on the other days.

In that week, researchers breathalysed 278 locals and tourists at the Murray. Almost half (47 per cent) said they sometimes or always drank alcohol at the river, and nine per cent were 0.05mg/L or above when breathalysed. Researchers also found river users were drinking on the public holiday during the ban. They reported the ban was only ‘nominally enforced’ by police.125

A total of 42 per cent of all respondents agreed it was okay to drink alcohol as a passenger on a boat, and 21 per cent that it was okay to drink alcohol before swimming.125 Respondents were more likely to agree that it was okay to drink alcohol and operate a boat as a skipper (10 per cent) than it was to drink alcohol and drive a motor vehicle (seven per cent).

The researchers concluded:

The consumption of alcohol (often to excess) and participation in recreational activities in and around the water…is problematic.

Peden et al. (2018) BMC Public Health

Lifesaving patrols and water rescue services are positioned along the Murray, however, the length of the river poses an inherent challenge in ensuring regular and widespread patrolling and rescue. Along the coast, lifesaving patrols and search and rescue services are typically located at population centres that can resource the volunteer capacity required to deliver such services. However, there are fewer towns along the Murray that have the population to support such volunteer services. Further, the nature of Murray tourism sees visitors dispersed along its length and seeking out isolated locations.

Lifesavers are only present at one location along the Murray, at Mildura’s Apex Park Beach. Affiliated with LSV, Mildura Life Saving Club was established in the 1960s after several drownings at the location.126 The club provides patrols on weekends and public holidays from late November though to April and rosters filled completely by volunteers.127

For search and rescue operations on the Murray, NSW police officers are supported by volunteer rescue organisations like VRA Rescue NSW (through its Albury & Border Rescue Squad), Marine Rescue NSW (through the unit stationed at Moama) and the Echuca Moama Search and Rescue Squad. NSW State Emergency Service has the support of VICSES through its signed agreement to respond to requests for assistance within 40 km of the Murray Region.128

The ongoing challenge of the Murray’s length makes it difficult to provide sufficient lifesaving and rescue services along it. This makes other forms of drowning prevention very important to raise awareness of the risk and promote safe behaviour.

6.4.4

Programs and education

There are a number of programs devoted to improving water safety on the Murray and other inland waterways, including Bush Nippers and the Respect the River public warning campaign.

The Bush Nippers program is an LSV initiative to build water safety skills for children aged five to 14 years in regional Victoria. The program is funded by the Victorian Government as part of the Public Water Safety Initiative.129 Of the four sites chosen for the 2020 pilot program, two were on the Murray (Echuca and Wodonga).

The Respect the River initiative is funded by the Australian Government. It was launched by RLSSA in 2015 and aims to educate the public about inland waterway safety. It has four key safety messages: Wear a lifejacket, avoid alcohol around water, never swim alone, and learn how to save a life.130 As part of the campaign LSV, in partnership with RLSSA, offers inland waterway training courses to teachers, supervisors and support staff for inland waterway activities.131

6.4.5

Summary

The Murray River is a complex physical environment posing many drowning risks to boaters and swimmers. Users who are not familiar with the Murray can be caught out by unpredictable currents and submerged objects. Visitors to the Murray tend to be Victorian residents, yet the NSW Government bears responsibility for managing Murray regulations and their enforcement.

Victorian residents are exposed to risk and account for a greater proportion of infringements related to unsafe behaviour. However NSW must lead, or at least support, greater levels of targeted education, regulation and enforcement. This limits the ability of Victorian entities to introduce water safety initiatives and monitor fatal and non-fatal drownings, unsafe behaviour and near-misses.

Despite limitations in authority based on jurisdictional boundaries, Victorian agencies have been able to work with their NSW counterparts to increase enforcement activities, align regulations and increase safety education and communications. Clear and ongoing communication, joint operations and a strong understanding of roles and responsibilities between Victorian and NSW agencies has been an important element of developing strong relationships between agencies on each side of the border.

Observation 6.8

The Murray River exemplifies a common issue with land tenure and jurisdictional accountabilities, where there is a mismatch between those responsible for assessing and managing the risk, and those responsible for the people at risk. Joint operations, ongoing communications and role clarity have allowed Victorian agencies to support their New South Wales counterparts to increase public safety along the Murray.

7 Response

The fundamental aim of rescue is to locate and provide assistance to people in distress in the shortest amount of time.13 Water rescue is especially time critical. It is estimated that a person in cold water has approximately 10–20 minutes of useful movement in which to get out of the water, and only 1–3 hours before they become unconscious from hypothermia.132

In Victoria, water safety incident responses are complex and provided by many organisations including AVCGA, LSV, VICSES, FRV, AV, VicPol and seven independently operated MSAR services. Annually there are approximately 1500 marine incidents, with over 60 per cent of these responded to by volunteers.133 In 2020–21 volunteer MSAR units provided 960 rescues across the state, and in 2021–22 LSV recorded 346,570 preventative actions as part of patrolling activities.134

This chapter examines the emergency management arrangements in place for responders. These arrangements range from planned safeguarding activities – such as beach patrols – designed to identify problems before they become emergencies, through to multi-agency MSAR activation and technical swift water rescue for those needing help in fast moving water. These arrangements include governing structures, roles and responsibilities, and the capacity and capability of the emergency management sector to be ready for and respond to water safety incidents in all regions in Victoria. This chapter also examines the public’s role in the usage of rescue equipment and bystander rescue.

7.1 Patrolling and surf lifesaving

Patrolling is the surveillance by lifesavers of coastal and inland waterways to increase public safety by raising awareness of dangerous water conditions and rescuing people in distress. Lifesavers on patrol establish safe swimming areas based on local conditions by positioning red and yellow flags for visitors to swim between. They also provide immediate advice and warnings to those entering the water about hazards such as rips, sand bars, tidal conditions and safe behaviour. Lifesavers also provide first aid and support other rescues and medical efforts.135

Lifesaving patrols are extremely recognisable across Victoria’s beaches. However, less than 10 per cent of Victoria’s 692 accessible beaches are regularly patrolled by lifesavers and there is very little patrolling of inland waterways. However, even this proportionally small amount of patrolling requires more than 200,000 lifesaving service hours to resource.

Academic research based on Australian data suggests that patrolling has a positive effect on public safety. Drowning rates for swimmers between the flags during patrolled hours are low compared to those who swim outside the flags.136 Research by LSV and others suggests that the presence of lifesavers on patrol encourages safer public behaviour and facilitates rescues through timeliness of detection.136, 137

The economic value of patrolling waterways is high. Conservative cost-benefit estimates of providing paid lifeguard services indicate that even presuming a minimal level of effectiveness (one per cent of rescues preventing death or catastrophic injury), the economic benefit of providing lifeguards is considerable.137

7.1.1

Roles and responsibilities

As outlined in the SEMP, LSV‘s role includes the provision of both paid (lifeguard) and volunteer (lifesaver) water-based patrolling (including inshore), and rescue and response services from locations across Port Phillip Bay, the Victorian coastline and inland waterways.138

Life saving clubs are responsible for ensuring appropriate resourcing and scheduling at patrol locations based on local demands and water conditions. This includes rostering of lifeguards, provision of local services, the positioning of the flags and the deployment of local roving patrols. Individual life saving clubs also oversee lifesaver recruitment, training and accreditation.

LSV provides a centralised coordination service to support the clubs and ensure its organisational accountabilities under the SEMP are achieved. This includes supporting the administrative tasks involved in using paid lifeguards, arranging training and exercising opportunities, and coordinating cross-club and multi-agency interactions. It also coordinates aerial patrolling services and rescue operations (including aerial rescues).

LSV has a somewhat unique ability to self-task and manage incidents along the coast. In a practical sense, lifesavers respond to incidents identified through club-based patrols or via LSV’s Communication Centre (LSVComms). VicPol and other responder agencies can also task or request the support of LSV for relevant incidents via LSV’s State Duty Officer and LSVComms.139

LSV is funded to provide paid patrols under its Common Funding Agreement with DJCS. The current agreement requires patrolling services at 10 specific sites and eight water-based roving patrols, and specifies patrolling scheduling expectations. LSV then uses a risk approach to determine the most appropriate schedule for additional paid patrolling, considering visitation trends, clubs’ volunteer resources, environmental risk and capability requirements.

Paid patrolling services may also be established in high-risk locations based on requests from land and waterway managers (typically fee-for-service arrangements). There is no defined requirement for land and waterway managers to identify and resource patrolling needs and assess whether additional services are required to supplement existing club patrols, or if new locations require patrolling services to be established.

LSV also assesses risk across the state to identify additional patrol locations and advocates for their establishment with land and waterway managers. As an example, in January 2023, patrols were established at four popular inland waterways during a predicted high visitation weekend (see Breakout Box 4, p 135).

While short-term patrols targeted to high-risk locations during high visitation periods are an important part of a comprehensive patrolling service, LSV largely attempts to establish long-term services. It notes that overly sporadic provision of patrols or large amounts of variability across beaches within a region can undermine public safety by creating unsustainable community expectations of safety.

Land or waterway managers typically cover the costs of the additional patrol service when entering an agreement with LSV. Alternatively, LSV can absorb the cost through its Common Funding Agreement or self-fund through its social enterprise budget.

Each contractual agreement to provide patrolling services is developed independently based on the type of land manager and the service required. Site-specific patrolling needs must be assessed and agreed to with the land manager. In most cases, contracts are short-term and land managers can insert a range of clauses, as well as withdraw from agreements based on their own perception of risk and availability of resources.

The patrolling agreements provided to IGEM as part of this review varied greatly in terms of the scheduling, service provision, and other terms and conditions. This has the effect of creating variable patrolling service provision across the state and creating a high administrative burden for LSV.

Placing the onus on land and waterway managers to identify (and accept) a need for patrolling and then fund such services is fraught. There is often ongoing confusion and disagreement as to whose responsibility it should be to assess water safety risks and resource their mitigation. This is because there is an unclear mix of council, land and waterway manager responsibilities which is not conducive to identifying a need for patrolling services and working with LSV to arrange them.

Finding 7.1

There is a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities in relation to the establishment of expanded and additional lifesaving patrols, which leads to variability in the agreements reached between Life Saving Victoria and land and waterway managers and may lead to missed opportunities to establish lifesaving patrols in high-risk locations.

Breakout Box 4: Inland lifesaving patrols in 2023

Ahead of the 2023 Australia Day long weekend, LSV trialled four short-term lifesaving patrol services at high-risk inland locations across Victoria. Lifesaving patrols were deployed from 26–29 January to the following locations:

 Lake Eildon

 Lysterfield Lake

 Lake Nagambie

 Lake Waranga.

The sites were chosen following consultation with emergency management organisations to increase understanding of likely visitation patterns and the likely presence of enforcement agencies (for example, VicPol and STVic). Previous drownings and adverse events were also considered.

LSV funded the additional services after engaging with land managers directly for approval to activate the four services. It initially proposed an expanded range of locations, seeking government funding and support to gain approval, which was not available within the timeframe.

The additional services were well utilised. Lifesavers performed 11 rescues at Lysterfield Lake and two at Lake Nagambie. Collectively lifesavers performed 781 preventative actions across the four sites and provided first aid to visitors.

The activation of the services was not straightforward, requiring a chain of approvals by three different land managers. Ultimately, the CEO of LSV spoke directly to the CEO of each land manager to expedite approvals and convey the value in establishing these short-term patrols.

There was a range of media attention to increase awareness of the patrols and promote water safety over the public holiday period, including a Premier’s media release.

The trial was considered successful and commentary at the Water Safety Taskforce indicated a desire to increase this type of activity to a greater number of locations and more high-risk periods. Data suggests that the risk of drowning is twice as high during weekends and public holidays, particularly when the weather is warm.

While funding is necessary to increase patrols of this nature, there is also a need to build relationships with land managers to facilitate approvals and increase understanding of local water safety risks, visitation patterns and waterway activities.

Observation 7.1

Short-term lifesaving patrols on inland waterways trialled in 2023 were valuable water safety initiatives and there is scope for land managers to work collaboratively with Life Saving Victoria to activate additional patrols during known high-risk periods.

7.1.2 Patrolling capability and capacity

LSV largely develops capability internally, using skilled trainers, assessors and facilitators to upskill members and ensure maintenance of existing qualifications. Basic lifeguard qualification requires 35 hours of training, as well as swimming awards and first aid accreditations. Each year LSV assesses its service provision requirements, water safety risks, visitation patterns and other relevant trends and priorities to determine its recruitment activities for paid lifeguards for the upcoming summer period.

To ensure consistent and capable lifesaving service provision, patrolling procedures, standards and obligations are outlined in a comprehensive series of standard operating procedures.139 LSV also conducts annual patrol service inspections as part of its Patrol Service Efficiency and Standards Program. Every club participates at least once per year. The inspection results are shared centrally with LSV and provided to the Patrol Captain (based at the club) for immediate review.140

There are currently in excess of 43,000 LSV members, with 56 clubs located along Victoria’s coastline and one club on the Murray River at Mildura.141 They provide over 200,000 hours of volunteer lifesaving services annually at more than 68 sites and 14 roving patrols.134

Patrols typically commence in mid-November and extend through the Anzac Day public holiday, capturing the April school holidays. Depending on the location and timing, patrols occur over weekends, with weekday patrols increasing during school and public holiday periods. There is interest from both the community and clubs in extending these hours and periods to reflect increased visitation to Victoria’s beaches.142

In 2021–22 the cost-of-service delivery equated to $9.8 million, of which $4.2 million was allocated to fulltime employees. Other costs are associated with support for volunteers, appliances, personal protective equipment and contracts associated with operating helicopter services, all of which directly impact the number of beaches patrolled and patrolling hours.39 LSV estimated its 2021–22 volunteer patrolling service value to be $7.44 million.

Given that lifesaving services are primarily provided by volunteers, clubs are located in areas based on legacy participation and demand trends rather than an objective assessment of risk. On the advice of individual clubs and/or LSVComms, roving patrols (land or water), or aerial patrols (drone or helicopter) may be deployed based on weather, water conditions and anticipated public visitation patterns.

There are currently no processes to determine the need for additional patrols outside of the areas patrolled by life saving clubs. There is a reliance on the land or waterway manager, or LSV, to identify a need for lifesaving patrols and come to an agreement to appropriately resource the necessary patrolling activities. This has worked out well in some locations, for example Tidal River, where Parks Victoria and LSV have a long-standing agreement in place. However, there are opportunities to strengthen the decision-making and facilitate the activation of patrols.

Lifesavers at Sandringham Beach (Source: IGEM)

7.1.3 Effectiveness of patrolling and surf lifesaving

It is not possible to patrol the entire length of Victoria’s coastline or every inland waterway. There are too many accessible aquatic locations and people are often drawn to isolated and remote locations. LSV drives decision-making to identify suitable hours and periods for patrol. While this practice is informed by available data demonstrating risk, a large proportion of popular waterways will always remain unpatrolled, either entirely or for significant portions of the year.

As an organisation, LSV has a strong ability to develop patrolling effectiveness and has a variety of assurance mechanisms in place to monitor capability development and maintenance. Furthermore, LSV has identified that to better understand coverage needs, a centralised risk-demand profile for lifesaving services is needed.

Current patrolling services are largely dedicated to coastal waters, with the majority of clubs located on beaches. Volunteers primarily provide these services, supplemented by paid lifeguards to extend patrolling activities during peak periods.

There remains, however, a distinct lack of inland patrolling activity despite a large proportion of drownings occurring in inland waterways. The Mildura Life Saving Club on the Murray River is the only established inland patrolling service. Short-term patrols at inland waterways on high-risk days in January 2023 were well received and lifeguards performed a high number of rescue and preventative actions. However, LSV encountered difficulties in establishing these patrols and is not funded to continue or extend these services.

Drownings in inland waterways differ to those that occur off beaches and more information is required to determine how best to patrol inland waterways. For example, data suggests that inland drownings occur at different times in the year, such as late summer, autumn and winter.

It is also difficult to monitor visitation and intended swimming activities at inland waterways. Parks Victoria is currently leading work to provide greater insight on inland waterway visitation, however data is still being compiled and not all land managers are performing similar work.

In 2021–22, inland waterways were the most common location for drownings (40 per cent) and this trend is set to continue in 2022–23. While maintaining patrols along the coast remains essential, there is scope to collect and collate data to inform a greater level of patrolling for inland waterways.

Finding 7.2

Life Saving Victoria maintains a strong patrolling service along Victoria’s coastline with proactive assessments and development of capability and capacity.

Observation 7.2

Inland waterway drowning figures indicate a need for greater patrolling along popular rivers, lakes and public dams. Increased collaboration is needed to collect information to prioritise patrol locations and coordinate patrolling service agreements with relevant land and waterway managers.

7.2 Bystander rescue

Public awareness messaging (like the SLSA ‘Swim between the flags’ campaign) has typically encouraged beachgoers to seek out patrolled locations.143 Yet a similar number of people continue to drown at unpatrolled locations compared to patrolled locations. Nationally in 2021–22, 49 per cent of coastal drowning deaths occurred more than five kilometres from a lifesaving service.144

The Australian Water Safety Strategy 2030 recognises unpatrolled beaches as a high drowning risk location. It lists improving understanding usage of unpatrolled and remote locations as one of its research targets, as well as reviewing access and effectiveness of emergency infrastructure – including public rescue equipment – at unpatrolled locations.26

Bystander rescue describes any member of the public attempting to help someone in distress. At unpatrolled beaches, it may be the only form of rescue available, however it is inherently dangerous. Training bystanders in safe rescue and resuscitation is one of the 10 actions recommended by the WHO to reduce drowning.14

7.2.1

The risk associated with bystander rescue

Between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015, 49 people drowned while performing a non-flood related water rescue in Australia.145 Beaches were the leading location for rescue-related fatal drowning.

There are many examples of bystanders entering the water without sourcing a flotation device or being a strong swimmer, including over the 2022–23 summer period.146, 147 Bystander attempts to render assistance can easily turn a potential single fatality into a multiple fatality event.

Despite the risks, bystander rescues are difficult to deter. When asked what they would do if they saw someone in the water in distress, a New Zealand study found that almost half of respondents (47 per cent) reported they would dive in and rescue the person. Of those respondents, more than a third (37 per cent) reported they could not swim 100 metres.148 The least capable respondents were at greatest risk of entering the water and drowning.

7.2.2 Public rescue equipment

The safest form of rescue occurs when the rescuer does not need to enter the water or come into contact with the person in distress. Several Victorian coronial findings have made recommendations about installing public rescue and flotation devices along unpatrolled waterways.7 For a flotation device (for example a life buoy) to be effective, it needs to be positioned close to where the person is in distress, maintained in good condition, and the bystander/rescuer must be able to get the device to the person in the water.149

This also requires rescuers to be able to throw a flotation device properly. However, research demonstrates that many people cannot effectively throw rescue equipment to a person in distress.149, 150

The Marine Safety Act does not require life buoys to be provided on piers and jetties, and Parks Victoria does not provide them on the ones it manages. Stakeholders reported doubts that providing public rescue equipment would reduce drowning risk. There are simply too many unpatrolled locations, and no formal requirement for land and waterway managers to assess risk, purchase, position and maintain the equipment. The same is true of public resuscitation equipment like AEDs.

Public land managers have extensively considered coronial recommendations. The potential benefit of providing this equipment needs to be balanced against the challenges of maintaining the equipment and potential risks of incorrect use.

7.2.3 Surfers as bystander rescuers

Surfing is one of the more popular recreational activities in Victoria, with approximately seven per cent of the adult population participating.151 Unlike many bystanders, surfers have experience in and knowledge of the coastal aquatic environment and, crucially, possess a flotation device. As such, they are wellequipped to provide assistance to their fellow beachgoers.152

Although data is limited, a conservative estimate of the number of rescues made by surfers each year in Australia puts them on par with the number of rescues conducted by lifeguards and lifesavers.152 In recognition of the important role they play in water safety and drowning prevention, in 2018 the Victorian Government launched the Surfers Rescue 24/7 program to upskill surfers in rescue and CPR techniques (see Breakout Box 5 p 140).152

Observation 7.3

Bystander rescue is highly dangerous and difficult to deter. Surfers with flotation aids, good physical fitness, knowledge of and competence in the coastal aquatic environment are uniquely positioned to perform it successfully.

Life buoy on Lorne Pier (Source: IGEM)

Breakout Box 5: Surfers Rescue 24/7

Surfers Rescue 24/7 is a free board rescue and CPR course available to all surfers and recreational water users in Victoria. It is run by Surfing Victoria and delivered at all Victoria’s boardrider clubs and coastal public secondary schools. It is also available via an online course.

Surfers are typically proficient swimmers and familiar with coastal waters. Their surfboards also provide a critical flotation device to facilitate a safe rescue. Investing in rescue skills builds on their existing capability.

Surfers are not allowed to use patrolled sections of beaches, so the Surfers Rescue 24/7 program extends the reach of rescue capability beyond what LSV provides via patrols.

The program secured its funding under the 2019–20 State Budget, which committed to providing one million dollars over four years ($250,000 per year) with the goal of improving water safety outcomes.153

Key milestones:

 In November 2020 the in-person program reached 1000 total participants.154

 In February 2022, the online course reached over 1000 participants (since going live in June 2020).155

Monthly participation and completion numbers vary significantly. For example, in March 2021 the program had a 43 per cent completion rate (86 out of 200 participants) as compared to December 2021, which had a 100 per cent completion rate, but only 20 participants.154 In April 2022, only nine of the 219 people enrolled completed the course.155 These figures were undoubtedly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns.

In principle, funding the Surfers Rescue 24/7 program is logical and recognises that it is not possible to provide formal rescue services in all locations. Despite the lack of formal evaluation, the program aims to build capability in the community, which is important given the dispersed nature of the risk.

Surfboards are critical flotation devices (Source: Laura McDougall)

7.3 Marine search and rescue

MSAR is an ‘operation, normally conducted by a rescue coordination centre, whereby personnel and resources are used to locate and retrieve persons in distress, provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety’. 156 MSAR includes both inland and coastal water rescues, and can involve vessel and aerial responses.

An MSAR incident may or may not require a search and rescue response, with incident responses ranging from a simple tow for a vessel out of fuel through to rescues of persons swept out to sea and in imminent danger.156 Specialist search and rescue responses such as swift water rescue or surf rescue are not considered to be MSAR incidents.156

7.3.1

Roles and responsibilities

Under the SEMP, VicPol is the control agency for water rescues, providing incident coordination for all MSAR incidents. The SEMP also describes MSAR support agency roles for paid agency personnel, as well as volunteers from volunteer MSAR units positioned along the state’s coast.

Agency-based MSAR capacity (AV, LSV, VicPol and VICSES) is largely managed independently under broader organisational structures. EMV’s MSAR office provide strategic and operational support for independent MSAR units and those associated with AVCGA.

An MSAR response is a multi-agency activation and often involves both paid and volunteer personnel working together. The roles of the control and support agencies are described in Table 4.

MSAR roles of control and support agencies

AGENCY

DESCRIPTION

VicPol The designated control agency for MSAR incidents. VicPol receives notification of an MSAR event, conducts a risk assessment and dispatches resources. VicPol provides the overall coordination of MSAR incidents and specialist support. VicPol also responds to MSAR incidents as required.

Volunteer MSAR units

There are 27 volunteer MSAR units across Victoria that act as a support agency and respond to MSAR incidents on behalf of VicPol. Volunteer MSAR units are spread across the coastline including Port Phillip Bay, Western Port, Gippsland Lakes and two inland locations.

VICSES MSAR unit (Inverloch) and support agency to VicPol by providing inland water rescues across 68 locations.

AV Assists VicPol by providing air response equipped with search and rescue capabilities. AV also provides a clinical response when required.

MSAR office Provides MSAR volunteers with a central coordination point and capability development to support VicPol in MSAR response. The office is a division of EMV, reports to the EMC and liaises with service providers, VicPol, and relevant authorities to develop strategy, policy and direction within the MSAR sector.

ESTA Manages the call-taking and dispatch function for water-based events on behalf of VicPol, AV and VICSES.

Victoria’s arrangements adhere to the Inter-Governmental Agreement on National Search and Rescue Response Arrangements, which specify that responsibility for coordinating MSAR incident response falls to the police of each state or territory.157

MSAR services are the responsibility of state and territory governments within their respective jurisdictions. However, services must comply with AMSA national regulatory standards for vessel compliance, operating parameters and crew competencies for MSAR operators. Adherence to national standards supports interoperability and joint operations at the national level. VicPol can escalate incidents to AMSA in scenarios where the scale, setting or severity exceeds its incident coordination capability or capacity.

There is reasonable role clarity across MSAR organisations in terms of operational roles, and individual units understand incident tasking procedures and their rescue roles. However, there are long-standing issues with some aspects of incident response, as well as roles and responsibilities in operational preparedness and strategic governance (see Breakout Box 6).

Breakout Box 6: Previous inquiries into marine search and rescue

Historically, MSAR volunteer units often formed out of local need or in response to a tragic incident that occurred in their local area. They developed without a central governing body or regulatory regime and operated in an uncoordinated and unregulated manner.19

There have been two significant inquiries into their operation – the 2002 Report on Voluntary Marine Search and Rescue Organisations in Victoria and the 2014 Parliamentary Inquiry into Marine Rescue Services in Victoria (the Parliamentary Inquiry). The 2002 report, commissioned by VicPol and the then Marine Safety Victoria, aimed to establish a best practice model for the management and coordination of MSAR volunteers, and to minimise injury or death during incident response. The Parliamentary Inquiry then examined MSAR governance, training needs and communications to determine if services provided to the Victorian public were fit for purpose.

The Parliamentary Inquiry found that many of the issues identified by the 2002 report still existed. MSAR volunteer organisations were operating in an unregulated manner, and this did not support consistent, high-quality performance across units. The Parliamentary Inquiry made 43 recommendations to address deficiencies in governance, standards, accreditation and audit, training, funding and communications. Both reports recommended the establishment of a single MSAR entity to clarify and strengthen governance arrangements.

The government response to the Parliamentary Inquiry accepted that change to the MSAR sector was needed and aimed to establish new arrangements with a clear authorising environment using the existing emergency management structures. A program of works was established to address critical systemic issues and immediate volunteer sustainability, including in 2016 the establishment of the MSAR office within EMV.158

The new arrangements set out in the government response were focused on open water environments, however, were considered flexible enough to extend to other waterways.158

7.3.2 Incident response

MSAR incident response follows well-established emergency management principles of command, control and coordination. Responses require VicPol as control agency to coordinate an appropriate and timely rescue, deploying internal resources or those of support agencies (both paid and volunteer) as necessary.

VicPol’s Water Police Squad is based at the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) in Williamstown (60 members), with a small satellite office in Paynesville (six members). VicPol services its control agency role for MSAR, swift water and broader land and water rescue from the RCC. The RCC houses communications equipment, search and rescue expertise, and provides this specialist support to the police supervisor local to the incident.

VicPol’s role as control agency is focused on incident coordination and response. VicPol also responds to MSAR incidents, with both an aerial and vessel capability if needed for high-risk incidents.

In Victoria, incident response aligns with the roles specified in the SEMP, as well as national operational guidance, the National Search and Rescue Manual developed by AMSA, and the National Search and Rescue Council. The manual provides a set of operational procedures and guidelines to be used by states and territories in developing procedures at the state level.

While Victorian arrangements adhere to common emergency management principles and align with the National Search and Rescue Manual, there are no plans in place to articulate Victorian MSAR arrangements.

In 2018 the MSAR office developed the Draft Marine Search and Rescue SEMP Subplan to provide statelevel operational guidance. However, consensus between stakeholders on the draft was not reached –particularly the articulation of roles and responsibilities of the control agency – and the plan was not finalised and is no longer being pursued. As a result, emergency service organisations and individual MSAR units follow internal agency or unit MSAR operational plans.

The lack of a clear MSAR plan makes it difficult for agency personnel and volunteers to have a comprehensive, shared understanding of end-to-end operational processes, roles and responsibilities. While the initial efforts to develop a subplan were unsuccessful, stakeholders are still supportive of such a plan and agree it would promote a strong and positive relationship between agencies and volunteers. A subplan would also provide clarity on strategic and operational governance arrangements and contribute to a shared understanding of operational processes and roles and responsibilities.

Incident notification

All marine incidents, from minor vessel disablements and collisions to highly complex and time critical rescues, are received, assessed, dispatched and coordinated from the RCC. The RCC can operate as a small multi-agency coordination centre for larger incidents, although it is physically limited in capacity. VicPol discussed the benefit of co-locating other emergency services organisations – for example ESTA –in the RCC, however the size of its incident control spaces makes this difficult.

A response is initiated when VicPol is alerted to an incident via ESTA, marine radio, EPIRB or another method. ESTA recently made procedural changes in dispatch of emergency services to an MSAR event. The changes aimed to ensure the appropriateness of the emergency agency being called upon to respond.

Since June 2022 ESTA nominates MSAR events in its computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system as either an inland water rescue, a coastal water rescue or a water rescue situation associated with a fire event. This has led to properly trained responders being sent in a more timely and consistent manner to on-water incidents.

These improvements were made based on discussions initiated in the Water Safety Taskforce and collaboration between ESTA, VicPol, AV, VICSES and other water response support agencies. Stakeholders noted that the changes were very beneficial during the Victorian flood events of late 2022.

Observation 7.4

Changes to the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority computer-aided dispatch system have increased the timeliness and appropriateness of responses to incidents requiring a water rescue. The work demonstrates the value of collaboration between Victoria Police as the control agency and support agencies facilitated through strong organisational relationships and participation in the Water Safety Taskforce.

Locating a person in distress

Identifying the site of an incident is a critical element of MSAR. Initial information can come from a distress beacon, via marine radio, or a call placed to Triple Zero (000). Of the 1246 MSAR incidents recorded in 2020–21, approximately 90 per cent of requests for assistance were called in to 000, three per cent were placed over marine radio, and less than one per cent were logged after activation of an EPIRB (the remaining six per cent of incidents were logged by other means).159

Triple Zero (000)

ESTA can locate a caller using various methods, including automatic telephone locating technology and by confirming street addresses, road names, map references, GPS coordinates, and visible landmarks with the caller. If the incident is in coastal waters, ESTA call-takers will verify the caller’s latitude and longitude where possible. Where that cannot happen, ESTA call-takers will attempt to link the location of the incident to a fixed reference landmark such as a marine marker or land-based point and request further details such as an estimation of the distance from shore. 160

Since 2021, ESTA call-takers have used Advanced Mobile Location (AML) to determine a caller’s location. AML is compatible with both Apple and Android operating systems. It allows mobile phone calls to be pinpointed to within five metres by automatically activating a telephone’s location service functions during a 000 call. 161 The phone will send a text message with the caller’s estimated location while the caller continues to speak with the call-taker. AML works even if the location services on the phone are switched off. 161

While AML is a positive advance in location technology, it is not universally available and its accuracy is variable. Accuracy can be affected by topography and terrain as well as the type of telephone connection being used by the caller. Availability is impacted by factors such as the length of the call, whether a phone's operating system has been upgraded, and whether one's own mobile phone network is used when making a call to 000.

Where AML is not available ESTA call-takers may, under supervision, activate Smart Phone Locator (SPL). SPL works by sending a text message to the caller's mobile telephone that includes a hyperlink. Once the caller taps the hyperlink, the handset’s latitude and longitude co-ordinates are transmitted back to ESTA.

In cases where neither AML nor SPL can be used, ESTA call-takers can instead place the caller's handset within a general geographic area using Push Mobile Location Identification (Push MOLI). Push MOLI estimates the caller's location based on the handset's proximity to telecommunications cellular towers. The accuracy of the Push MOLI location area can be variable. In remote areas with fewer nearby cell towers, it can result in an incident radius of up to 100 km. 162

Emergency and beach markers

Emergency markers are found in over 250 locations around Victoria and can be used to confirm a caller’s location. 163 They are green rectangular signs displaying alpha-numeric codes and commonly placed at beaches, in parks and on trails.164 The code links to a location, GPS coordinates, road access routes and navigational data that is stored in ESTA’s CAD mapping system.164

ESTA recommends that emergency markers be placed at swimming holes, beach access tracks and at the beginning and end of piers and jetties.164 Land managers have responsibility for the positioning and upkeep of the markers.164 Their successful use is dependent on the markers being appropriately placed for a caller to 000 and the guidance of the call-taker to alert the caller to their potential presence.

Emergency marker Cape Woolamai (Source: IGEM)

Like emergency markers, beach markers can be found in Victoria’s coastal areas and inland waterways and can be used to confirm a caller’s location. They are distinguishable by their conical yellow shape and are found in over 276 locations around Victoria. Their co-location in coastal areas with emergency markers has led to stakeholder confusion about how the two types of signs relate to each other. However, they work in a similar way to emergency markers by linking to ESTA’s CAD mapping system through a set of alpha numeric codes.

There have been multiple recommendations from the Coroners Court to review the use of emergency markers, consider their placement in areas where drowning incidents have occurred, and increase their use across the state.165, 166 AV is currently leading a working group of the Water Safety Taskforce to improve safety signage and emergency response times in coastal areas by increasing the geographic coverage and optimising placement of emergency markers, as well as the design and metadata associated with existing markers.167 Representatives from the working group advised the Water Safety Taskforce they expect to deliver a business case to progress these tasks by the end of 2023.

Marine radio

In addition to mobile phones, marine radios can be used to notify VicPol of an MSAR incident. Under the Marine Safety Regulations 2023 (Vic), boaters must carry a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio transceiver on their vessel if they are travelling more than two nautical miles from the coast. 168

VHF radios require a licence to operate and are monitored on a 24/7 basis by Marine Radio Victoria. Over time, however, marine radio distress calls are becoming less frequent.

Distress beacons

Distress beacons emit a signal following activation and communicate their location to the International Rescue Satellite System which alerts the AMSA Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Canberra. Incidents in Victoria should then be relayed to VicPol as the control agency.

Recreational boaters and watercraft operators can use an EPIRB or a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB). Under the Marine Safety Regulations 2023 (Vic) EPIRBs are mandatory for all powered recreational vessels heading out more than two nautical miles from the coast. They must also be registered with AMSA. 168 PLBs are smaller and intended to be worn inside a lifejacket. While not mandatory, STVic recommends their use, particularly for paddlers, kayakers and boaters whose vessels are not required to carry an EPIRB.169

Encouraging the use of PLBs for vessels such as kayaks and paddleboards is difficult as there is no licence required and vessels can be purchased at a relatively low cost from a variety of retailers. STVic is in the early stages of developing initiatives to promote greater use of PLBs and EPIRBs, particularly among operators of non-powered vessels where the use of distress beacons is not mandatory. During the 2022–23 summer period, VicPol commented that many successful rescue efforts were assisted by the proper use of EPIRBs and PLBs.

Adequacy of location strategies

There are a variety of ways in which people can alert response personnel to their location when they require rescue or assistance. While many of the options are facilitated and resourced by government, the onus remains on the individual to take responsibility and maintain awareness of their location while recreating in and around the water.

The primary form for locating an incident is performed by ESTA call-takers during a 000 call. These technical functions rely on suitable network coverage and a caller's access to a mobile phone. This is not guaranteed in remote or coastal locations, and there is a risk that mobile phones may be damaged by exposure to water.

To facilitate the location of people in distress where a person is able to make a phone call, but location technologies are not available, AV is leading work through the Water Safety Taskforce to increase the coverage of emergency markers to provide a highly specific and accurate means of locating the person.

Boating regulators and enforcement agencies administer the use of distress beacons as much as resourcing and current regulations allow. Operators of non-powered vessels are not required to carry distress beacons, posing a significant risk should they require assistance. In recognition of this risk and the increasing popularity of non-powered vessel use, STVic is exploring strategies to encourage operators to consider options for communicating their location should they need assistance, such as carrying a PLB or mobile phone.

Observation 7.5

There are sufficient redundancies in place when it comes to locating people during a marine search and rescue incident. Technical and process improvements have increased the accuracy and timeliness of location methods.

Incident control

VicPol’s approach to incident management is underpinned by the Incident Command and Control System (ICCS). ICCS is compatible with the widely used Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System (AIIMS) and aims to provide a single, scalable management structure.170

The majority of MSAR incidents are managed within the RCC by a Police Marine Search Coordinator, with very few requiring escalation to the regional or state level. The AMSA Joint Rescue Coordination Centre can also assume a coordination role if the incident exceeds the capabilities of VicPol.170

The Police Marine Search Coordinator manually assesses each incident to determine the most appropriate response based on available resources. VicPol uses a sophisticated system to monitor current and forecast weather conditions, tides and movement of vessels or people in the water. It then identifies and tasks the most appropriate response unit, considering the vessel(s) required, the skills and knowledge of the crew and their proximity to the incident.170 Prior to sending volunteer responders, VicPol speaks with volunteer MSAR units to ensure they have the appropriate capabilities to be tasked with the incident. Aerial resources may be deployed in time critical incidents.

VicPol tasking for MSAR incidents considers rescue complexity, timing and the likelihood of severe injury or fatality among the people requiring rescue. VicPol favours using its own personnel when volunteer safety and wellbeing may be at risk. It also considers practical factors, such as night-time capability, in its tasking decisions.

Victoria Water Police unit (Source: Victoria Water Police)

For high-risk rescues, it is common for VicPol to coordinate a multi-agency response involving its own vessels and aerial assets, as well as AV’s aerial assets, volunteer MSAR units and any commercial operators in the area. VicPol has vessels placed strategically across the state at Paynesville, Queenscliff, Hastings, Portland and can temporarily position vessels at other locations depending on operational needs.

VicPol is comfortable with its manual approach to tasking and provided clear examples as to why an individualised approach is necessary. However, IGEM did not receive operational plans or guidance related to incident tasking.

Some stakeholders, including MSAR volunteers, raised concerns about the efficiency of VicPol’s manual tasking practices. They questioned the thoroughness of VicPol’s understanding of local conditions and volunteer unit capabilities and capacities. While VicPol is confident in its tasking approach, it relies on a thorough understanding of individual volunteer MSAR unit capacities, local conditions, vessel availability and other dynamic factors.

Without clear documentation of processes and limited use of technology to facilitate tasking, the process is subject to inefficiencies and oversights. Clear operational plans would improve the understanding of VicPol dispatch decisions among MSAR volunteers and provide an opportunity for processes to be strengthened.

Stakeholders’ concerns in relation to tasking are compounded by a general lack of consistent interaction between VicPol and the volunteer MSAR units. The current arrangements do not provide MSAR volunteers with visibility of the rationale for tasking decisions or mechanisms to ask questions and provide feedback. Similar issues were also raised in the Parliamentary Inquiry where stakeholders expressed that VicPol did not always dispatch the nearest unit.

VicPol has recently introduced a debriefing process where significant MSAR incidents will be subject to a debrief with all agencies involved, providing an opportunity for MSAR volunteers to better understand VicPol tasking decisions.

The Water Police Squad has also recently adapted the VicPol Neighbourhood Policing model to increase interactions with MSAR stakeholders. The approach sees members of the Water Police Squad establish an ongoing relationship with individual volunteer MSAR units. Alongside greater debriefing efforts, it aims to increase the understanding of tasking decisions and improve communication more broadly.

Stakeholders with MSAR responsibilities (outside of VicPol) discussed opportunities to integrate some automation into the tasking and dispatch of its resources, to provide some visibility of MSAR incidents and response across the state.

Stakeholders, both government and volunteer, suggested the incorporation of MSAR events into the existing ESTA CAD system as one means of increasing efficiency, with this system allowing automatic dispatch of units based on a customisable set of criteria. VicPol does not believe this to be a viable solution. It discussed how the combination of rescue circumstances, the aquatic environment and human behaviour is better assessed on a case-by-case basis by a qualified member of the Water Police Squad using a dynamic risk assessment process.

Finding 7.3

The manual dispatch process used by Victoria Police is vulnerable to organisational changes and individuals’ experience as it is resource intensive and relies on a deep understanding of marine search and rescue, local conditions, weather and the capabilities and capacities of marine search and rescue units.

Finding 7.4

There is a lack of documented principles and procedures for marine search and rescue incident tasking that makes it difficult for volunteers to understand the decisions related to tasking and incident coordination.

7.3.3 Coordination of operational preparedness

Outside of incident control and coordination are a range of activities to ensure units are prepared to respond to MSAR incidents. This involves maintaining an appropriate level of capability and capacity, vessel availability and adherence to safety and regulatory requirements. Individual units are responsible for ensuring their own preparedness, however, accountability for overall preparedness of MSAR is not clear.

The SEMP is not prescriptive in the requirements of control agencies, allowing some flexibility in how agencies perform the role. It states that the control agency is the primary agency accountable for emergency response and has additional responsibilities, such as establishing the arrangements to provide an integrated response during incident activation.138 It is not specified that the control agency take a lead role in preparedness for response.

VicPol performs its control agency responsibilities consistently with the accountabilities outlined in the SEMP. However, its role does not extend to the coordination of preparedness for all MSAR organisations.

There are no arrangements in place to provide overall preparedness coordination to increase visibility and consistency of related activities such as planning, training, exercising or procurement. Despite it not being the original purpose for its establishment, the MSAR office has come to support volunteer MSAR unit preparedness. AV, LSV, VicPol and VICSES also ensure appropriate internal preparedness, with many elements of MSAR preparedness achieved through broader organisational obligations.

The arrangements differ in comparison to how other control agencies operate for other hazards. For example, VICSES and CFA take overall responsibility for hazard preparedness, as well as incident control and coordination. This approach is facilitated by the organisational structures of these agencies as they also manage volunteers which make up a large part of their workforce.

A key difference between VicPol and emergency responder agencies is that its core business-as-usual responsibilities focus on security, counter terrorism and law enforcement, which sit outside of emergency management.

A further difference is how other organisations provide a large proportion of the response capacity. As noted previously, approximately 60 per cent of incidents are responded to by volunteer units that are either independent or affiliated with other parent organisations (AVCGA, LSV and VICSES).

The option of VicPol taking a greater role in both operational and non-operational volunteer MSAR matters has been explored several times. VicPol remains opposed to this arrangement, noting as barriers industrial arrangements, organisational practices and misaligned specialities in strategic and operational matters – such as volunteer management.

The current arrangements have the MSAR office providing a broad range of operational support to volunteer MSAR units, VicPol attending some exercises and training, and volunteer units largely accountable for maintaining their own capabilities and capacities. However, this leaves gaps in managing capability, capacity and other safety and compliance matters where no entity has formal responsibility for supporting individual units or ensuring consistency across MSAR.

Finding 7.5

Victoria Police focuses on incident control in its role as control agency for marine search and rescue, leaving strategic and operational volunteer preparedness functions to the Marine Search and Rescue Office, or individual marine search and rescue units.

The challenges of ensuring greater coordination across MSAR volunteer preparedness arrangements are further complicated because Victoria’s 27 volunteer MSAR units include units affiliated with a parent organisation, as well as independent units. There are 18 units affiliated with AVCGA, seven accredited independent units, two affiliated with LSV and one with VICSES (see Table 5, p 150).171 Although individual MSAR organisations are governed by the same legislation and regulations, the parent organisations operate independently of one another and follow different policies and processes.

Each parent organisation provides differing levels of support and imposes different requirements on volunteers within its service. For example, AVCGA is a national organisation and operates under a rigid constitution. Volunteers reported it provides very little operational or administrative support to individual units. It also requires volunteers to achieve registered training organisation-issued course completion certificates that differ from those required by AMSA and the MSAR office.

Volunteers reported having to deal with ‘two masters’, where they feel obligated to respond to conflicting preparedness obligations of their parent organisation, national laws, the MSAR office, and VicPol. The multiple levels of governance presents a challenge for volunteers to address each entity’s individual requests and requirements, and there is a limited amount of documents and policies to resolve any conflicts or difficulties. While the MSAR office provides support to assist volunteers as much as possible, they are do not always have the required authority or capacity to provide definitive advice or tasking.

Currently, operational preparedness is challenged by a lack of overall coordination for all MSAR providers. While agency-based responders can rely on internal preparedness processes, AVCGA and independent units are left to interpret complex and potentially conflicting obligations from other agencies, national regulators and potentially their parent organisation. The overall approach places MSAR services at risk of inconsistent levels of preparedness based on misinterpretation of unit safety, capability and capacity obligations.

The governance arrangements and accountabilities for MSAR are not clearly articulated in any formal plan and deviate from what typically occurs across the emergency management sector. Clear articulation of preparedness expectations, roles and obligations through multi-agency planning documents would provide greater understanding and allow for accurate resource planning for the responsible agency.

Finding 7.6

The current approach to preparedness within the marine search and rescue sector creates confusion and conflict for volunteers in relation to overall leadership, which is not resolved through plans, training or exercising.

Marine search and rescue activity (Source: Coast Guard St Kilda/Facebook)

7.3.4 Volunteer capacity

Victoria’s MSAR service relies on both volunteers and emergency service agencies. Adequate capacity across both parts of the sector is necessary to keep Victorian boaters safe, with volunteer capacity critical to respond to lower risk scenarios, and responding to approximately 60 per cent of all total incidents on behalf of VicPol.

Figure 5 illustrates overall operational volunteer membership numbers. Numbers of operational members and qualified vessels masters have remained steady since 2020 after experiencing a steady decline over many years.

Operational membership number for volunteer MSAR units (Adapted from: MSAR Annual Report171).

Non-specialist operational members Qualified vessel masters

Despite the recent stability of volunteer membership, individual units and the MSAR office are aware of significant, imminent challenges for volunteer capacity. Overall, there is an ageing volunteer cohort, and current recruitment efforts are not sufficient to replace the anticipated numbers of retiring members in the short-term future.

Attracting new volunteers is difficult as there is a significant time commitment involved. All MSAR volunteers commit a substantial amount of time to training, vessel and facility maintenance, as well as the time spent responding to incidents. Throughout the review, volunteers discussed the arduous volume of administrative work to achieve regulatory compliance as a deterrent to new volunteers, and a contributing factor for high attrition levels.

I don’t think too many people volunteer to be in it for bureaucracy. People don’t normally volunteer to do governance, paperwork, administration. Most people volunteer for an operational function … how do we ensure that we have succession planning, and continue to deliver this service into the future, with an aging volunteer sector?

Stakeholder

… When they get people in the door, and the people see the amount of work that is not related to being on the boat, that they’ve got to do, they lose them really, really quickly.

Stakeholder

There is a substantial amount of additional training and accrued experience required for specialist MSAR roles, with years of service required to meet accreditation requirements. If vessel masters leave the service, it can take several years to upskill replacement members to be eligible for accreditation. Individual MSAR units are unable to function without vessel masters and without appropriate succession planning, recruitment and retention, there is a risk some units will be left without sufficient vessel masters and become unviable service providers.

In addition to the time commitment, volunteer recruitment and retention is made challenging by ongoing issues with operational support and frustrations associated with incident control decisions. Many volunteers have been involved in multiple attempts of reform, yet are still frustrated by similar issues.

While VicPol is taking steps to increase clarity of decision-making during incident control, and providing additional opportunities for debriefing and relationship building, perceptions of unfairness in incident tasking are still common across volunteers.

The different parent organisations for volunteer MSAR units may also deter some volunteers from joining and remaining in the service. There were reports of disharmony between the parent organisation and individual units for both AVCGA and LSV affiliated units. AVCGA volunteers were also concerned by the lack of support provided by the parent organisation. Acknowledging the highly regulated and potentially dangerous service they provide, they felt AVCGA was not active in providing support or assurance to individual volunteers or units.

The nature of the regulations means that individual units or volunteers are vulnerable to regulatory noncompliance notices or criminal charges if they are found to have acted improperly. While the MSAR office has provided support in recent times, neither the office or the units’ parent organisations share any accountability for the actions of units or individuals. Volunteers assume a large personal risk when conducting MSAR activities.

Addressing capacity risks

Capacity deficits have already had isolated impacts across volunteer units. Since 2018 three volunteer MSAR units have withdrawn their services due to inadequate membership and inability to meet regulatory requirements. Currently, some units find it necessary to be taken offline when individual members take leave as vessels cannot be safely crewed. Volunteers spoke to IGEM about wanting to retire or reduce their involvement, but feeling obliged to continue as their departure would have significant implications for the viability of the unit.

They want to retire and stop volunteering and stop going on the boats, but they’ve got no one to hand the baton over to.

Stakeholder

There is currently no unified or statewide campaign to recruit MSAR volunteers, or to upskill basic operational members to more senior operational roles. One of the MSAR Reform Implementation Board's original objectives was to explore opportunities for supporting and strengthening the recruitment of volunteers.172 However, this work has not progressed and volunteer recruitment for MSAR currently remains the responsibility of each individual MSAR unit.

In general, volunteer MSAR units recruit new members through utilising their community connections or social media advertising with varying levels of success. This current recruitment model seems incapable of attracting enough new volunteers to allow for current volunteer attrition levels, and supporting a sustainable volunteer workforce into the future.

Emergency service agencies are confident in their capacity to respond to MSAR incidents, noting that the capabilities of their workforce were continually improving. However, the volunteer MSAR sector responds to more than half of all incidents. Without adequate volunteer capacity the important role they have in attending MSAR incidents will fall to VicPol as the control agency. This would significantly stretch VicPol’s current resourcing and likely require more substantial involvement from AV, LSV and VICSES.

Finding 7.7

Current and future marine search and rescue service provision is at risk due to capacity deficits caused by low recruitment levels and high attrition rates of volunteers, particularly highly qualified members with leadership roles.

Observation 7.6

The absence of a state-level marine search and rescue volunteer recruitment and retention model leaves current capacity development as the responsibility of individual units, posing a significant risk to the marine search and rescue service provision and volunteer and public safety.

7.3.5 Capability

The VicPol Water Police Squad advised IGEM it provides a response capability for high risk MSAR incidents from a fleet of approximately 30 vessels located along the Victorian coast. The Water Police Squad includes nationally qualified Marine and Land Search Coordinators to provide subject matter advice to Police Commanders to assist in decision making. VicPol may also draw upon the assistance of commercial vessels located near the incident to provide initial response support.

Due to the time critical and potentially dispersed nature of MSAR incidents, a significant proportion of high-risk incidents receive air support as an initial response. Air capability for MSAR incidents is predominately provided by VicPol, AV and LSV, with approximately 10 aircraft available across Victoria that provide extensive coastal and offshore capability.

VicPol and AV manage their own MSAR capability development, asset procurements and preparedness on an individual agency basis. The MSAR office coordinates capability development for volunteers. It developed, and continues to provide, a statewide training strategy, training program and supporting resources for MSAR volunteers.

Unit accreditation

The Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 establishes the regulatory minimum vessel, crew and operational standards for MSAR operations. The MSAR Arrangements use this standard as a basis for the accreditation scheme established to govern volunteer MSAR providers. This system was introduced in 2013 and defines MSAR vessels as ‘domestic commercial vessels’ subject to national certification requirements. Prior to this system, MSAR vessels were operating in a largely unregulated environment.19

AMSA has legislated responsibility for setting standards for MSAR vessels including safe operations, crewing and qualification requirements. MSAR service providers operate under a Certificate of Operation to attest they have achieved the requirements to competently – and with the appropriate capacity –conduct operations safely. MSAR units demonstrate this by the development of a Safety Management System (SMS) which outlines their crewing and competency requirements to AMSA standards.

In 2021 EMV commissioned Maritime Survey Australia to conduct a desktop audit of the statewide volunteer MSAR unit SMS against the requirements of Marine Order 504. The audit found that the average compliance score across 29 MSAR units (the number of operational volunteer units at that time) was 55 per cent, with SMS compliance scores for individual units ranging between 10 and 90 per cent.173

Reasons for noncompliance varied and ranged from data errors, inconsistencies, poor understanding of regulation requirements, and difficulty in keeping track of AMSA regulation changes which are made without notification.173

MSAR volunteers report that the SMS takes a significant amount of time, detracting from operational requirements and making it difficult to complete and maintain. The audit report found that volunteer MSAR units lack the resources to complete the SMS to the regulatory standard and a lack of subject matter expertise among volunteers resulted in many requests to the MSAR office for assistance.174 This sentiment is not unique to MSAR volunteers, with domestic commercial vessel operators also struggling with completing the SMS since its introduction.173

They’re very cumbersome, they’re very long-winded, they’re very hard to follow. And more often than not, on the water you can’t read a document and then operate to a document like you can on land.

Stakeholder

In November 2022, the MSAR office made changes to the SMS process to make it easier for individual units, providing standard information that can be adapted to reflect information relevant to the specific unit. At the time of writing, it is too early to assess whether these changes have improved compliance, but the changes simplify the task and reduce burden on volunteers.

Given the difficulties MSAR volunteers have in completing and maintaining the SMS, it is difficult to understand whether the poor compliance scores indicate issues with capability, or simply issues with completion.

Observation 7.7

It is difficult to use the Safety Management System to determine the scale and nature of capability issues across volunteer Marine Search and Rescue (MSAR) units, as it is not clear whether low compliance scores indicate a deficit in capability across volunteer MSAR units, or are an artefact of the time-consuming and complex system.

While the SMS may result in an overestimation of capability problems, there are other indicators that capability levels and safety standards are problematic across volunteer MSAR units.

Incidents involving MSAR vessels are also required to be reported to AMSA. Between 2018 and 2022 there have been approximately 29 reportable incidents involving volunteer MSAR vessels. These incidents resulted in injuries to both volunteers and civilians as well as damage to civilian and MSAR vessels.175

AMSA or VicPol investigated some incidents to assess the extent of regulatory and legal breaches. So far AMSA has issued a range of improvement and prohibition notices, but no criminal charges have been made.

The MSAR office also reviewed these incidents to determine whether there were opportunities for learning across the services. It identified a range of systemic capability issues, including substandard levels of competence, poor training practices and outdated training material, as well as poor compliance with the SMS.

Breaches of safety requirements and insufficient levels of capability pose a critical risk to those performing the rescues and those being rescued. They expose individual units and volunteers to legal and criminal charges and diminish the reputation of MSAR providers.

Finding 7.8

Multiple sources evidence systemic capability issues across volunteer Marine Search and Rescue (MSAR) units that pose safety risks to MSAR volunteers, agency personnel and the public.

Volunteer training

The MSAR office uses a statewide training model to support volunteer capability development, a significant improvement since the Parliamentary Inquiry. The MSAR Arrangements (January 2017), developed by EMV, detail the training requirements for volunteer units and outline the arrangements for training, skills maintenance and training audits. The MSAR office expanded training beyond regulation requirements to cover competencies such as emergency management and leadership. Training is delivered online or face-to-face.

While the MSAR office provides considerable training support to units, it is not resourced to deliver training to volunteers. It provides training and support for unit leaders to train and educate their own members. This has varying degrees of success as the effectiveness of the self-delivered training program can vary between units due to the capabilities of trainers. Some unit leaders do not have the appropriate skills to deliver the training and assess new members. Unit-based training courses can be infrequent due to poor attendence.176

While there have been significant improvements with the provision of a statewide volunteer training model, the absence of funded and dedicated state-based training resources within the MSAR office has resulted in little growth in qualification attainment across the volunteer sector, with qualified masters declining from 203 in 2018 to 180 in 2020.171

Challenges implementing a statewide volunteer training model are further complicated by the differences in training requirements by MSAR parent organisations – in particular AVCGA.

The MSAR sector operates under AMSA Exemption 24 which allows for volunteer marine vessels to operate without the formal certificate of competency normally required for a vessel of that class. This allows for training to be delivered by a validated assessor instead of an RTO, thereby increasing the flexibility of delivery within the sector.

The training program developed by the MSAR office meets the requirements of Exemption 24. However, AVCGA add additional requirements beyond Exemption 24, such as requiring members to obtain certificates of course completion through an RTO, not specifically required by Exemption 24. This means volunteers cannot use the MSAR office training program to meet the standards of AVCGA.

AVCGA volunteers expressed their frustration with what they perceive to be their organisation’s outdated training practices and material. They discussed using the MSAR office training package to supplement AVCGA material as it is well maintained, correct and current.

Individual emergency service organisations also conduct a range of internal training activities that influence their ability to respond to MSAR incidents. Training is dependent on the needs of the organisation to fulfil their specialised MSAR response roles. For example, AV, that provides an important aerial capability, undertakes training to meet the requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Finding 7.9

The ability of volunteer marine search and rescue units to provide effective training to their members is variable, as it is dependent on the capability of trainers within each unit.

Observation 7.8

Supporting volunteer units to provide effective training places significant demand on the Marine Search and Rescue Office’s already stretched resources.

Observation 7.9

The different training and accreditation requirements of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association make it difficult to provide consistent state-based training that meets the needs of each organisation.

Exercising

Exercising regularly builds operational efficiency and capabilities. It also strengthens relationships between agencies and increases understanding of roles, responsibilities and capabilities. The Parliamentary Inquiry identified a lack of MSAR multi agency exercises and recommended that a training framework be established, including joint exercises involving multiple units and emergency service organisations.

In line with national policy, VicPol – as the state search and rescue authority – should conduct search and rescue operational training at the local level and participate in annual or biannual training exercises to maintain skills and lower the risk of negative outcomes.13 Exercises should test operational plans, communication procedures and facilities, individual staff performance, search and rescue assets, performance and inter-agency coordination.

VicPol undertakes regular training within its own organisation, as do other agencies with MSAR responsibilities. To ensure the national training obligations are met, the MSAR office has established an MSAR exercise program for volunteer units as VicPol does not take the lead in volunteer MSAR exercising.

Volunteer exercises are managed and attended by the MSAR office and operate on a rotational basis. The exercise program has been running since 2019 and aims to deliver a practical exercise to every volunteer MSAR unit at least every two years. Exercises are run across volunteer MSAR units and tailored to local conditions and known issues.

The program is extended to other relevant local agencies. As the control agency, VicPol is invited to each volunteer MSAR exercise. Stakeholders noted that VicPol’s attendance is sporadic, and VicPol discussed its attendance is based on availability. Exercises at the unit level are also conducted and participants provide feedback to the MSAR office on each exercise, with learnings incorporated back into the program as required.177

MSAR exercise at Marlo (Source: EMV/Twitter)

VICSES also facilitates an annual two-day water-based search and rescue exercise at Lake Eildon. The focus of this exercise is predominately VICSES skills maintenance, however other agencies, including volunteer MSAR units, are invited to participate. VICSES noted the costs associated with attending a twoday exercise, such as accommodation and fuel, can be a prohibitive factor in MSAR volunteers attending.

There are a range of organisational training exercises run independently or with selected external agencies to develop and maintain water rescue skills. One example is work done by the AV Mobile Intensive Care Ambulance flight paramedic group, which holds a water rescue training exercise twice a year to maintain competency requirements. During this exercise AV utilises specific volunteer MSAR units to assist with exercising on-water rescue capabilities.

MSAR volunteers spoke favourably about the exercise program managed by the MSAR office, valuing the learning process and networking opportunity with other units. Prior to the introduction of the MSAR office, units rarely exercised together.177 Despite these positive outcomes, the exercise program is underresourced and highly localised.

Both volunteer and government stakeholders saw benefit in establishing accessible and regular statebased multi-agency MSAR exercises, inclusive of both volunteers and government agencies.

Finding 7.10

The Marine Search and Rescue Office has established a localised marine search and rescue exercise program that provides an opportunity for marine search and rescue units to work together, which has strengthened relationships between units.

Observation 7.10

There are opportunities to develop a schedule for a large-scale, multi-agency marine search and rescue exercising program involving emergency service organisations, volunteer units and other relevant agencies.

7.3.6 Funding and procurement

The MSAR office administers a centralised procurement strategy for AVCGA affiliated and independent volunteer MSAR units. It also provides centralised procurement for accredited LSV and VICSES MSAR units (Waratah, Portland and Inverloch). VicPol and AV have their own funding and procurement processes and also employ their resources outside of MSAR. AV’s helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) balances its water-based response with callouts for other life-threatening emergencies, interhospital transfers and transporting remote patients.

Until the establishment of the MSAR office in EMV, MSAR organisations typically sought funding to procure and build their own vessels, often through fundraising and sponsorship. This meant volunteer MSAR resources were linked to the fundraising capabilities of their organisations, but not necessarily the service delivery needs of their area.

Fundraising and sponsorship continue to be important sources of revenue for volunteer MSAR providers. Many volunteer MSAR organisations maintain public donation pages, and it is common for units to sign sponsorship agreements with corporate entities.178-181 Volunteer units are only required to seek prior approval from the MSAR office for fundraising ventures if the unit is seeking more than $30,000.182

Grants and budget funding

The Victorian Government supports volunteer MSAR unit fundraising and sponsorship through emergency services grants and budget funding for MSAR operations and vessel procurement.171

In late 2017, funding through the State Budget was secured for the Capability Uplift Program (new vessel program) and in 2018–19 funding was provided for the operation of the new MSAR office.28 In 2019–20 and 2020–21 MSAR was allocated a further $1.9 million in budget funding. This allocation covered running costs for the MSAR office, MSAR training programs, unit operational costs (such as fuel, service and repairs, lease costs) and maintaining MSAR vessels and other equipment. For 2019–20, the amount that was distributed directly to volunteer MSAR units was $1,078,000 with the remaining $822,000 used to fund the MSAR office.183

In 2020–21, MSAR received a combined total of $2,059,886 in budget-funded grants from the Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund (ESRF), the Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program (VESEP), and the Valuing Volunteers Program.171 These grants were for:

 essential operational equipment, vehicles, appliances and minor facility improvements (VESEP)

 upgrades to facilities, vehicles and equipment (ESRF)

 ideas, initiatives and opportunities for innovation to strengthen emergency services volunteerism (Valuing Volunteers Program).171

In 2022–23, MSAR received funding from DJCS through the State Budget, receiving $1.5 million for volunteer MSAR service delivery (including the purchase of digital radios and access to the Victorian Radio Network to ensure interoperability with other emergency service organisations) and essential fleet maintenance.184

IGEM notes that volunteer MSAR funding has generally been short-term (one year) with the majority of funding dedicated to operational costs associated with providing MSAR services such as vessels, training and facility development. This approach has left a relatively small proportion of funding available for centralised operational support and non-operational matters such as coordination and planning. Acknowledging the high volume of work performed by the MSAR office (as discussed in section 7.3.4, p 151), the funding is not commensurate with the demands placed on the office, including a high level of both operational and non-operational support.

Finding 7.11

It is difficult to resource the non-operational activities of the Marine Search and Rescue Office as a greater proportion of funding for marine search and rescue is directed to high-priority operational costs accrued by volunteer marine search and rescue units.

Since 2016, the MSAR office has allocated MSAR resources (funding and replacement vessels) to individual volunteer units based on risk. Following some issues with regulatory compliance and safety, the MSAR office recognised a need for more comprehensive assessments of risk, capability and compliance. It commenced a program of work to conduct more comprehensive risk assessments and now requires units to participate in face-to-face audits and quality assurance reviews.

It is not clear to IGEM how embedded the quality assurance review program currently is and how it, and unit risk profiles, are used to inform funding and procurement. Regardless, these measures are time intensive, requiring the limited resources of the MSAR office to work with unit volunteers on site across the state.

Finding 7.12

Staffing and vessel replacement budget constraints have hampered attempts to link volunteer marine search and rescue unit funding and vessel procurement to comprehensive and ongoing risk assessments.

Asset ownership

Volunteer vessels acquired under the Capability Uplift Program remain the property of the Victorian Government.182 Volunteer MSAR providers sign vessel use agreements which stipulate that ownership of the vessel remains with DJCS, and in return they are given authority to use the vessel for community engagement, search and rescue, conducting patrols, risk mitigation and any other reasonable use.171 As of 2021, the Victorian Government owns 13 of the 47 vessels in the volunteer MSAR fleet.171

There are a number of ownership scenarios for the remainder of the vessels in the volunteer MSAR fleet.

In some instances, volunteer MSAR vessels receive funding from a combination of government grant or budget allocations and independent fundraising, like in the case of VESEP. VESEP provides two dollars for every one dollar of funding contributed by the MSAR volunteer unit.171 On the evidence presented to IGEM, it was not clear whether government retained full title of these assets.

Some volunteer MSAR assets have been entirely funded by the fundraising and sponsorship efforts of individual units. These assets remain the property of that organisation.

AVCGA is the parent organisation for roughly two thirds of volunteer MSAR providers in Victoria. Under AVCGA's constitution, if a unit chooses to end its association with the organisation and operate independently, AVCGA retains full ownership of that unit’s assets.185 This affects several vessels in the MSAR fleet and vessel ownership rights would need to be resolved if any units were to leave AVCGA.

7.3.7 Strategic governance arrangements

Currently, decision-making and planning structures related to the sustainability of MSAR, resource procurement, volunteer management and the overall strategic direction of the service are not coordinated across agencies with MSAR roles. For agency-based MSAR units, AV and VicPol, strategic MSAR matters are handled within internal governance structures and considered as part of broader organisational planning and management. The MSAR office provides strategic leadership and coordination for AVCGA and independent volunteer MSAR units.

In many other emergency management arrangements, the control agency has a lead strategic role for both operational and non-operational matters, as well as the incident control and coordination role. As control agency for MSAR, VicPol participates in strategic discussions and decision-making with other agencies and the MSAR office on behalf of volunteer units. However, it does not drive sector-wide MSAR strategy or long-term planning. While this is not a control agency requirement according to the SEMP, it creates a scenario where strategic governance arrangements are unclear and there is a fragmented approach to strategic leadership and activity.

Volunteer MSAR units are most exposed by the existing arrangement as the independent units do not have any organisational structures to manage coordinated strategic planning, and the AVCGA does not provide this type of support for its affiliated units. Given that volunteer retention and capability are important strategic concerns facing MSAR, it is critical that volunteer units have a coordinated strategic planning and decision-making function.

The lack of coordinated strategic planning among volunteer MSAR units has been problematic for some time (see Breakout Box 6, p 142). Although well-positioned to act as a control agency and provide incident coordination, VicPol has argued that organisational barriers would create inefficiencies if it were to assume a leading role in volunteer MSAR strategy development and implementation. In the 2014 Parliamentary Inquiry, it was clear that a new entity was required to provide greater levels of strategic support to volunteer MSAR units.

The 2014 Parliamentary Inquiry led to the establishment of the MSAR office within EMV in 2016. The MSAR office has coordinated the development of common MSAR strategy, policies and programs to support volunteers to perform safe and effective rescues. The Victorian Government considered the MSAR office to be a transitional step towards a more permanent coordinating body and its ongoing role and resourcing were not formalised through emergency management or departmental agreements.158

The Parliamentary Inquiry also prompted the establishment of the MSAR Reform Implementation Board chaired by the EMC, and an MSAR Working Group comprising representatives from all MSAR volunteer organisations, VicPol, and key partner agencies. Several time limited project groups were also established to implement specific reform elements. These arrangements initially provided the authorising environment for MSAR reforms. The Board and working group have continued to meet regularly and remain the key MSAR decision-making bodies.

Although initially established and resourced to provide strategic oversight and coordination, the MSAR office also provides significant operational support to the volunteers. Driven by observations of gaps in volunteer capability and capacity, the MSAR office supports individual units in day-to-day operational management and regulation compliance.

For example, in 2013 changes to Commonwealth legislation required volunteer MSAR units to comply with domestic commercial vessel regulations. These changes were poorly understood by volunteers and created widespread noncompliance across the units. Recognising the issue, the MSAR office provided guidance and operational assistance to support the volunteers to adapt to the changed regulations.

The MSAR office continues to balance strategic planning and coordination with operational support. Throughout this review, volunteer and partner agency representatives were appreciative of the strategic work done by the MSAR office and the level of operational support it provides. It was noted that the current arrangements were the first to provide a consistent level of support to volunteers and units.

The MSAR office has successfully coordinated essential funding bids, secured funding sources for insurance, and initiated ongoing reform agendas to address challenges within the MSAR volunteer sector. A volunteer discussed how the establishment of the office has been critical in maintaining a safe and capable MSAR service in Victoria. This sentiment was echoed in multiple volunteer forums and by partner agencies.

While greatly appreciated by MSAR volunteers, there is recognition from the office itself, MSAR volunteers and partner agencies that its ongoing provision of both strategic and operational support is not sustainable.

The EMV MSAR office is resourced with two full time equivalent (FTE) employees, and four other employees funded through short-term initiatives or the Better Boating Fund. These six staff support the 867 MSAR volunteers, 648 of whom are operational members. 186 Recent estimates of the capacity required to serve a sustainable MSAR operating model in Victoria found that in excess of 25 FTE employees was required. 187 This would bring Victoria’s agency-based volunteer support capacity in closer alignment with Marine Rescue NSW. Although a larger organisation with approximately 3200 volunteers, it has 34 head office and regional FTE employees.188

The current resourcing of the MSAR office requires strategic and operational matters to be highly prioritised, with urgent operational matters taking a substantial proportion of the office’s time. This leaves little time for the initiation of strategic endeavours or embedding of sustainable good practice.

The MSAR Reform Implementation Board and its associated working groups have had limited success in driving overall strategy and direction of the sector due to differing needs of individual MSAR organisations. These bodies are not structured to provide ongoing strategic sector capability.

Observation 7.11

The Marine Search and Rescue Office has limited capacity to progress strategic marine search and rescue development as the needs of day-to-day volunteer support and assisting volunteers to maintain regulation compliance has placed significant demands on the office.

7.3.8 Current reform program

In 2022 the MSAR office initiated a new MSAR reform program. It had arrived at a point where the office was unable to successfully implement further changes to improve the viability and sustainability of the volunteer MSAR sector without significant changes to governance arrangements.

The aim of the proposed reform is to develop a sustainable operating model for the volunteer MSAR sector that ensures volunteers meet their full potential in delivering services to the Victorian community.

187 The MSAR office engaged the Nous Group to lead extensive consultation with agencies and volunteers to propose a sustainable MSAR operating model. Both the MSAR Reform Board and the MSAR Working Group were involved in this work.

The consultation resulted in a detailed analysis of the resourcing and systems required to create a sustainable and viable volunteer MSAR sector. Throughout the consultations volunteers were overwhelmingly supportive of becoming a single MSAR entity, and comfortable with the prospect of leaving their parent organisations to do so. Volunteers thought that this would provide the support they required to continue to deliver critical services to the Victorian public on behalf of VicPol.

The consultation process workshopped three governance options including greater resourcing of a coordination function within government, integration with an existing emergency service organisation and formation of a new statutory authority.

Volunteers were almost unanimously opposed to integration into another emergency service organisation as they feared their identity would be lost. The preference was clearly for the establishment of a new MSAR statutory authority, although most accepted that the resourcing and time required to do so made the option unlikely.

A business case exploring and costing all options is currently being developed for presentation to government.

The evidence considered as part of this review demonstrates a clear need for further reform in the MSAR sector. Governance, capability and capacity are all problematic, and while there have been no major adverse outcomes during rescue operations, the number of notices issued by boating regulators is evidence of performance issues. The reform program is timely and there is serious risk to the ongoing viability of the MSAR sector if reform does not occur.

7.3.9 Effectiveness of marine search and rescue

The lack of a clear MSAR plan makes it difficult for agency personnel and volunteers to have a comprehensive, shared understanding of end-to-end operational process, roles and responsibilities. While the initial efforts to develop a subplan for MSAR were unsuccessful, stakeholders are still supportive of such a plan and agree it would promote a strong and positive relationship between agencies and volunteers. A subplan would also provide clarity on strategic and operational governance arrangements and contribute to a shared understanding of operational processes and roles and responsibilities.

Finding 7.13

The lack of a state-based multi-agency plan that clarifies strategic and operational governance arrangements results in a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities for both professional and volunteer marine search and rescue providers.

The issues currently facing the MSAR sector are not new. Both the 2002 Report on Volunteer Marine Search and Rescue Organisations and the 2014 Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that significant changes needed to occur to support consistency and high-quality performance across units.

The changes that stemmed from these inquiries have not gone far enough to establish a viable and sustainable volunteer MSAR operating model. There are still no robust strategic oversight arrangements in place to align professional and volunteer MSAR organisations and inform capability, capacity and readiness. Individual emergency service organisations providing MSAR services continue to operate in a siloed manner.

The volunteer MSAR sector is at significant risk of collapse and is surviving largely on the goodwill of volunteers. These volunteers are highly skilled workers operating in a complex regulatory environment and cannot be easily replaced. Despite making important progress, the MSAR office is under-resourced to provide the required level of strategic and operational support.

Many volunteers have now participated in three rounds of reform and are feeling undervalued and disenfranchised. The outcomes of the previous two rounds have not led to the substantial governance changes required to achieve greater centralised support, operational role clarity and a clear volunteer management strategy. If the current round of reform does not result in substantial positive change there is significant risk that volunteers will leave the service, intensifying ongoing volunteer retention concerns.

The commitment is phenomenal. The goodwill is phenomenal, but like so much else, that has kept it going when in other places it might’ve fallen over, and I don’t know that we can sustain that without some change … I don’t know it’s ever talked about, the opportunity cost of not intervening now when we’re not at that point of criticality … or we’re not in the middle of an emergency.

Stakeholder

At the end of the day, if the volunteers walk away from this there’s potentially 900 responses that will go lacking. So, I just think we need to be very mindful and respectful of the volunteer sector. I think they do an amazing job, and I’m not so sure people are actually appreciating that, and appreciating the risk if they do walk away.

Stakeholder

Observation 7.12

Many of the issues identified in previous reviews of marine search and rescue remain problematic with current reform attempting to resolve these long-standing issues.

Observation 7.13

Many marine search and rescue volunteers are experiencing their third round of reform initiatives, solidifying a feeling of being undervalued and disenfranchised. There is significant risk to service provision if change does not occur and more volunteers leave.

Finding 7.14

The governance arrangements for marine search and rescue lack clarity on roles and responsibilities across all phases of water rescue. This has led to serious and ongoing performance issues and frustration among volunteers. The service is at risk of collapsing and the safety of volunteers and the community is compromised.

Recommendation 4

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Victorian Government establish a marine search and rescue (MSAR) operating model to:

(a) ensure clear leadership and lines of accountability before, during and after incidents

(b) support strategic planning and investment across the volunteer MSAR service

(c) increase operational support and preparedness through risk-based capability and capacity development across volunteer MSAR units

(d) support a long-term volunteer recruitment and management model.

7.4 Swift water rescue

Swift water is defined as non-coastal water moving down a gradient and flowing at a speed in excess of two kilometres per hour.189 It does not fluctuate in the same way as ocean waves and is more dangerous for responders than slow-moving or static water. When a person becomes trapped in or on an object surrounded by fast-flowing water, or a river user’s body becomes stuck or pinned against an obstacle, swift water rescue is required.

Swift water rescue can be done from land, water or air. First responders must complete specialist training for all swift water rescues, with water and air-based rescues requiring a greater level of training than rope and other land-based rescues.

Swift water rescues occur all over the state, with people requiring rescue when recreating in and around fast-moving rivers and rapids, or becoming trapped in stormwater drains or fast-moving flood water. Flood has a close connection to swift water rescue, both as a cause of many swift water incidents and an event that tests the surge capacity of swift water responders, but not all flood rescues are swift water rescues.

In 2011, the Review of the 2010–11 Flood Warnings & Response found ‘confused understandings exist’ with respect to roles and responsibilities for water rescue, including swift water rescue.190

It recommended:

the State ensure:

- water rescue/swift water rescue definitions, roles and responsibilities are clarified and communicated to all stakeholders to ensure common understanding

- appropriate training, equipment and support is provided to those required to perform water rescue/swift water rescue. Common training programs, standards and accreditation should be utilised wherever possible to increase potential for joined up operations and maximised capability… ; and

- that revised water rescue roles, responsibilities and arrangements are clearly defined in the Emergency Management Manual Victoria and such definitions are replicated in all individual agency planning and operational documents

Review of the 2010–11 Flood Warnings & Response

7.4.1

Roles and responsibilities

VicPol is the control agency for swift water rescue and will dispatch and coordinate the appropriate agencies and resources. VicPol officers and assets may be deployed for the rescue, however, multiple agencies have roles.

The arrangements under which other agencies support VicPol are variable in terms of formality and specificity. FRV and VICSES are listed as responder agencies for search and rescue under the SEMP.138 AV is not listed as a responder agency, however it performs swift water rescue when tasked by VicPol.191 AV’s role in search and rescue is recognised by VicPol, but not in overarching emergency management documents.192 During floods where surge capacity is required, LSV can also provide support for swift water rescues.

ESTA's emergency communication dispatch officers alert local police, the RCC, AV and VICSES to waterbased incidents. An incident is classified as a swift water incident if the caller advises the water is moving faster than they can walk.

On receiving notification of a swift water incident, and following a risk assessment, VicPol tasks the appropriate agency and resources to respond. This can be done via phone, radio and the Supplementary Alerting System used by VICSES.193 AV may be tasked by VicPol or self-deploy an aerial response and confirm its tasking with the RCC on the way to the incident. VICSES will respond to its local headquarters or another nominated location, where the controller or other designated agency commander will coordinate with the RCC to confirm their tasking.

Stakeholders were reasonably clear on their agency’s role in swift water rescue, however IGEM observed some contradictory understandings of the roles and responsibilities of other swift water rescue agencies.

7.4.2 Capability and capacity

The dispersed and infrequent nature of swift water rescues makes it difficult to position specific resources across the state. Rescues are often time critical, especially if the person is trapped in the water. Swift water incidents often occur in regional settings. While dispatching land or water resources might pose the least risk to first responders, travel and set-up time can make these options unviable. For these reasons, aerial resources are often dispatched to provide a timely response.

Multiple agencies hold swift water rescue capabilities and resources (see Table 6). There appears to be a suitable level of capability and capacity to respond to isolated rescues, with skills and assets spread across the state and between agencies.

Aerial assets are critically important for swift water rescue as they reduce response time for time critical rescues. However, aerial assets are constrained by low visibility and poor weather. Stakeholders also raised concerns about their ability to deploy aerial assets during floods or to isolated rescues during highly operational periods (for example, during heat waves or campaign bushfire events).

VicPol Air Wing: 3 winch/forward looking infrared (FLIR) equipped helicopters; 1 FLIR equipped plane.194

Search and Rescue track line planning, advanced camera technology

FRV 70 independently accredited in-water swift water rescue technicians

VICSES 328 land-based swift water responders

12 in-water safety officers (trained by VicPol instructors)

AV 5 HEMS aircraft with night-time capability

LSV 2 aircraft 8 remotely piloted aircraft systems

Australian Defence Force (ADF

Limited availability of rescue helicopter with night-time capability based at Sale (ADF must approve request)

Currently, the arrangements for swift water rescue are not formalised or articulated in any specific plan. Agencies do not use any shared system to document and monitor training and accreditation, agency capabilities and asset availability. VicPol’s coordination is based on a strong knowledge of each agency's skills, accreditation levels, locations and dispatch mechanisms.

To date, this approach has been sufficient and allowed for flexibility and scalability based on the needs of the rescue. This was demonstrated in the 2022 floods in northern Victoria, where resources were stretched and all agencies were engaged to support a variety of flood rescues.

However, the limited documentation of arrangements and the reliance on swift water rescue knowledge and coordination experience makes the provision of rescue services vulnerable to changes in personnel, shifting agency priorities and other pressures. The approach also makes it difficult to achieve a common understanding across all agencies as to shared capabilities and capacities, and plan for future resourcing needs. These risks are particularly relevant during surge periods, such as floods, when many rescues may be required over prolonged periods and alongside competing demands for resources.

VicPol (Water Police Squad)

Land, water and air swift water rescue capabilities

7.4.3 Exercising

There is a strong culture of exercising within agencies. VicPol routinely exercises its basic and advanced swift water rescue capabilities at inland waterways around the state. During the COVID-19 pandemic, VICSES practised its rescue skills by exercising at URBNSURF (a Melbourne recreational venue that can be programmed to replicate different water environments, including flood).195

MSAR and swift water responder agencies can also participate in annual multi-agency exercising organised by VICSES at Lake Eildon (see section 7.3.9, p 161). In 2022, VICSES, CFA, AVCGA and VicPol attended (VicPol with an aircraft from its Air Wing).196 This exercising is not specific to swift water rescue but is an opportunity for organisations to build relationships and capabilities that may also be useful in swift water rescue.

Stakeholders felt this initiative created strong cross-agency relationships and was an important opportunity for volunteers and paid staff to work together in a non-life-threatening scenario. However, there was no expectation that agencies participate, and not all swift water rescue responder agencies were present in 2022.

In general, there are limited opportunities for swift water inter-agency exercising, and none with clear scheduling and attendance requirements.

Swift water gorge rescue in Beechworth (Source: Marcus Warner, VICSES Bright)

7.4.4 Effectiveness of swift water rescue arrangements

The 2010–11 Flood Review recommended that swift water rescue roles, responsibilities and arrangements be clarified, communicated and documented so that agencies had a common understanding. It also recommended that agencies be provided appropriate equipment and that they use common training programs wherever possible.

IGEM heard that there was a reasonable understanding from agencies of their roles in swift water rescue, and though training and accreditation requirements differ across organisations, this is in keeping with the different roles agencies fulfil in these events.

However, the roles, responsibilities and arrangements for swift water rescue are not clearly defined in emergency management documents. Some agencies are performing their roles with little or no documented accountabilities.

While agencies have a broad understanding of other agencies’ roles, capabilities and capacities, there are inconsistencies. While multi-agency exercising and multi-agency response efforts improve understanding across agencies, there is scope to develop a more structured and risk-based approach to training to ensure consistent and regular participation across all agencies.

Finding 7.15

Swift water rescue arrangements, roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined in existing emergency management doctrine resulting in variable understandings of agency roles and responsibilities across the sector.

Finding 7.16

There has been improvement in multi-agency swift water rescue capability development in recent years, however training and exercising are still inhibited by low levels of coordination and oversight, a lack of strategic or risk-based planning, unclear participation requirements and limited debriefing.

Land-based swift water rescue training (Source: VICSES/Facebook)

7.5 Effectiveness of response

Responses to water incidents are varied in nature. They include in-water rescues from the beach, board rescues by lifesavers and surfers, vessel towing and complex boat or aerial rescues on coastal waters or large inland lakes and rivers. Water rescues are inherently high-risk. People in the water require urgent assistance and may behave irrationally due to fear and fatigue. Weather can change quickly, turning a simple vessel tow into a scenario that is dangerous to both rescuer and those being rescued.

Response arrangements for water rescues in Victoria are heavily reliant on volunteers. Volunteer lifesavers on patrol perform a vast number of rescues for LSV. Likewise, volunteers provide more than 60 per cent of MSAR rescues on behalf of VicPol.

Water rescues are often multi-agency incidents, with initial notification and dispatch involving ESTA before VicPol assumes its control agency and coordination role and tasks elements of the response to appropriate agency or volunteer units. Many water rescues, particularly those in swift water, are time critical and involve the aerial assets of AV or VicPol’s Air Wing. Rescues can also span large geographical areas and are managed at the incident level yet coordinated centrally.

There is a high level of skill and specialist knowledge and training involved in responding to water rescues. These skills and knowledge take years to acquire and may involve formal accreditation or certification processes. Across the agencies involved in patrolling and water rescues, IGEM noted a high level of organisational investment in capability development. AV, ESTA, LSV, VicPol and VICSES all have strong training programs in place to ensure appropriate levels of capability for their respective roles in water rescues.

Helicopter water winching training (Source: Ambulance Victoria/Facebook)

There are examples of strong planning and multi-agency preparedness across response. However, there roles and responsibilities, decision-making and tasking principles and opportunities for feedback and debriefing are not articulated in multi-agency plans. For both swift water rescue and MSAR, this has resulted in some misunderstandings of agency roles.

In the case of swift water rescue, the misunderstandings related to other agencies’ roles. The overall lack of plans and documented arrangements create a system that is vulnerable through its reliance on individuals’ experience, skills and local knowledge. There are potentially some missed opportunities to reduce inefficiencies through greater multi-agency planning, particularly in training and exercising. These issues extend to MSAR but become considerably more problematic due in part to the many volunteer MSAR units involved, some operating independently and some affiliated with AVCGA. Issues with MSAR include volunteers’ misunderstandings of tasking decisions and frustrations with a lack of opportunity to work with the control agency to seek feedback and clarity. There is also ongoing confusion in relation to the authority of the multiple organisations involved in volunteers’ preparedness to perform rescues. Volunteer units must respond to multiple and potentially conflicting requests and requirements of AMSA, the MSAR office, VicPol and potentially their parent organisation.

In both cases, there would be value in having arrangements, procedures, roles and responsibilities clearly articulated. By including LSV’s patrolling activity in such a plan, it may be possible to identify opportunities for resource-sharing, multi-agency exercising and training and more streamlined governance arrangements to support all water rescues and patrolling activities.

Finding 7.17

There is no state-wide documentation that provides a shared understanding of the end-to-end arrangements for the diverse range of activities and agencies involved in water rescue. This contributes to unclear arrangements, roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 5

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria Police with the support of Emergency Management Victoria, responder agencies and Life Saving Victoria work together to develop a subplan to the State Emergency Management Plan that clearly articulates roles, responsibilities and arrangements for risk assessment, prevention, operational preparedness and incident control in relation to water-based rescue.

There are many positive examples of collaboration and high-quality service provision in response. The collective efforts of AV, ESTA, VicPol and VICSES to improve the CAD for water rescues demonstrate the ability for responders to work together to identify opportunities for improvement and make system-level changes to improve response. LSV’s capability development and assurance practices in patrolling are another example of good practice that could be used to build on the practices of other response activities.

Despite high levels of capability is some aspects of water rescue, there are long-standing issues with the provision of MSAR services across the state. Many of the frustrations and difficulties are experienced by volunteers in training, exercising and reporting, as well as having sufficient clarity in relation to incident tasking and coordination decisions. While the MSAR office has provided vital support and made improvements in some of these areas and VicPol has implemented some practices to increase transparency, volunteer units do not have a comprehensive support system for operational preparedness and long-term strategic planning, including a statewide volunteer recruitment strategy. Work underway to determine a long-term operating model for MSAR is critical to ensure volunteer capacity it retained at a level and capability that supports the state’s overall MSAR service provision.

8 Looking ahead

A person’s death by drowning has lasting consequences for families, friends, and first responders. Surviving a drowning incident can leave a person with life-changing physical and psychological injuries.

In 2022–23 the drowning toll was 59, exceeding five and ten-year averages and providing further evidence of an upward trend of drowning fatalities in Victoria. Despite the many efforts of communities, peak bodies, businesses and government to curb drowning figures, evolving risks are resulting in an unacceptable number of people drowning.

One stakeholder referred to drowning as a ‘dispersed disaster’. Although fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents are dispersed over time and location, the cumulative impact of incidents is profound. Collectively, fatal and non-fatal water safety incidents present a considerable risk for Victorians. Statewide drowning risks evolve with population changes and the way people interact with the environment. The risks require ongoing oversight and active intervention to increase water safety for all individuals at every stage of their lives.

8.1 Emerging risks and trends

Drowning risks are not static, they change due to fluctuating demographic, behavioural, social and environmental factors. Organisations involved in water safety must continually contend with the challenge of maintaining visibility of where, when and how people are using the water.

Stakeholders spoke of how waterway visitation and usage patterns have recently changed. This may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, but social media is also encouraging greater visitation to remote locations and promoting risky behaviour. Paddle craft and inflatable devices are readily available to unskilled users with little or no safety instruction and can place novice swimmers in deep water or dangerous situations. Stakeholders also lamented the dangers of ‘selfies’ that encourage people to pose in dangerous locations and increase the risk of falling into the water.

In addition to these short-term social and behavioural trends, the community’s interaction with aquatic environments is changed by the combined effect of population growth and climate change. Current water safety strategy does not explicitly consider the effect of long-term trends. The Water Safety Taskforce provides an opportunity for emerging risks and trends to be considered, however, it requires cross-government collaboration and commitment to ongoing development of water safety policy. At the time of writing, this was not guaranteed and poses a risk for managing the changing nature of water safety in Victoria.

8.1.1

Population growth

One of the most influential trends for drowning risk in Victoria is population growth. The increasing number of residents is likely to result in higher-density populations in Melbourne and regional centres, and increasing visitation to public pools, already popular beaches and inland waterways.

Population growth will also change where people choose to live. Smaller regional towns, the outer limits of Melbourne’s urban fringe and regional cities such as Geelong are all likely to grow. As a result, people will have easier access to regional waterways and there is likely to be more visitation to previously isolated beaches and inland waterways. More families may opt for 'sea or tree changes' and purchase rural properties that have dams, trenches and other water features on the property or border unfenced creeks and lakes, exposing them to different drowning risks.

The proportion of Victorians born overseas is also predicted to grow. Data currently suggests multicultural communities are at greater risk of drowning, and efforts to raise risk awareness and build water safety knowledge and swimming skills takes time.

Victoria’s ageing population and sociodemographic drivers affecting volunteering both threaten the capacity of Victoria's emergency management sector. Water safety is not immune to these changes, with the vast majority of lifesaving patrols and MSAR services provided by volunteers. LSV currently delivers a series of programs to increase volunteerism, particularly among young people and multicultural communities. Efforts to leverage these approaches in MSAR is critical, as volunteer numbers are already decreasing.

8.1.2 Climate change and drowning risk

Climate change has been recognised internationally as a key determinant in drowning risk.197 It has been linked to the exacerbation of existing drowning risks as well as the creation of new ones.26 While the interplay between climate change and behaviour around water has not been fully explored, several drowning risk impacts have already been identified.

Existing data shows drownings occur more frequently during heatwaves. Climate projections suggest that Victoria’s future will continue to become warmer and drier. By 2050, Victorian towns could experience around double the number of very hot days each year compared to the 1986–2005 average.198 The increased frequency and duration of heatwaves is likely to see larger numbers of people spending time in and around the water, increasing risk exposure and potentially extending high-risk periods, which will stretch resources.

There is evidence that this risk is already transpiring. Globally, there have been recent upward trends in drowning fatalities that align with those experienced in Victoria.

Climate change is also expected to change natural waterways through increased frequency and severity of storm surges, greater wave heights and more frequent flooding in rivers, estuaries and bays. Along Victoria’s coastline, a 0.8 metre rise in sea level is expected by the year 2100.199 These impacts will change the physical characteristics of not only Victoria's coastline but its inland waterways, modifying environmental risks, and requiring the repositioning and repurposing of coastal infrastructure and creating unfamiliar aquatic environments for the community.

In light of these projections, it is critical to consider whether Victoria's current arrangements are wellplaced to address increases in drowning risk, and if they can adapt to meet the changing needs of a population grappling with climate change.

Water safety organisations and governments around the world recognise the need for greater links between drowning prevention and climate change disaster mitigation programs.25, 200 Despite this, the Victorian Water Safety Strategy does not explicitly include climate change as part of its strategic considerations.

Current Victorian Government strategies call for the delivery of inclusive, multi-use and sustainable infrastructure to broadly increase community resilience in the context of climate change.201 There have also been reviews of LSV's clubs’ resilience to climate change – as well as the inclusion of directions on the incorporation of climate change design principles – when considering the creation or refurbishment of new or existing lifesaving facilities.202, 203 Mirroring these considerations more explicitly in Victoria’s drowning prevention strategies will give the state a better opportunity to cope with the variety of drowning risks that will result from more frequent, severe and compounding natural hazards caused by climate change.

This review has demonstrated that current prevention measures are reaching target audiences of adult males, young children and multicultural communities. Adding climate change considerations to these interventions provides an opportunity for greater assistance to cohorts of the population that are also at greater risk of more generalised health harms.204

Climate change brings increasing consequences for all parts of government and the community. As finite resources are stretched to plan, prepare, respond and recover from longer and more severe emergencies, there is a strong need for sector-wide collaboration when it comes to dealing with its effects. The changing face of drowning risk is one example of this. Working together to better understand and communicate how these risks might affect the Victorian community will allow the sector to meet current and future needs.

8.1.3 Planning for future infrastructure needs

Replacing ageing infrastructure that is no longer fit for purpose such as public swimming pools, piers, jetties and lifesaving facilities is a challenge raised by stakeholders throughout this review. The resourcing of both proactive and reactive facility maintenance is becoming more difficult as costs rise. Service providers grapple with the choice between the very unpopular decision to close a facility such as a swimming pool or the ongoing financial impacts of ageing infrastructure.

Many of Victoria’s public swimming pools built in the 1950s and owned by councils in regional and rural areas are falling into disrepair. Often these regional pools are also seasonal, limiting access to pool facilities to learn and maintain swimming skills. If pools are unable to support adequate delivery of swimming and water safety education due to being in a state of disrepair, access to life saving skills and knowledge will be hindered. Long-term strategies for the replacement of these facilities and for the development of new aquatic facilities in growth areas needs to be considered by both state and local governments.

Climate change is already affecting some life saving clubs, MSAR facilities and other coastal infrastructure as erosion and inundation impacts on these facilities. LSV and life saving clubs are working to address the immediate and longer-term impacts, but without a long-term investment strategy for infrastructure redevelopment this will be challenging.

In addition to the maintenance and upgrades of existing infrastructure, appropriately planning and siting new infrastructure is critical to facilitate safe aquatic recreation in growing regional towns and increasingly popular waterways. Anticipating the community’s drowning risks, and recreation and rescue needs, is necessary to ensure suitable infrastructure is in place before, or as, new risks emerge.

Impact of coastal erosion on Wye River SLC beach access ramp (Source: DEECA Barwon South West/Facebook)

8.2 Foundations for improving water safety

This review makes numerous findings and observations related to the strengths of water safety and rescue initiatives, as well opportunities to collaborate or coordinate to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

One of the prevailing observations across all elements of water safety is the vast amount of resources, expertise and time committed to improving water safety for Victorians. Motivation to reduce drowning is shared across government departments, responder agencies, peak bodies, community organisations and the private sector.

The Victorian Government plays an important, ongoing role in water safety. This is not only because of the level of risk but also because many incidents are predictable and therefore preventable. The government has invested in communications campaigns, school swimming programs, safety infrastructure, patrolling and other prevention measures. It has regulated high-risk waterbodies like residential pools, and risky activities like boating and rock fishing. There are examples of strong collaboration between the organisations delivering these prevention activities but much of the work has been siloed.

Government activities are strongly supported by those of peak water safety bodies, including LSV, SLSA and RLSSA, the aquatic recreation and boating sectors, and community groups. Although one of the prevailing observations of this review has been the siloed nature of risk assessment and drowning prevention activities, there are many stakeholders motivated to reduce the drowning toll and increase water safety for Victorians.

When someone in, on, or near water gets into difficulty and the alarm is raised, Victoria’s incident response arrangements are activated. Victoria’s paid and volunteer contingent of lifesavers and rescue personnel commit significant amounts of time to ensuring they have the skills and resources to rescue people quickly and effectively. Long-standing issues with the operating model for MSAR plague volunteers and pose a risk for the sustained provision of the service. However, there are many examples of strong capability development, collaboration and operational support models to build on in the future.

The shared interest in water safety, current commitment of resources and the ongoing streams of activity to reduce drowning risks provide a valuable foundation for future planning. However, greater coordination in parts of water safety, a stronger evidence-base from which to make decisions, and greater clarity of arrangements through planning are areas that can be strengthened to leverage these positive aspects of water safety.

The five recommendations made in this review aim to address the emerging reality of consistently increased drowning tolls and Victoria’s changing risk profile for drowning by building on existing water safety knowledge, skills and activity.

8.2.1 Coordination and support

Across all four elements of water safety – governance and funding, risk assessment, prevention and response – there are a myriad of activities occurring to understand drowning risks and respond with appropriate prevention initiatives or rescue services. There are numerous organisations targeting multiple audiences and high-risk settings.

While the activities and services have a common aim to reduce drownings, there are only a few mechanisms in place to provide visibility of risks to government and coordinate aligned programs to increase their efficiency, reach and effectiveness. Widespread coordination for the extremely diverse range of activities explored in this review is not essential to delivering strong water safety programs, and an overly coordinated approach may have limited value.

However, additional coordination in specific areas would help to improve levels of support for the organisations involved, facilitate information sharing and increase resource-sharing. These outcomes should increase the efficiency of water safety initiatives, provide greater visibility of priority risks and actions, and support the development of higher quality intervention and rescue services.

Achieving greater coordination and collaboration across a number of core activities is likely to have important and critical benefit. IGEM has made recommendations to strengthen coordination in three key areas: overall water safety strategy and policy, readiness for high-risk periods and the volunteer MSAR sector.

Overall water safety strategy and policy

The development of the Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021–25 helped to articulate a common vision and some priority goals and actions for drowning reduction. It was developed by the Water Safety Taskforce and intended to drive more targeted planning and actions. While the taskforce has been a positive forum for information sharing and some collaborative work, there is an opportunity to further develop its role to ensure it provides the opportunity to coordinate activities, identify priority actions and support the development of evidence-based policy in water safety.

Having an ongoing and appropriately resourced coordination body in place that can identify changing risks, but also have the authority and accountability to propose and implement solutions, will be a critical component of water safety. IGEM recognises the value of the Water Safety Taskforce and through Recommendation 1 of this review advocates that its current role and functions should be built upon to provide fit-for-purpose and authoritative coordination in water safety.

Readiness for high-risk periods

Evidence shows that many drownings occur in highly predictable conditions, on weekends and public holidays when the weather is warm. In recognition of these high-risk periods, many organisations increase their prevention and patrolling efforts to promote safe behaviour and deter risky behaviour in and around the water. Currently, these efforts are largely independent and contingent on the ability of the lead organisations to anticipate high-risk periods, allocate resources accordingly, and respond to immediate increases in risk.

There would be significant value in coordinating these efforts to consolidate messages and use resources more efficiently. It would also raise awareness of immediate and short-term measures that could be implemented to encourage safe behaviour, particularly among organisations that are not traditionally structured or resourced to respond to localised, immediate risks. Recommendation 2 of this review aims to encourage greater coordination in readiness capability, and leverage the knowledge and experience of agencies that regularly engage in readiness activities for other hazards.

Volunteer MSAR sector

Coordination and support is also essential in MSAR, particularly for volunteer units. As participation in recreational boating and fishing continues to increase, there are more inexperienced boaters on the water, and a higher number of poorly-maintained vessels in use than ever before. Volunteer MSAR units are supported by EMV’s MSAR office, but it is not sufficiently resourced to provide the support and coordination required to ensure the sustainability of the service and its operational safety and effectiveness.

A series of critical operational and strategic findings related to MSAR led to Recommendation 4, which specifies the elements of a suitably resourced operating model that supports MSAR volunteers and provides a coordinating function for strategic matters such as long-term volunteer recruitment, capability development and regulatory compliance.

8.2.2 Data and evidence

In comparison to other areas of emergency management, there is a reasonably large amount of data available relevant to water safety, and significant levels of capability in multiple organisations to collect, analyse and use data and evidence to inform practice. However, this data is typically representative of high-level drowning impacts (fatality rates) or specific and localised risks, program outcomes or categories of regulatory breaches. It is difficult to use the data to prioritise risks and demonstrate the relative effectiveness of prevention efforts.

Throughout the review, IGEM noted many examples of well-evidenced prevention initiatives, often with evaluation embedded to demonstrate their value. It is very likely that providing more water safety programs and community engagement opportunities, increasing media buy for water safety campaigns, and establishing more lifesaving and enforcement patrols, would promote safer enjoyment of the water and reduce drowning risks. However, in a financially-constrained environment, current data limitations make prioritised investment at a state level challenging.

There is an opportunity to coordinate data collection and reporting efforts to provide a comprehensive account of drowning risks across Victoria, that allows demographic, social, behavioural and environmental risks to be considered collectively. By implementing Recommendation 3, the Victorian Government will have an increased ability to focus its resources and investment on risks that are most likely to significantly reduce the drowning toll. Such an evidence base will also provide a stronger baseline to determine the effectiveness of water safety initiatives over time.

8.2.3 Planning

With such a variety of organisations involved in water safety, the diversity of contributions made, and the personnel who contribute to assessing risk, it is essential that roles and responsibilities, decision-making pathways and operational procedures are clear.

Across the review, there were multiple examples of where strong planning supported role clarity and efficient processes. However, there are other examples where programs and services had evolved organically and documented plans were either basic, outdated or non-existent.

The review identified a critical need for planning in water rescue, and an opportunity to build in lifesaving patrols to this planning to increase awareness of roles and responsibilities. In addition to greater coordination and support required for volunteer MSAR units, documenting roles and responsibilities of all organisations involved in water rescues would likely ease some of the frustrations experienced by volunteers by providing greater clarity of operational and strategic accountabilities.

Currently, many of the processes, principles and responsibilities associated with the various types of water rescue are based on the high-level role descriptions in the SEMP, and the organisational knowledge and experience of the agencies involved. Recommendation 5 recognises the importance of documenting arrangements not only for clarity of end-to-end processes, but as an assurance that water rescue services will be activated and performed consistently, and will be resilient to changes in personnel and resourcing.

8.3 Concluding remarks

When considering future drowning risks, there are many strengths to draw on to develop more efficient and effective water safety initiatives. Overall, this review found there to be few critical flaws with Victoria’s approach to drowning prevention. While there are highly pressing issues to be addressed in MSAR to ensure the volunteer contingent is suitably supported and strengthened, there is a high amount of capability to build on and a well-informed approach to incident coordination.

Continuing with the status quo for water safety will deliver a range of positive campaigns, programs and other initiatives that are all useful in raising awareness of risk and supporting people to make safe decisions in and around the water. However, with improvements to coordination, planning and data collection, there is the potential to streamline the collective efforts of many organisations and rectify issues with understanding of risk, water safety roles and responsibilities, and water rescue service provision.

Organisations involved in water safety are continuously considering ways to promote safe enjoyment of Victoria’s waterways, and working to ensure there are mechanisms in place to prevent people from getting into trouble and assisting them when they do. It is important that the individual efforts of organisations are supported by ongoing government coordination and investment.

In Victoria, and elsewhere around the world, drowning rates show signs of increasing and new risks are emerging. Every individual death or injury is tragic as the circumstances are so often predictable and preventable. With the benefit of some foundational changes in coordination, planning and data-informed decision-making, together with the considerable collective efforts of those involved in water safety, Victoria is well-placed to respond to these changing risks.

Port Phillip Bay (Source: Laura McDougall)

9 References

1. Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel Victoria. Emergency Management Act 2013, Melbourne, Australia, 2013.

2. Inspector-General for Emergency Management. Annual Forward Plan of Reviews 2022-23, Department of Justice and Community Safety. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

3. Inspector-General for Emergency Management. Assurance Framework for Emergency Management, Department of Justice and Commmunity Safety. Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

4. Life Saving Victoria. Drowning Report 2021-22, Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

5. Life Saving Victoria. LSV Internal documents, 2023.

6. Australian Water Safety Council. Australian Water Safety Strategy 2016-20, Sydney, Australia, 2016.

7. Coroners Court of Victoria. CCV Internal documents, 2022.

8. World Health Organisation. Global Report on Drowning: Preventing a leading killer, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

9. World Health Organisation. (2021). Drowning. Accessed: 17 March https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/drowning

10. Barnsely, P., Peden, A. & Scarr, J. Calculating the economic burden of fatal drowning in Australia, Journal of Safety Research, (67), 57-63, 2018.

11. Department of Justice and Community Safety. Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2021-25, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

12. Bureau of Meteorology. (2017). Cold water shock: Be prepared before boating Accessed: 19 April 2023. https://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1407/cold-water-shock-be-prepared-before-boating/

13. Australian Maritime Safety Authority. National Search & Rescue Manual, Australian Government. Canberra, Australia, 2022.

14. World Health Organization. Preventing drowning: an implementation guide, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.

15. Coroners Court of Victoria. Paddle craft fatalities in Victoria: a medico-legal examination, Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

16. Life Saving Victoria. Annual report 2014/15, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

17. Life Saving Victoria. Annual Report 2004-2005, Melbourne, Australia, 2005.

18. Victoria Police. VicPol Internal documents, 2023.

19. Economic Development Infrastructure and Outer Suburban/Interface Services Committee. Inquiry into Marine Rescue Services in Victoria, Parliament of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2014.

20. Staines, C. History of drowning deaths in a developing community: The Victorian experience (Doctoral Thesis), Monash University Accident Research Centre. Melbourne, Australia, 2013.

21. Department of Justice and Community Safety. Victorian Water Safety Strategy 2016-2020, State Government of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

22. Department of Justice and Community Safety. DJCS Internal documents, 2019.

23. Life Saving Victoria. Drowning Report 2018-19, Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

24. Department of Justice and Community Safety. DJCS Internal documents, 2022.

25. Australian Water Safety Council. Australian Water Safety Strategy 2008-11, Sydney, Australia, 2008.

26. Australian Water Safety Council. Australian Water Safety Strategy 2030, Sydney, Australia, 2021.

27. State Crisis and Resilience Council. SCRC Meeting Papers, 2022.

28. Department of Treasury and Finance. Budget Paper No. 3 Service Delivery 2018-19, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

29. Emergency Management Victoria. Emergency Services Volunteer Sustainability (ESVS) Grants Program Approved Applications, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

30. Emergency Management Victoria. Emergency Services Volunteer Sustainability Grants Program 2018-19, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

31. Emergency Management Australia. Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program (VESEP) grants recipients, Australian Government. 2022.

32. Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Appropriation (2019-2020) Act 2019 No. 15 of 2019, Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

33. Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Appropriation (2020-2021) Act 2020 No. 45 of 2020, Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

34. Department of Treasury and Finance. Community Support Fund Expenditure by program from July 2015 to 30 June 2016, 2016.

35. Department of Treasury and Finance. Community Support Fund New Programs approved from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, 2018.

36. Department of Treasury and Finance. Community Support Fund Outstanding Committments (up to 2023-24) as at 30 June 2020, 2022.

37. Department of Transport. Better Boating Fund (BFF) 2021-22, 2022.

38. Department of Transport. Department of Transport Annual Report 2020-21, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

39. Deloitte. Independent Financial Review of Life Saving Victoria (LSV), Department of Justice and Commmunity Safety. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

40. Department of Treasury and Finance. Victorian Government Risk Management Framework, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

41. Parks Victoria. Land Management Strategy, Victorian Government. Melbourne Australia, 2022.

42. Department of Transport. Ministerial Guidelines: Port Safety and Environmental Management Plans 2012.

43. Curry, M. Independent review of the Victorian Ports System, Department of Transport. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

44. State Crisis and Resilience Council (SCRC). Emergency Risks in Victoria, Department of Justice and Community Safety. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

45. Mornington Peninsula Shire. Mornington Peninsula Municipal Emergency Management Plan 2021-24, 2021.

46. IPSOS. Boating Behaviour 2014 final report March 2015, Transport Safety Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

47. Maritime Safety Victoria. Paddling Safety Community Research, Department of Economic Development Jobs Tourism and Regions. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

48. Matthews, B., Birch, R., Strugnell, G. & Andronaco, R. Characteristics of beach goers on the Mornington Peninsula, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

49. OzCoasts. (2010). Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. Accessed: 21 November 2022. https://ozcoasts.org.au/

50. Emergency Management Victoria. Strategic Roadmap for Emergency Management in Victoria 2022-28, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

51. International Life Saving Federation. Drowning Prevention Strategies, Leuven, Belgium, 2015.

52. Emergency Management Victoria. Victorian Preparedness Framework, State Government of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

53. Moran, K., Quan, L., Franklin, R. & Bennett, E. Where the evidence and expert opinion meet: A review of openwater recreational safety messages, International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, (5), 251-270, 2011.

54. Kidsafe Victoria. Agency Tactic Plans: Interim Report 21-22 Summary, State Government of Victoria. 2022.

55. Life Saving Victoria. 20th Anniversary of the Play it Safe by the Water campaign, 2018.

56. International Life Saving Federation. (2011). Impacts of major water safety campaigns: Play It Safe by the Water 1997-2007. Accessed: 3 February 2023. https://www.ilsf.org/library/

57. Department of Justice and Community Safety. Campaign Strategy: 2022-23 Water Safety Campaign, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Victoria, 2022.

58. Department of Justice and Community Safety. 2021–22 Water Safety campaign: Campaign Strategy, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

59. Blitvich, J.D., Moran, K., Petrass, L.A., McElroy, G.K. & Stanley, T. Swim instructor beliefs about toddler and preschool swimming and water safety education, International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, (6), 110-121, 2012.

60. Department of Justice and Community Safety. 2021-22 Water Safety Campaign, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

61. Quantum Market Research. Water Safety Campaign Testing, Department of Justice and Commmunity Safety. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

62. Strugnell, G., Birch, R. & Matthews, B. Communication with vulnerable swimmers at public pools: Pilot Study 1 Report, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

63. Aquatic Risk and Research Department. Communication with vulnerable swimmers at public pools: Follow up study, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

64. Migration Council Australia. Data Mapping of Languages across Victoria: Regional Victoria, 2021.

65. Department of Justice and Community Safety. Campaign evaluation: 2020-21 Victorian Water Safety Campaign, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

66. Better Boating Victoria. Charting the course: Victorian recreational boating strategy 2021-2030, Department of Transport. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

67. Life Saving Victoria. Play It Safe By The Water: Consumer tracking report and program evaluations 2021-22, Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

68. Quantum Market Research. Boating and Paddling Safety Campaign Evaluation, Transport Safety Victoria. 2022.

69. Rahman, A., Linnan, M., Mashreky, S.R., Hossain, M.J. & Rahman, F. The prevalence of naturally acquired swimming ability among children in Bangladesh: a cross sectional survey, BMC Public Health (14), 404, 2014.

70. Birch, R. & Matthews, B. Sink or swim: The state of Victorian primary school children’s swimming ability, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2013.

71. Rhodes, A. Water safety warning: Australian kids at risk, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

72. Department of Education and Training. Swimming and Water Safety Education 2022: Communications Action Plan, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

73. Life Saving Victoria & Aquatics and Recreation Victoria. Victorian Public Pools: State of the Sector Report 2021-22, Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

74. PWC Australia. Towards a water-loving nation free from drowning: The role of learn to swim, Royal Life Saving Australia. Sydney, Australia, 2022.

75. Department of Education and Training. Swimming in Schools: Victorian Government Schools (Presentation), Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

76. Victorian Government. More swim teachers to make a splash in time for summer, Media Release. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

77. Safe Transport Victoria. Review correspondence, 2023.

78. Department of Transport. Options Paper for Marine Licensing in Victoria, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2011.

79. Department of Transport. Marine Safety Regulations 2022 - Regulatory Impact Statement, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

80. Department of Transport. Regulatory Impact Statement: Marine Safety Regulations 2022, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

81. Life Saving Victoria. Safer Public Pools Code of Practice (Version 1.0), Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

82. Peden, A. & Mahony, A. Trends in Child Drowning Over The Last 25 Years, Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Sydney, Australia, 2018.

83. Victorian Municipal Building Surveyor’s Group Incorporated. Report on the Pool and Spa Barrier Survey, Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

84. Victorian Auditor-General's Office. Regulating Private Pool and Spa Safety: Independent assurance report to Parliament, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2023.

85. Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. Marine and Coastal Policy, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

86. Department of Justice. National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual (3rd ed), Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2006.

87. Saunders, R. Review of safety signage at five Parks Victoria Sites against best practice principles, Parks Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

88. Olszewski, A. & Dennis, A. Signage Recommendations Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

89. Matthews, B., Andronaco, R. & Adams, A. Warning signs at beaches: Do they work?, Safety Science, (62), 312318, 2013.

90. Life Saving Victoria. Multicultural water safety, settlement and social cohesion, Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

91. Vincent, R. Multicultural Regional Emergency Management Program Report, Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

92. AgHealth Australia. Populations at risk: Child safety on farms. Accessed: 3 February 2023. https://aghealth.sydney.edu.au/projects-and-reports/projects-populations-at-risk/

93. Peachey, K., Lower, T. & Rolfe, M. Protecting the future: Fatal incidents on Australian farms involving children (2001-2019), The Australian Journal of Rural Health, (28), 385-393, 2020.

94. National Farmers Federation. (2017). Farm facts. Accessed: 3 February 2023. https://nff.org.au/mediacentre/farm-facts/

95. Department of Energy Environment and Climate Action. (2023). Private dam licensing. Accessed: 3 February 2023. https://www.water.vic.gov.au/water-for-agriculture/taking-and-using-water/private-dam-licensing

96. Bugeja, L. & Franklin, R. Drowning deaths of zero- to five-year-old children in Victorian dams, 1989–2001, Australian Journal of Rural Health, (13), 300-308, 2005.

97. Magistrates Court of Tasmania. Record of Investigation into Death, Hobart, Australia, 2007.

98. Taylor, D., Pidgeon, S. & Peden, A.E. A ten year national review of lake, dam and lagoon drowning deaths: 2008/2009 to 2017/2018, Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Sydney, Australia, 2020.

99. Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. Your dam: Your responsibility - A guide to managing the safety of small dams, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

100. Depczynski, J., Fragar, L., Hawkins, A. & Stiller, L. Safe play areas for prevention of young children drowning in farm dams, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, (34), 50-57, 2009.

101. Stiller, L. & Baker, W. Safer Fences for Children on Farms: Effective safe play area fencing options for rural properties, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Kingston, Australia, 2005.

102. Farmsafe Australia. Safe Play Areas on Farms - A Resource Package (Version 2), Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Kingston, Australia, 2005.

103. Victorian Fisheries Authority. Summary of comments raised in response to the rock fishing safety discussion paper and the VFA’s response, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

104. Kamstra, P. (2019). The 'Freak Wave' Myth. Accessed: 12 April 2023. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/thefreak-wave-myth

105. Kamstra, P. Mapping experiential-expertise and risk using qualitative GIS on hazardous rocky coasts (Doctoral Thesis), University of Melbourne. 2019.

106. Kamstra, P., Cook, B., Kennedy, D.M., McSweeney, S. & Rijksen, E. Expert perceptions of the ‘freak’ wave myth on Australia's rocky coasts, Ocean and Coastal Management, (173), 104-113, 2019.

107. Surf Life Saving Australia. Coastal Safety Brief - Rock Fishing, Sydney, Australia, 2020.

108. Life Saving Victoria. Coronial response, Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

109. Victorian Fisheries Authority. Coronial response, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

110. Parliament of New South Wales. Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016, Sydney, Australia, 2016.

111. Council of Wollongong. Ordinary Meeting of Council (Item 6): Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016 - Opt-in Legislation, 2022.

112. Coroners Court of Victoria. Finding into death without inquest, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

113. Birch, R., Morgan, D., Arch, J. & Matthews, B. Rock fisher behaviours and perceptions regarding drowning risk assessed by direct observation and self-report: A public awareness campaign evaluation, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, (33), 1-11, 2021.

114. Victorian Fisheries Authority. Rock fishing safety: Discussion paper, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

115. Peden, A.E., Daw, S. & Lawes, J.C. Preliminary evaluation of the impact of mandatory life jacket laws at declared high-risk rock platforms on unintentional rock fishing drowning deaths, Journal of Injury Prevention, (28), 560-563, 2022.

116. Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Drowning Deaths in Australian Rivers, Creeks and Streams, Sydney, Australia, 2014.

117. Transport for New South Wales. Regional Boating Plan Murray – Riverina Region Consultation Draft, State Government of New South Wales. Sydney, Australia, 2014.

118. Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Real Stories. Accessed: 7 February 2023. https://www.royallifesaving.com.au/about/campaigns-and-programs/make-the-right-call/real-stories

119. Transport for NSW & Maritime Safety Victoria. Get to know your interstate boating rules: New South Wales and Victoria, 2021.

120. NSW Parliamentary Counsel. Marine Safety Act 1998, Parliament of New South Wales. Sydney, NSW, 1998.

121. Horneman, T. One more officer on the water, The Riverine Herald. Echuca, Australia, 2015.

122. Maritime Safety Victoria. NSW rules rule the mighty Murray, Transport Safety Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

123. Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Murray River Drowning Report, Sydney, Australia, 2015.

124. Life Saving Victoria. Drowning Report 2020-21, Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

125. Peden, A.E., Franklin, R.C. & Leggat, P.A. Breathalysing and surveying river users in Australia to understand alcohol consumption and attitudes toward drowning risk, BMC Public Health, (18), 2018.

126. Mildura Life Saving Club. (2022). About Us. Accessed: 13 March 2023. https://www.milduralifesaving.com/about

127. Life Saving Victoria. Lifesaving Service Dates, Life Saving Victoria. 2021.

128. Victoria State Emergency Service. Memorandum of Understanding, State Government of Victoria. 2007.

129. Life Saving Victoria. Bush Nippers: An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Nippers program in a regional setting, Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

130. Mahony, A. & Peden, A.E. Respect the River: NSW rivers research report, Royal Life Saving Society Australia. Sydney, Australia, 2017.

131. Life Saving Victoria. Inland Waterway Training Courses. Accessed: 16 November. https://lsv.com.au/trainingall/inland-waterway-training-courses/

132. Department of Transport. Victorian recreational boating strategy 2021-2030, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia 2021.

133. Victoria Police. VicPol Internal documents 2022.

134. Life Saving Victoria. Life Saving Victoria Annual Report 2020-21, Life Saving Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

135. Life Saving Victoria & Parks Victoria. Paid Lifeguard Services Agreement, Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

136. Wilks, J., de Nardi, M. & Wodarski, R. Close is not close enough: Drowning and rescues outside flagged beach patrol areas in Australia, Tourism in Marine Environments, (4), 57-62, 2007.

137. Branche, C. & Stewart, S. Lifeguard Effectiveness: A report of the Working Group, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, United States of America 2001.

138. Emergency Management Victoria. Victorian State Emergency Management Plan, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

139. Life Saving Victoria. Standard Operating Procedures: Volunteer Patrol Operations, Port Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

140. Life Saving Victoria. Patrol Service Efficiency & Standards Program Handbook 2021/2022, Port Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

141. Life Saving Victoria. Annual Report 2021-22, Port Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

142. Life Saving Victoria. Lifesaving capability and resourcing review: Meeting the changing needs of community, government and our volunteers, Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

143. Surf Life Saving Australia. (2017). 1,281 Reasons to Swim Between the Flags. Accessed: 16 February 2023. https://sls.com.au/1281-reasons-swim-flags/

144. Surf Life Saving Australia. National Coastal Safety Report, Sydney, Australia, 2022.

145. Franklin, R.C., Peden, A.E., Brander, R.W. & Leggat, P.A. Who rescues who? Understanding aquatic rescues in Australia using coronial data and a survey, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, (43), 477483, 2019.

146. Bradbury, R. (2023). I was totally unprepared when I saved someone from drowning. No need for you to be. The Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed: 18 April 2023. https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-was-totally-unpreparedwhen-i-saved-someone-from-drowning-no-need-for-you-to-be-20230126-p5cfno.html

147. Kelly, C. (2023). Australia’s drowning crisis: why rescuers often perish trying to save family members. The Guardian. Accessed: 18 April 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/08/australiasdrowning-crisis-why-rescuers-often-perish-trying-to-save-family-members

148. Moran, K. & Stanley, T. Readiness to Rescue: Bystander Perceptions of Their Capacity to Respond in a Drowining Emergency International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, (7), 290-300, 2013.

149. Leisure Planners. Water Safety Management Review Parks Victoria. Mlebourne, Australia, 2019.

150. Pearn, J. & Franklin, R. 'Flinging the Squaler" Lifeline Rescues for Drowning Prevention International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, (3), 315-321, 2009.

151. Lawes, J., Cooper, B., Kelly, S. & Daw, S. Coastal Safety Brief: Surfing and Watercraft, Surf Life Saving Australia. Sydney, Australia, 2023.

152. Attard, A., Brander, R. & Shaw, W. Rescues conducted by surfers on Australian beaches, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (82), 70-78, 2015.

153. Department of Treasury and Finance. Budget Paper No. 3 Service Delivery 2019-2020, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

154. Surfing Victoria. Internal documents, 2021.

155. Surfing Victoria. Internal documents, 2022.

156. Emergency Management Victoria. Marine Search and Rescue Arrangements Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

157. Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Inter-governmental agreement on national search and rescue response arrangements Australian Government. Canberra, Australia, 2017.

158. Victorian Government. Government Response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Marine Rescue Services in Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

159. Transport Safety Victoria. Maritime safety incident statistics: Maritime Safety Victoria 2020-21 Annual Report, Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

160. Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority. Review correspondence, 2022.

161. Department of Home Affairs. (2023). How to call 000. Accessed: 15 May 2023. https://www.triplezero.gov.au/triple-zero/How-to-Call-000/advanced-mobile-location

162. Bongiovanni, I. (2018). Beyond Triple Zero: towards a digital, proactive emergency response. The Conversation Accessed: 8 May 2023. https://theconversation.com/beyond-triple-zero-towards-a-digital-proactiveemergency-response-92264

163. RapidMap. (2023). Emergency Markers. Accessed: 4 May 2023. https://emergencymarkers.com.au

164. Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority. (2023). Emergency markers signage guidelines. Accessed: May 18 2023. https://www.esta.vic.gov.au/emergency-markers-signage-guidelines

165. Coroners Court of Victoria. Finding into death without inquest of Amanda Bourke, 2020.

166. Coroners Court of Victoria. Finding into death without inquest of Andrew Francis Powell, 2022.

167. Department of Justice and Community Safety. Water Safety Taskforce Terms of Reference, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Victoria, 2022.

168. Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Marine Safety Regulations 2023, Melbourne, Australia, 2023.

169. Transport Safety Victoria. (2021). Emergency position indicating radio beacons. Accessed: 14 May 2023. https://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-boating/trip-preparation/safetyequipment/epirbs

170. Emergency Management Victoria. Draft Marine Search and Rescue Plan: Sub Plan of the State Emergency Response Plan (Draft 11), Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

171. Emergency Management Victoria. Marine Search and Rescue Annual Report 2020-21, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

172. Emergency Management Victoria. Terms of Reference for the Marine Search and Rescue Reform Implementation Board, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2016.

173. Maritime Survey Australia. Marine Search and Rescue - Safety Management System Audit, Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

174. Marine Search and Rescue Office. Volunteer MSAR Shared SMS Concept (Presentation), Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

175. Marine Search and Rescue Office. Shared Safety Management System Concept (Presentation), Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

176. Marine Search and Rescue Office. Marine Search and Rescue Training Program Training Audit Report, Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.

177. Marine Search and Rescue Office. Marine Search and Rescue Office Training Officers Conference 2022 Report, Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

178. Victoria State Emergency Service. (2023). Fundraising and Sponsorship. Accessed: 2 May 2023. https://www.ses.vic.gov.au/donate

179. Australian Volunteer Coast Guard. (2023). Donation. Accessed: 2 May 2023. https://coastguard.com.au/product/donation/

180. Sealite. (2017). Sealite signs sponsorship agreement with the Westernport volunteer coast guard. Accessed: 2 May 2023. https://www.sealite.com/news/sealite-signs-sponsorship-agreement-with-the-westernportvolunteer-coast-guard/

181. Waratah Beach Surf life Saving Club. Annual report season 2021-2022, Sandy Point, Australia, 2022.

182. Department of Justice and Community Safety. DJCS Internal documents 2021.

183. Emergency Management Victoria. (2019). MSAR receives funding for 2019-20. Accessed: 2 May 2023. https://www.emv.vic.gov.au/news/msar-receives-funding-for-2019-20

184. Department of Treasury and Finance. Victorian Budget 2022/23 Putting Patients First Service Delivery Budget Paper No. 3, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia 2022.

185. Australian Volunteer Coast Guard. Constitution (Version 14), Canberra, Australia, 2022.

186. Emergency Management Victoria. Internal documents, 2023.

187. Nous. Victorian MSAR Volunteer Workshops (Presentation), Emergency Management Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

188. Marine Rescue New South Wales. Annual Report 2021-2022, Sydney Australia, 2022.

189. Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council Limited. First Responders Attending a Swift Water Incident Guideline (Version 2), East Melbourne, Australia, 2018.

190. Comrie, N. Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings & Response, Melbourne, Australia, 2011.

191. Victoria Police. Internal documents, 2022.

192. Ambulance Victoria. Review correspondence, 2020.

193. Victoria Police. Review correspondence, 2022.

194. Victoria Police. VicPol Internal documents, 2021.

195. Victoria State Emergency Service. Review correspondence, 2023.

196. Victoria State Emergency Service. Exercise Eildon 4.0, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia, 2022.

197. United Nations General Assembly. (2021). Resolution on global drowning prevention Accessed: 16 May 2023. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N21/106/27/PDF/N2110627.pdf?OpenElement

198. Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. Victoria's Climate Science Report 2019, Victorian Government. Melbourne, Victoria 2019.

199. Great Ocean Road Coast Committee. Draft Coastal and Marine Management Plan 2020-25. Accessed: 14 May 2023. https://www.gorcc.com.au/projects/coastal-and-marine-management-plan-cmmp/

200. Life Saving Victoria. Drowning Report 2009-10, Melbourne, Australia, 2010.

201. Department of Jobs Regions and Precincts. Active Victoria 2022-2026: A strategic framework for sport and active recreation Victorian Government. Melbourne, Australia 2022.

202. Surf Life Saving Australia. 2011-2012 Annual Report, Sydney, Australia, 2012.

203. Life Saving Victoria. Lifesaving Facility of the Future, Port Melbourne, Australia, 2021.

204. Kjellstrom, T. & Weaver, H. Climate change and health: impacts, vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation, NSW Public Health Bulletin, (20), 5-9, 2009.

<<Inside back cover>>