Background: While coastal drownings continue to rise in Australia, some migrant groups record notably low numbers of incidents. Although approximately one third of coastal drowning victims are overseas-born, there are very few reported cases among South American groups such as Brazilians and Colombians. While previous research has largely focused on “high-risk” migrants, this study examines “low-risk” migrants and compares their swimming abilities, educational experiences, and beach visitation practices in both their home countries and Australia.

Methodology: This study used an online survey with 81 participants: 45 Brazilians (55.6%) and 36 Colombians (44.4%). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS. Comparisons were also made between these low-risk groups and previously studied high-risk groups (Chinese and Indian migrants).

Results: Overall, 72.8% (n=56) reported having learned about beach safety, with 53% (n=43) receiving this education in Australia. Swimming ability was notably higher than that of Indian and Chinese migrants, with 80% able to swim 25 metres or more and approximately 80% able to perform side breathing in freestyle. About 63.4% correctly interpreted the red and yellow flags, and around half were aware of rip currents, which was similar to high-risk groups. Although most did not frequently visit beaches in their home countries, about 40% reported swimming at the beach daily or weekly in Australia, and a further quarter monthly. About half also reported entering the water at unpatrolled beaches. Many participants identified sharks as their greatest concern on Australian beaches.

Implications: While beach safety knowledge was similar to high-risk groups, swimming ability and frequency of water entry on the beach differed substantially. Improving swimming competence and encouraging regular beachgoing habits may be more critical for reducing drowning risk than knowledge alone or avoidance of unpatrolled beaches. Future research should also examine how fear of sharks influences beachgoers’ safety behaviour.

Background:
Rip currents are a leading coastal hazard resulting in both drowning and rescues. It is well established that rip current identification is poor and a primary goal of beach safety education initiatives is teaching the public to identify rip currents. However, little prior research has examined how rip current identification varies between different user/skill groups and the reasons for any differences. Using quantitative/qualitative approaches this study aimed to compare rip identification ability of the Australian public to the perspectives of ‘experts’ to understand challenges and inform future educational efforts.

Methods
An online survey was distributed across Australia in 2025, collecting data on an individual’s ability and confidence to identify rip currents, and the difficulties they perceive in identifying rip currents using a variety of photographs and videos. 1584 surveys were analysed. The survey gathered views of the general population, at-risk (young males, multicultural/rural communities) and highly skilled respondents (lifeguards/surfers). Another survey was distributed to rip current ‘experts’ consisting of researchers, practitioners and educators. Data was collected using the rip current images from the first survey, along with the perspectives and opinions of ‘experts’ on the challenges in rip current identification and education.

Results
Rip current identification was greatest amongst highly skilled respondents and lowest from at-risk respondents. However, the average respondents were only marginally better at identifying rip currents than the at-risk respondents. Rip current identification varied based on rip current and imagery type. Analysis of results from the ‘experts’ survey is underway and results will be presented.

Conclusions
Outcomes of this ongoing research will enable a comparison between expert and public opinion on the best ways forward to educating the public about the rip current hazard. Perspectives of the ‘experts’ will guide future research recommendations on improving rip current awareness and safety at unpatrolled beaches through identification education.

Background
On average, 76 coastal drownings occur annually within Australia’s multicultural communities (Australian Water Safety Strategy 2030). With nearly half of Australia’s population either born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas, and 21% of families speaking a language other than English at home, culturally responsive water safety approaches are essential to reducing risk and improving safety outcomes for all communities.

Surf Life Saving NSW evaluated its early childhood program, Annie and the Waves, to assess whether safety messages extend into the home and whether early childhood delivery can provide an effective pathway to engage families facing elevated drowning risk.

Methods
Sixty sessions were delivered in priority locations, including to culturally and linguistically diverse populations with lower English proficiency.
Four program variants tested the impact of take-home resources on knowledge transfer from the session to home. Variants ranged from English activity sheets to translated Annie and the Waves storybooks. Families completed a post program survey.

Results
57 families responded to the survey.
• 85.7% of children discussed the program at home
• 56.5% of parents reported learning something new
• 80.8% of families reported behaviour change

Reported behavioural changes included increased supervision, staying between the flags, checking beach conditions, improved sun safety, and more frequent safety discussions.
Across variants, the English Annie and the Waves storybook showed the strongest pattern with the highest parent learning (71.4%) and behaviour change (91.7%).

Conclusions
Annie and the Waves supports the transfer of coastal safety messages into the home, including within culturally and linguistically diverse families. Early childhood delivery, combined with accessible take home resources, provides a promising pathway for engaging at risk families and reinforcing safer behaviours.
Given the relatively small sample sizes per variant, the pilot will be extended to strengthen confidence in comparative findings.

Background:

In 2024, SLSA resolved to develop a single national water safety campaign for the 2024/25 season. Following consumer research and consultation with a panel of water safety organisations, the key CTA of the campaign was updated from the previous ‘Stop Look Plan’ to the more outcome focussed: ‘Stop. Look. Stay Alive.’

Supported by the Australian Federal Government and NSW Government, the campaign reached more than 10 million people in its first year and was subsequently extended into the 2025/26 season.

Alongside the campaign launch, SLSA developed Beach Passport, a water education website that repurposed Beachsafe content into an easy to consume format.

Description:
The campaign’s strategic objectives were to:
• Maximise safety between the flags
• Reduce drowning and injury rates
• Reinforce SLSA’s leadership as peak coastal safety body
• Increase public awareness of SLS’s community impact

The 2022/23 National Coastal Safety Report identified high-risk populations, guiding messaging targeted toward males and tailored to risks associated with unpatrolled coastal locations.

Lessons learned:

An independent NSW evaluation identified the following improvements:
1. Give specific actions for “Stop”, “Look”, and “Stay Alive”.
2. Extend to make it relevant to pools, rivers, lakes.
3. Reach multicultural and rural communities.
4. Choose relatable ambassadors.
5. Continue the campaign over multiple years.

Conclusions:

The Stop. Look. Stay Alive. campaign was effective in delivering a clear, practical water safety message at a national scale. It was well received and increased people’s awareness of beach hazards, encouraged swimming between the flags, and reinforced the need to stop and assess conditions before entering the water. After exposure to the campaign, 90% of people agree that they were somewhat or very likely to stop and assess conditions before entering the water.

Background
Designated supervised swimming areas are the best way to actively prevent drowning. On beaches, flags are often used to demarcate the areas that are supervised or safest to swim, but general understanding of beach safety patrol flags varies with global contexts. Recent research has shown that beach safety flags can be misinterpreted by some high-risk groups, suggesting a need to better understand broader community understanding of the beach safety flags and associated “swim between the flags” messaging used extensively in Australia.
Methods
Questions on beach flags and the swim between the flags message was tested in a nationally representative survey of 3,085 Australian adults (aged 16+), included within SLSA’s annual National Coastal Safety Survey 2026 (April 2026). Results were post-weighted to ABS data (Census 2021) on age, highest level of schooling completed, sex and area.
Results
Seven in ten respondents understood the meaning of the red and yellow beach safety flags (67%) without prompting. This proportion was higher in males, NSW and QLD residents, Australian-born respondents and competent ocean swimmers. Respondents born overseas, from Asian and European ethnicities, poor swimmers, and those who live >50km from the coast were less likely to correctly recognise and understand the red and yellow flags. The “swim between the flags message” however was familiar to 92% of respondents, with 96% providing a valid meaning of the message. However, when asked which flags to swim between only 75% chose the red and yellow flags.
Conclusion
This presentation shows broad understanding of beach safety flags and messaging, highlighting challenges and opportunities for beach safety managers. While most Australians recognise and understand the meaning of the flags, results identify target demographics for clarified beach safety messaging and communication approaches, to improve broader community understanding of beach safety practices in Australia.

Lifesaving services collect data on rescues, first aid treatments, preventative actions, environmental conditions and site usage. These data support risk assessment, operational planning, and evidence-informed coastal safety reporting. However, data collection across the sector is currently fragmented, with differing software platforms, definitions, data fields and collection methods. Even within a single organisation, individual interpretation of fields can vary. This creates significant challenges for data quality, comparability and aggregation, and limits the effectiveness of analysis and subsequent planning.

The National Data Standard has been developed to provide a consistent, sector-wide approach to lifesaving data collection, regardless of the software or system in use. The standard is intended to improve consistency of outcomes rather than mandate a single platform. It aims to ensure that data collected across different organisations can be meaningfully linked, compared and analysed, supporting more reliable reporting and better-informed decision making across the sector. In addition, providing clear definitions and data-fields can minimise misinterpretation by individuals when collecting data.

During consultation with lifesaving stakeholders, there were concerns identified about the burden of data entry on operational personnel, whose primary role is active supervision and surveillance of site-users. In response, the standard has been developed with levels of data-priority, to indicate which data would be most valuable across all the organisations, while lower-level data would only be captured if there was capacity. There are also opportunities to automate the capture of certain data-fields, using existing information from organisations already operating in adjacent sectors (e.g. Bureau of meteorology).

A national data standard has the potential to strengthen consistency, reduce duplication and improve the usability of water safety data across the sector. By balancing operational practicality with improved data quality, the standard can support more efficient reporting, better analysis and stronger evidence for drowning prevention and water safety planning.