Community consultation on –
Review of Queensland swimming
pool safety laws
Review of responses received April June 2009
Providing the community and stakeholders with the opportunity to
comment on measures recommended in the pool safety laws review.
Executive summary
An independent committee was established by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning
to conduct a review of Queensland’s swimming pool safety legislation. During the review
process, the committee investigated key areas of pool safety, compared pool safety
legislation in different states and territories, and considered submissions from key
stakeholders and peak bodies. The Review of Queensland’s swimming pool safety laws
report outlined the findings of the committee and proposed a number of measures to improve
Queensland’s pool safety legislation.
The State-wide consultation process occurred throughout April – June 2009 with a total of 334
responses received from individuals and organisations. These comprised 68 detailed written
submissions, 97 email responses and 169 online response forms, with some respondents
providing feedback using multiple methods. Although some written submissions were made
by members of the community, the overall trend was for response forms to be used by the
community and submissions to be made by industry and key stakeholder groups, including
Local Government and water safety organisations.
There was broad support from Local Governments and peak industry and community
organisations for the review. There was also general agreement on the committee’s
suggestions, including those proposing mandatory inspections of new swimming pools within
six months, inspections of new houses with pools within two years, allowing compliant
temporary swimming pool fencing until a permanent pool fence is in place, mandatory
compliance inspections and certificate prior to the sale or lease of a property with a pool,
widening of swimming laws to apply to pools at hotels, motels and indoor pools, and
requirements for Local Governments to develop and maintain a swimming pool register.
There was also a high level of community support (50-78%) for nearly all of the committee’s
suggestions. The proposed measures which received the greatest support from the
community were that pool fence inspectors should be trained and licensed (78% supported)
and that compliant temporary swimming pool fencing should be allowed until a permanent
pool fence is in place (73% supported). Other strongly supported suggestions included that
Local Governments be required to undertake a swimming pool safety inspection upon
receiving a pool safety complaint (72% supported), and the development of one model local
law for Local Governments to use for swimming pools not covered by State laws (67%
supported).
The two proposed measures which received the lowest levels of community support were
inspections and certificates for swimming pools prior to properties being sold or leased (54%)
and requirements for Local Governments to develop and maintain a swimming pool register
(50%).
Several submissions provided further ideas to improve the existing pool safety laws and
compliment the committee’s suggestions.
2
Table of contents
1. Background ................................................................................................ 5
2. Methodology............................................................................................... 5
3. Consultation results .................................................................................. 6
3.1 General results ....................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Local Government responses .................................................................................. 6
3.1.2 Peak industry and community organisation responses ........................................... 6
3.1.3 Community responses ............................................................................................. 7
3.2 Responses ............................................................................................. 9
3.2.1 Widening swimming pool safety laws ................................................................. 9
3.2.1.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................... 9
Other swimming pools ...................................................................................................... 9
Portable swimming pools .................................................................................................. 9
Education ........................................................................................................................ 10
Local Government exemptions ....................................................................................... 10
Phase-in period for existing pools ................................................................................... 10
3.2.1.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2 Rationalising pool fencing standards ................................................................ 11
3.2.2.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 11
3.2.2.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 12
Swimming pool fencing laws should be rationalised so that there is only one law for all
pools ................................................................................................................................ 12
Existing swimming pools should meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or lease or
within five years, whichever occurs first. ......................................................................... 13
3.2.3 Restricting Local Government pool safety laws .............................................. 15
3.2.3.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 15
3.2.3.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 16
One model law should be developed for Local Governments to use for swimming pool
fences not covered by State laws. .................................................................................. 16
3.2.4 Mandatory follow-up inspections for new pools .............................................. 18
Follow-up inspections ..................................................................................................... 18
Enforcement by private building certifiers ....................................................................... 18
Temporary pool fencing .................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 19
New swimming pools should be inspected within six months and new houses with pools
should be inspected within two years. ............................................................................ 19
Compliant temporary swimming pool fencing should be allowed until a permanent pool
fence is in place. ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2.5 Registering swimming pools .............................................................................. 22
3.2.5.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 22
3.2.5.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 23
Local Governments should develop and maintain a swimming pool register. ................ 23
3.2.6 Mandatory on-going pool safety inspections ................................................... 25
3.2.6.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 25
Mandatory inspections at point of sale or lease.............................................................. 25
Mandatory inspections following a compliant or an immersion ...................................... 26
Pool fence inspectors ...................................................................................................... 26
Powers of entry and enforcement ................................................................................... 26
3.2.6.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 27
Swimming pools should be inspected and a certificate issued before properties with
swimming pools can be sold or leased. .......................................................................... 27
Pool fence inspectors should be trained and licensed. .................................................. 30
Hospitals should notify their Local Government when patients who have been involved
in a swimming pool immersion incident are admitted. .................................................... 32
3
Local Governments must undertake a swimming pool safety inspection upon receiving a
pool safety complaint or following an immersion incident. .............................................. 33
3.2.7 New Australian Standard for pool fencing ........................................................ 34
3.2.6.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 34
3.2.6.2 Other Responses ................................................................................................ 35
3.2.8 Miscellaneous ...................................................................................................... 35
3.2.8.1 Forum feedback .................................................................................................. 35
Revised cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) signs...................................................... 35
3.2.8.2 Other responses ................................................................................................. 36
New swimming pools should be required to display the cardio pulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) signage adopted by the Australian Resuscitation Council................................... 36
3.2.9 Of all of the ideas considered in the review, which do you think is most
important? ..................................................................................................................... 37
3.2.9.1 Local Government responses ............................................................................. 37
3.2.9.2 Peak industry and community organisation responses ...................................... 37
3.2.9.3 Community responses ........................................................................................ 38
3.3 Further suggestions for improving pool safety ...................................... 38
3.3.1 Local Government .................................................................................................. 39
3.3.2 Peak industry and community organisations ......................................................... 39
3.3.2 Community ............................................................................................................. 41
4. Attachments ............................................................................................. 41
Attachment 1 – Swimming pool safety review committee report ................ 42
Attachment 2 – Sample response form ...................................................... 42
Attachment 3 - List of industry and key stakeholder respondents .............. 47
4
1. Background
On 14 December 2008, the Honourable Anna Bligh MP, Premier and Minister for the Arts,
announced a comprehensive review of Queensland’s swimming pool safety legislation.
The review was announced to address increasing concerns, including those expressed in
several Coroner Reports, a respected body of research, and by media and members of the
community, that Queensland’s current swimming pool fencing laws are inadequate in
preventing the tragedy of children under five years of age drowning or suffering immersion
injuries in residential swimming pools.
In December 2008, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning established an
independent committee to conduct the swimming pool safety review. The committee
comprised members from State Government, Local Government Association Queensland,
industry, and child and water safety groups. The scope of the review targeted legislation
relating to swimming pools associated with Class 1 - 4 buildings (including houses,
townhouses, units, hotels motels, and other types of accommodation buildings) and, in
particular, fencing standards and signage provisions. The committee investigated key areas
of pool safety, compared pool safety laws in different States and Territories, and considered
submissions from key water safety organisations, peak bodies and child drowning advocates.
To address inadequacies in structural requirements, compliance and monitoring methods and
education awareness, a report (Attachment 1) was prepared which detailed the committee’s
23 recommendations across eight improvement areas.
The eight key areas identified by the committee were:

Widening swimming pool safety laws

Rationalising pool fencing standards

Restricting local governments pool safety laws

Mandatory follow-up inspections for new pools

Registering swimming pools

Mandatory ongoing pool safety inspections

New Australian Standard for pool fencing
Some additional improvement areas also recommended were collection of essential
information for future reviews, education and awareness campaigns and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) signs.
2. Methodology
Community consultation on the committee’s report was conducted over a six week period
from the 26 April 2009 to 5 June 2009.
In May 2009, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning conducted a series of public
consultation forums in nine regions across the State (Mackay, Townsville, Cairns,
Rockhampton, Mt Isa, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and Brisbane). These forums gave the
community an opportunity to have their say on the committee’s report and on swimming pool
safety in general. Attendees at the forums included representatives from Local Governments
and the swimming pool industry, building certifiers, interested individuals and pool owners.
During the consultation period, the committee’s report and a response form (Attachment 2)
were available both in hard copy and electronically on the Department of Infrastructure and
Planning’s website www.dip.qld.gov and the Queensland Government public consultation
website www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au. The response form was developed to enable
5
respondents to indicate their level of support for each of the proposed measures, as well as
their opinions regarding the review process and current swimming pool safety legislation.
Respondents were also able to prepare a more detailed written submission, and were
encouraged to identify further suggestions for improving the Queensland’s swimming pool
safety laws.
3. Consultation results
Responses to the discussion paper were received from a total of 334 individuals and
organisations (see Attachment 3 for full list of organisations). This was comprised of 68
written submissions, 97 email responses and 169 online responses. Half of the community
responses were made using the response form. The bulk of peak bodies, Local Governments
and community organisations responded with detailed submissions.
With regards to the format of this report, general results are presented first, followed by
individual results for each proposed measures. Results have been further separated into
Local Government responses, industry, peak and community organisation responses, and
community responses. The written submissions provide qualitative information, while the
response forms were able to be analysed quantitatively due to their standardised format.
Feedback from the community forums has been summarised in the final section.
3.1 General results
3.1.1 Local Government responses
There was broad support from Local Governments for the majority of proposed measures.
Some Local Governments (including Brisbane City Council (BCC) and Central Highlands
Regional Council (CHRC)) expressed concern about the financial and resource implications
of the proposed measures, particularly the creation and maintenance of a swimming pool
register. Other Local Governments were not supportive of the proposed requirements for
inspections after complaints and at point of sale and lease, particularly due to the geographic
size of the council areas and the resources involved in undertaking the inspections.
Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC) is not supportive of simplifying the pool laws into
one standard or the proposed mandatory inspections at point of sale or lease. Mackay City
Council (MCC) is generally supportive of the recommendations and conclusions of the review
but believes that any new laws should not be statistically driven and should focus on safety at
all locations. Development of legislation should not be driven by coronial inquests but by the
recognition of hazards.
Rockhampton City Council (RCC) want Local Governments to be provided with a
mechanism to recoup costs from implementing any legislative changes. Legislation should
place the responsibility on the owner of the pool rather than the Local Government. The Gold
Coast City Council (GCCC) was in agreement with many of the recommendations of the
swimming pool safety review but thought the responsibility of the pool fence should rest with
the pool builder and not the consumer
3.1.2 Peak industry and community organisation responses
A number of industry, peak and community organisations including the Queensland Master
Builders Association (QMBA), Real Estate Institute Queensland (REIQ) and Hannah’s
Foundation, expressed broad support for the review and the majority of proposed measures.
Queensland’s Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian
(CCYPCG) supports the Queensland government’s initiative to reduce drowning deaths of
6
children under 5 years, in swimming pools through the improvement of pool fencing
legislation.
The proposed requirement for existing swimming pools to meet pool fencing laws at point of
sale or lease or within five years, whichever occurs first, was highly supported in the online
responses and generally supported by the majority of peak bodies
Some organisations, such as the QMBA, suggested further attention be given towards the
ongoing education of parents/carers regarding supervision of young children around
swimming pools. QMBA suggested that the role of education and media programs in
increasing parental/adult’s supervision was of equal importance to fencing regulations.
Queensland Law Society (QLS) supported the review of Queensland’s swimming pool
legislation and provided feedback on contractual issues in relation to the recommendation for
mandatory on-going inspections of swimming pools at point of sale and point of lease.
3.1.3 Community responses
A high level of community support (where support is indicated by the percentage of responses
that were either "agree" or "strongly agree") was provided for nearly all of the proposed
measures (i.e. levels of support of between 50% and 78%) (Table 1).
The suggestions which received the highest overall levels of community support were
requiring pool fence inspectors to be trained and licensed (78%), allowing compliant
temporary swimming pool fencing until a permanent pool fence is in place (73%), and
requiring Local Governments to undertake a swimming pool safety inspection upon receiving
a pool safety complaint or following an immersion incident (72%).
Other measures which received high levels of support were developing one model law for
Local Governments to use for swimming pool fences not covered by State laws (66.7%),
rationalising swimming pool fencing laws so that there is only one law for all pools (64.4%)
and requiring existing swimming pools to meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or lease or
within five years (60%) (Table 1, Figure 1).
The proposed measures which received the lowest levels of community support were
requiring swimming pools to be inspected and issued with a certificate before properties with
swimming pools can be sold or leased (54%) and requiring Local Governments to develop
and maintain a swimming pool register (50%) (Table 1, Figure 1). These measures polarised
the views of stakeholders.
7
Table 1. Summary of response forms received during the consultation period
Response form question
Swimming pool fencing laws should be
rationalised so that there is only one law for all
pools.
Existing swimming pools should meet pool
fencing laws at point of sale or lease or within five
years, whichever occurs first.
One model law should be developed for Local
Governments to use for swimming pool fences
not covered by State laws.
New swimming pools should be inspected within
six months and new houses with pools should be
inspected within two years.
Compliant temporary swimming pool fencing
should be allowed until a permanent pool fence is
in place.
Swimming pools should be inspected and a
certificate issued before properties with swimming
pools can be sold or leased.
Local Governments should develop and maintain
a swimming pool register.
Pool fence inspectors should be trained and
licensed.
Hospitals should notify their Local Government
when patients who have been involved in a
swimming pool immersion incident are admitted.
Local Governments must undertake a swimming
pool safety inspection upon receiving a pool
safety complaint or following an immersion
incident.
New swimming pools should be required to
display the CPR signage adopted by the
Australian Resuscitation Council.
Supported
Opposed
Total
123
56
191
64%
29%
94%
115
60
191
60%
31%
92%
94
31
141
67%
22%
89%
104
40
157
66%
26%
92%
116
26
158
73%
17%
90%
88
60
162
54%
37%
91%
78
60
155
50%
39%
89%
124
25
160
78%
16%
94%
99
43
160
62%
27%
89%
115
33
160
72%
21%
93%
122
13
158
77%
8%
85%
NB: A measure was considered supported where respondents indicated “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” and not
supported where respondents indicated “Disagree” or Strongly Disagree”. This table does not show the number of
respondents who indicated a “Neutral” response (please see the results for individual measures for a more detailed
breakdown). Further, in cases where some respondents did not answer all of the questions the number of responses
may be less than the overall total of number of response forms received.
8
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents who indicated support for each of the proposed
measures
100%
90%
80%
Responses
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
CPR signage
to be displayed
Safety
inspections
Hospitals to
notify of
Inspectors to
be trained and
Swimming
pool register.
Inspected and
certificate prior
Compliant
temporary
Mandatory
inspections of
One model law
developed for
Phase in for
existing pools
Rationalisation
to one law
0%
Proposed measure
Supported
Opposed
3.2 Responses
3.2.1 Widening swimming pool safety laws
The committee suggested State swimming pool safety laws be widened to apply to all
swimming pools associated with Class 3 buildings (hotels and motels) and Class 4 buildings
(caretaker dwellings). This would bring Queensland in line with most other states and
territories.
3.2.1.1 Forum feedback
Other swimming pools

Further clarification of the definition for swimming pools and spas is required

Swimming pools in Class 3 and 4 buildings (e.g. hotels, motels), as well as pools in
caravan parks, mining camps and schools should be captured by these proposed
changes. However, it was suggested pools in retirement complexes may not need to
be captured.

Some confusion was expressed regarding the need to fence spas. There were
suggestions that a lockable cover could be sufficient.

Monitoring compliance may be difficult for hotel swimming pools as well as spas in all
classes of building.
Portable swimming pools

Portable pools sold at retail stores can be unsafe and there needs to be more
education for retailers, parents and purchasers on the risks involved.
9

There are problems with compliance of portable pools and a lack of knowledge of the
risks they pose to young children.

Some confusion was expressed regarding the 300mm depth of portable pools and
unusual cases where these size pools have a filtration system.

There needs to be some figures released regarding the number of drownings and
injuries in portable pools.
Education

Retailers should be educated on spa fencing and more public information is needed
on the dangers of unfenced spas.

More responsibility should be placed on retailers to inform buyers of risks to young
children, particularly in relation to inflatable portable pools.

The labelling system at point of sale should be revised as current labelling is
ineffective.

The summer safety campaign’s ABC message should also include educating parents
and carers of the dangers involved with inflatable pools.
Local Government exemptions

Five years was considered too long for the revocation of exemptions.

Attendees were supportive of revoking previously granted exemptions. However, it
was questioned whether the variation should continue that allows pools built prior to
1991 to retain their self closing doors as a component of the pool barrier.
Phase-in period for existing pools

Pool owners should be required to upgrade their fence if the adjoining landowner
changes conditions on their side and the boundary fence no longer complies.

Pre-1991 pools should have five years to comply and all others should have two
years. A shorter phase-in period was also suggested.
3.2.1.2 Other responses
Local Government submissions
General support was shown by Local Governments (including MBRC, MCC, GCCC and
RCC) for state swimming pool laws to be expanded to hotels, motels and caretaker
residences.

CHRC did not support an expansion of state swimming pool safety laws to include
hotels, motels and caretaker residences.

GCCC suggested the widening of State laws should exclude swimming pools within
supervised private and public community aquatic centres and pools with no
accommodation facilities. All swimming pools having any association with buildings
of a residential character such as those in retirement villages and nursing homes
(Class 9 buildings) should be included.

GCCC support the revocation of Local Government exemptions not associated with
people with a disability provided that all future exemption applications be addressed
under section 38 of the Building Act 1975 which applies to the assessment of building
work.
10
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
QMBA supported the widening of swimming pool laws to include hotels, motels and caretaker
residences.
The CCYPCG agrees with moves to align Queensland swimming pool legislation with that of
other Australian States and Territories, and also agrees that existing exemptions should be
revoked, noting the exception relating to people with relevant disabilities.
The CCYPCG also agrees that ongoing public education and awareness campaigns are vital
in combating the risks posed by portable swimming pools.
Community responses
The community generally appeared to be supportive of a widening of the State’s Pool safety
laws, with some comments suggested the laws should extend beyond Class 3 and 4
buildings, e.g. to school pools and Local Government pools.
3.2.2 Rationalising pool fencing standards
3.2.2.1 Forum feedback

There was generally strong support for Local Governments to only have laws for
swimming pools that are not covered by State legislation.

It would be beneficial to have only one standard to apply to pool fencing for ease of
compliance assessment.

Pools built pre-1991 should also be required to comply.

Standards should be readily achievable in terms of costs.

User friendly guidelines are required.

Pools built pre-1991 should no longer be allowed to have self closing doors.

There may be compliance issues surrounding instances where the swimming pool
and the pool fence are approved by separate building certifiers.

Having the non-climbable zone on the pool side of the boundary fence passes the
responsibility of safety to the pool owners. However, the neighbour can compromise
this compliance by placing an object in the climbable zone on their side of the fence.

Some attendees indicated that retrospectivity may not be an effective mechanism to
address pool fencing standards.

There were some queries regarding the current appeals process and the availability
of this if the changes were to come into effect.

Wading pools with a depth of 300mm were still considered too deep and can be
problematic in terms of compliance.

Local Government amalgamations have resulted in too many different sets of laws.
These need to be combined into one set of Local Government laws.
11
3.2.2.2 Other responses
Swimming pool fencing laws should be rationalised so that there is only one
law for all pools
There are currently 11 different safety standards that apply to swimming pools (depending on
the age of the pool), not including a range of Local Government local laws. The committee
proposed a rationalisation of swimming pool safety laws by adopting a single standard
(revised AS1926.1 and 2 – 2007) for all swimming pools.
Local Government submissions
Although Local Government responses to the proposed rationalisation of swimming pool
fencing laws were mixed, most concerns were in relation to how rationalisation of swimming
pool laws would be implemented.

BCC, RCC and CHRC strongly agreed with rationalisation of swimming pool fencing
laws by adopting the one standard.

GCCC indicated support for Australian Standard 1926.1&2 - 2007 to apply in its
entirety, without variations or exclusions. GCCC do not believe the Australian
Standards are unclear in application but rather the previous practice of amending
swimming pool safety laws to only apply pool fencing standards to new pools is a key
factor in why there are a variety of applicable fencing standards.

MBRC did not support the rationalising of swimming pool fencing laws.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
There was strong support from industry, peak and community organisations (including
CCYPCG, QMBA, REIQ and Hannah’s Foundation) for rationalising the State’s pool safety
legislation.
QMBA supported the adoption of the one standard (AS1926.1 and 2 – 2007) as it would
improve understanding of the laws and improve compliance. QMBA further suggested the
one standard should apply to all swimming pools regardless of age and that it should be
adopted through the Building Code of Australia as a Queensland variation, and where
applicable enforced further through the provisions of the Queensland Development Code. A
five year phase-in period should apply for existing pools.
Community responses
Community responses showed strong support (64%) for the rationalising of pool safety
legislation, while 30% of respondents were unsupportive of this proposed measure (Table 2,
Figure 2). Comments generally indicated the current legislative framework can be confusing,
particularly the multiple standards and laws that can apply. Other comments suggested that
the proposed uniformity will lead to greater compliance and less confusion.
12
Table 2. Responses to proposed rationalisation of pool fencing laws
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
84
44%
Agree
39
20%
Neutral
5
3%
Disagree
26
14%
Strongly disagree
30
16%
7
4%
191
100%
Response
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 2. Percentage of responses to proposed rationalisation pool fencing laws
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
Existing swimming pools should meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or
lease or within five years, whichever occurs first.
The swimming pool safety review committee’s investigations revealed that many pools will
already comply with this recommendation.
Local Government submissions
The majority of Local Governments, other than MBRC, expressed support for requiring
existing swimming pools to meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or lease, or within five
years, whichever occurs first.
13
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
All industry, peak and community organisation respondents (including Hannah’s Foundation,
REIS, RLSS, and QMBA) were supportive of the proposed measure. However, it was noted
by some organisations that this measure would place an extra burden on rental properties.


The QMBA suggested the operational and administrative framework should be
developed in consultation with industry and Local Governments, particularly in
relation to indoor swimming pools, revocation of Local Government fencing
exemptions, tenancy agreements and transfer of title.
Rental Tenancy Authority (RTA) indicated that this measure would place greater
onus and cost on the owners of rental properties to meet the standards, as rental
properties turn over tenancies more frequently than houses are sold. The RTA also
suggested a sufficient grace period should be considered, i.e. one year after new
standards come into effect to allow for budgeting for the additional costs that will be
imposed on the lessor when tenancies end abruptly. Further, any requirements for a
‘lease’ should also include a ‘re-lease’, i.e. tenants may rent the same premises from
a number of years through back to back six-month tenancy agreements.
Community responses
A total of 61% of community responses were in support of the proposal to require existing
swimming pools to meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or lease, or within five years,
whichever occurs first (Table 3, Figure 3). This proposed measure was controversial and
attracted strong comments from respondents. However, only a small percentage of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this measure (10% and 21%, respectively)
(Table 3, Figure 3).
There was concern raised of the perceived financial burden this recommendation may incur
on pool owners of older and compliant swimming pools. A number of individuals questioned
the fairness of having to upgrade their already compliant fencing.

There is a definite need for one set of rules for pools post 1991. For pre-1991
swimming pools there should be a five year phase-in period.

New laws should only apply to new pools and should not be retrospective. It is too
difficult and expensive to alter fences that have already been approved.

There is a need for boundary fencing to prevent access to pool areas from
neighbouring properties.

Additional fencing between house and pool is not appropriate for houses that do not
have children residing.

There needs to be one standard for new swimming pools being built, but pools
approved prior to the new standards should not be penalised when they have
complied with the regulations at the time they were approved.

Fencing is the single most neglected area of pool ownership responsibility and should
be stringently regulated. All pools should be fenced and the height of pool fencing
needs to be increased to 1.4 or 1.5 m to be a more realistic deterrent to young
children.

Only an inspection regime will result in compliance.
14
Table 3. Responses to proposed requirement that existing swimming pools meet pool
fencing laws at point of sale or lease or within five years, whichever occurs first.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
70
37%
Agree
45
24%
Neutral
5
3%
Disagree
20
10%
Strongly disagree
40
21%
Don't know/need more information
11
6%
191
100%
Response
Total
Figure 3. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement that existing swimming
pools meet pool fencing laws at point of sale or lease or within five years, whichever
occurs first.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
3.2.3 Restricting Local Government pool safety laws
3.2.3.1 Forum feedback

There was limited discussion on this proposed measure across the nine forums.
However, attendees were generally supportive of this as a means to simplify current
swimming pool safety laws.
15

In some instances there was confusion about which Government body would be
responsible for which class of pool and which Government body would administer the
laws.

State pool fencing laws should cover pools associated with Class 9 buildings (e.g
aged care building, health care building) and local laws should cover laws associated
with other pools. There also needs to be thought about pools associated with schools
and public swimming pools and whether these would be covered by Local
Government laws.

Clarification required on whether a breach of the local law would be under the
Building Act or Local Government Act.

It was questioned how the laws would be administered and whether they should be
placed in local planning schemes.

It was noted that resorts would lose their fencing exemptions.

The proposal for the State Government to regulate swimming pools associated with
Class 1-4 buildings and Local Government to regulate the other classes of pools was
positively received by Local Government representatives.

It was questioned why the scope of this policy was only pools associated with Class
1- 4 buildings.
3.2.3.2 Other responses
One model law should be developed for Local Governments to use for
swimming pool fences not covered by State laws.
Approximately one hundred Local Government laws are currently applied to swimming pools
across Queensland. Local Government swimming pool laws can encompass health and
safety standards, prescribe fencing standards or call up the Australian Standard and/or
building legislation. Of the nine Local Governments that were investigated, there were
considerable variations among them. Three Local Governments did not prescribe fencing
standards at all, some did not have a clear definition of which pools were captured by the law
and others cover swimming pools associated with all classes of buildings.
The pool safety review committee proposed one model local law be developed to provide
greater consistency across Local Government areas where certain swimming pool fences are
not covered by State laws.
Local Government submissions
This proposed measure was generally supported by Local Governments (including BCC,
CCYPCG, CHRC, GCCC, MBRC, MCC). The views of RCC were mixed, with some council
representatives agreeing with the proposed measure, and one suggesting only State laws
should govern pool fencing.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
There was strong support from REIQ and Hannah’s Foundation for the development of a
single local law.
QMBA provided in-principle support for this proposed measure, only if the adoption of the
model local law in its entirety is mandatory. They advised implementation should include an
appropriate suite of suitable options and be developed in consultation with Local Government
and industry to form a prescriptive model local law to address all conditions that may be
encountered within community aquatic centres.
16
Community responses
The majority of community respondents (94%) were supportive of this measure (Table 4,
Figure 4). Comments from members of the community generally focused on the need for
simplification of swimming pool fencing laws and the legislative framework.

The current multiple standards are confusing and make it difficult for a responsible
owner to ensure compliance. However some flexibility will be required where existing
premises are to be modified in line with the new regulations.

All pools should comply with the same general rules - one set of rules will make it
easier for people to understand. It makes sense to have uniformity and it will save
public money. This will reduce confusion when speaking to people in different
localities about acceptable standards for pool fencing.

Inspectors should be well-trained to ensure adequate solutions are identified.
Table 4. Responses to proposal for one model law being developed for Local
Governments to use for swimming pool fences not covered by State laws.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
54
38%
Agree
40
28%
Neutral
10
7%
8
6%
23
16%
6
4%
141
100%
Response
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 4. Percentage of responses to proposal for one model law being developed for
Local Governments to use for swimming pool fences not covered by State laws.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
17
3.2.4 Mandatory follow-up inspections for new pools
3.2.4.1 Forum feedback
Follow-up inspections
There was broad agreement with this proposed measure.

There was concern regarding the gap between the builder and the installation of the
swimming pool fence.

Building approvals for pools should be limited to six months and should be separate
to that of the dwelling.

6/24 month timeframe considered too long. It should be a 6/12 month or 3/12 month
timeframe.

Responsibility of the building certifiers needs to be streamlined by mandating a more
comprehensive inspection process.

Pool owners should ensure that the permanent fence is in place and the pool is
properly maintained.

There should be a contractual connection between the construction of the pool and
the installation of the fence.

The current Form 17 needs to be amended so it does not imply that it is the final
inspection. If a pool fence does not comply it would be better to use a noncompliance form rather than a Form 17.

Some form of advice needs to be considered in lieu of an inspection if building work
has not commenced. Travel distances in some Local Government areas can make
additional inspections unnecessarily costly, especially if the building work for the pool
has not commenced.

Building approvals are being issued but final inspections are not always being
conducted. There are also some cases that what is drawn on the plans does not
necessarily reflect what is being built on-site.

Many fences for new pools do not comply and are poorly built. During the building
boom, fences weren’t always completed at the same time as the dwelling, weren’t
suitably child proof and are not well maintained.
Enforcement by private building certifiers

There needs to be more responsibility placed upon builders to comply with pool
fencing laws.

The expectation that private building certifiers will take legal action against noncompliant pool owners is unreasonable considering the resource implications for their
business.

Local Governments rarely cover costs of prosecuting non-compliance, for example,
magistrates do not always award costs nor impose maximum penalties. Many private
building certifiers will not do extra inspections because of the legal implications.
Consequently, building approval reverts back to Local Government.

Local Governments may find it difficult to enforce due to practicalities such as lack of
funding and staff resources. Long travel distances in rural areas and larger Local
Government regions would place high demand on staff resources.

There should be notification to adjoining land owners if a non-compliant pool is found
by Local Government.

Concern that Local Government will be overloaded by building certifiers passing
enforcement onto them following the six month non-compliance period.
18

Compliance matrix was sought by Local Governments so that there is consistency of
the enforcement mechanism across all Local Government areas.
Temporary pool fencing

Temporary fencing should be compliant with the standard.

Gates should be provided to ensure that panels are not removed.

Temporary fences should only be allowed for a maximum of 3 months. Some
attendees suggested 30 days. There needs to be some further clarity on these
timeframes.

Better education is required for tradesmen to ensure fencing remains complaint
during construction.

The pool builder needs to be contractually tied to the construction of the fencing.

There needs to be liability for certifiers that approve temporary fencing.

Pool shouldn’t be filled with water without a fence built.

Form 17 needs to be amended to include a check of temporary pool fencing.
3.2.4.2 Other responses
New swimming pools should be inspected within six months and new houses
with pools should be inspected within two years.
Currently, owners of new pools must get a licensed building certifier to inspect and certify
their pool fence before filling their pool with water. Building certifiers only inspect a completed
pool if requested by a pool owner or pool builder.
In practice, pools are not always being inspected by a building certifier and this can be
attributed to a lack of understanding of the legislative obligation of pool owners to comply, a
belief that not having the inspection is cost saving, or nothing compelling them to have an
inspection.
The committee’s review concluded that a final inspection by a building certifier, within a
defined timeframe is essential to ensure pool fencing is compliant before filling the pool with
water. Six months is considered by the committee a reasonable time frame and two years
when a pool is being built at the same time as a main residential building.
Local Government submissions
Several Local Governments provided a submission in relation to the report. Of the
submissions received, there was general agreement with the proposed measures. However,
some Local Governments (BCC and GCCC) provided the following additional feedback:

Powers of entry to allow council officers to inspect swimming pools without the
occupiers consent or a court warrant are essential.

A single point of responsibility for ensuring pool fencing of new pools and for the filling
of the pool with water is required. The point of responsibility should sit with the pool
builder. The private building certifier should be employed by the builder, not by the
consumer, as the builder is responsible for the structure.

A building development application for the construction of a swimming pool on
residential land must also be for the construction of fencing for the pool (Section 28 of
the Building Act 1975). The builder must accept strict liability for any water filled
swimming pools not fenced.
19

The building application process needs to link both the builder of the swimming pool
and the installer of the fences. Swimming pool builders must not be able to exempt
themselves from all responsibility regarding the construction of the fence.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
The majority of industry respondents (e.g. Hannah’s Foundation, CCYPCG, RLSS, REIQ,
RCC) supported the measures proposed in the committee’s report.

QMBA supported the recommendation confirming that generally there should be a six
month timeframe that can be extended to two years in cases where building approval
is granted for a swimming pool and a new residential building. QMBA also suggested
that the current authority for private building certifiers to take enforcement action
through legal proceedings should be removed and Local Governments should
undertake any court action.

RCC generally supported the proposal, including a six month maximum approval time
from when the swimming pool is finished, and suggests separate pool approvals from
dwelling approvals, and swimming pool fences should be inspected before a pool is
filled with water.

REIQ suggested the costs for the proposed inspections should be borne by the
property owner, and could be a standing charge included in rates notices. The
charge is likely to equate to less than $10 per quarter. This is negligible compared to
the other costs associated with pool maintenance, estimated at approximately $100
per month.
Community responses
The community responded significantly in favour (66% supportive) of mandatory inspections
of swimming pools within six months and two years for new houses with swimming pools,
Table 5, Figure 5). Only a small percentage of respondents either disagreed or strongly
disagreed with this measure (13% and 12%, respectively) (Table 5, Figure 5). The main
comment was that pool fencing is often altered after inspection/approval, which can affect the
safety of the fencing, e.g. trees, retaining walls, structures are often built close to fencing after
inspections, spring hinges break, fencing can be damaged and incorrectly repaired.
Table 5. Responses to New swimming pools should be inspected within six months
and new houses with pools should be inspected within two years.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
52
33%
Agree
52
33%
Neutral
9
6%
Disagree
21
13%
Strongly disagree
19
12%
4
3%
157
100%
Response
Don't know/need more information
Total
20
Figure 5. Percentage of responses to the recommendation.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
Compliant temporary swimming pool fencing should be allowed until a
permanent pool fence is in place.
The Australian Standard does not allow temporary fencing to be used during pool
construction. Currently a permanent fence must be installed, inspected and certified before
there is more than 300mm or more of water in the pool.
Anecdotally it is suggested that temporary fencing is being used in some cases. By regulating
temporary fencing for swimming pools during construction it would acknowledge and
recognise the practicalities of pool building. Temporary fences would then be inspected by a
building certifier to ensure compliance with the fencing standards.
Local Government submissions
All Local Government respondents (BCC, CHRC, GCCC, MBRC and RCC) were in
unanimous support of this proposed measure.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions

The REIQ and CCYPCG agreed.

QMBA agreed that compliant temporary fencing should be required until a permanent
pool fence is installed; but also suggested that permanent fencing should be installed,
inspected and certified before the pool is used.

Hannah’s Foundation strongly disagreed with this proposal and suggested that
compliant temporary fencing should only be used as a last resort if there were no
other options available. Hannah’s Foundation suggested that certification of pools
should be tied directly to the presence of a compliant fence in a completed state and
until the permanent fencing is compliant, swimming pools should be surrounded by
the temporary fence.
Hannah’s Foundation also suggested the person applying for pool construction or
fencing construction permits should receive notice indicating that the safety around
the pool takes precedence over the ease of access for construction. It could also be
recorded on Local Government permit records that the permit holder or builder
understands the notice.

Community responses
21
The proposal for compliant temporary swimming pool fencing to be allowed until a permanent
pool fence is in place received a high level of community support (73%) (Table 6, Figure 6).
Only 16% of respondents did not support this proposal (Table 6, Figure 6). No additional
comments were recorded.
Table 6. Responses to compliant temporary swimming pool fencing being allowed until
a permanent pool fence is in place.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
56
35%
Agree
60
38%
Neutral
12
8%
7
4%
19
12%
4
3%
158
100%
Response
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 6. Percentage of responses to compliant temporary swimming pool fencing
being allowed until a permanent pool fence is in place.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
3.2.5 Registering swimming pools
3.2.5.1 Forum feedback

Local Government should develop and maintain the register.
22

There was agreement by Local Government representatives at several roadshows
that they be responsible for this proposed measure.

Information should be available when property searches are undertaken.

The register should be kept by the State Government rather than Local Government.

The cost of establishment, administration and maintenance of a pool register needs
to be well considered.

Clarification is needed on what fees will be attached to the registration of a pool.

The cost-benefit of the register needs to be considered.

Portable pools under 300mm will not be covered by the register as it is difficult to
police.

It was noted that not all Local Governments have adequate records to develop a pool
register.

The failure to notify Local Governments that a pool is located on a property should be
a prescribed offence.
3.2.5.2 Other responses
Local Governments should develop and maintain a swimming pool register.
There is estimated to be between 300,000 – 600,000 swimming pools in Queensland. The
committee proposed that pool owners be required to notify their Local Government that they
have a swimming pool (with a 6 month phase-in period applying). This information could then
be used by Local Governments to develop a comprehensive register. A register would assist
any future pool safety reviews and provide important statistical information for future
swimming pool safety awareness campaigns.
Local Government submissions
Local Governments that provided responses or submissions largely agreed with this proposed
measure, including BCC, CHRC, GCCC, MCC, MBRC, and RCC. Some Local Governments
(e.g. BCC and CHRC) noted there would be a financial and resource burden associated with
creating and maintaining the register. Some suggested that there are a number of operational
issues that require further consideration.

BCC indicated there are more than 86,000 swimming pools in Brisbane area.

Rockhampton Regional Council was unsupportive of the proposed measure
because the development and maintenance of a swimming pool register is onerous
and in the absence of a mandatory inspection regime it is not considered to provide a
significant benefit to justify the effort.

CHRC indicated many of the building approval records relate to older applications
and are stored in several outlying administration centres. As a result, the task of
documenting the inspection records would likely be a time consuming task. CHRC
also suggested that the use of aerial photography databases may be an effective tool
in cities and townships but is not practical in a regional council which has an area of
59,884 km2.
CHRC indicated that pool owners may be reluctant to notify their Local Government within the
6-month period once they become aware that an annual registration fee applies.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
23
Industry and stakeholders responded positively to the proposal that Local Governments
should be required to develop and maintain a swimming pool register.

CCYPCG agreed that a register should be put in place, however they believe for
reporting purposes, it would be essential that the information system developed must
enable a whole-of-Queensland view of compliance to be readily generated. Also
information on repeated non-compliance should be shared and available across Local
Government boundaries. For example in circumstances where a landlord who owns
various properties in different Local Government areas consistently fails to maintain
compliant fencing.

QMBA supported the proposed measure and noted that this measure should be
introduced, even if a mandatory ongoing inspection regime is not implemented.
QMBA suggested Local Government should be required to provide register
information to the State Government if requested, and the following additional
information that could be captured by the register:
o
details of any immersion incidents that have been reported or pool safety
complaints that have been made
o
name of the authority or private building certifier who approved the pool
o
any subsequent fence modifications
o
date that any fence modifications were approved after the pool was
constructed
o
dates of any previous inspections and the inspector’s name
o
results of any previous inspections, including non-compliance details, and
o
details of any enforcement action taken relating to the pool.
Community responses
The community responses to this measure were divided. Half (50%) of the respondents were
in support of this measure, while 38% were in disagreement (Table 7, Figure 7). There were
no significant additional comments.
Table 7. Responses to proposed requirement for Local Governments to develop and
maintain a swimming pool register.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
42
27%
Agree
36
23%
Neutral
14
9%
Disagree
19
12%
Strongly disagree
41
26%
3
2%
155
100%
Response
Don't know/need more information
Total
24
Figure 7. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement for Local Governments to
develop and maintain a swimming pool register.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
3.2.6 Mandatory on-going pool safety inspections
3.2.6.1 Forum feedback
Mandatory inspections at point of sale or lease

Local Government should be responsible to undertake ongoing inspections similar to
Western Australia.

A public education campaign will be needed to alert the public of changes to the sale
and/or lease of properties.

The estimated costs provided in the report were considered too low. It was stated that
double these costs would be a more accurate representation. It was also said that
the $150 inspection price appears insufficient for the liability involved and would
mean the inspection would not be as comprehensive as required.

A mandatory system to cover all pools was suggested to be the preferred option.

There should be an inspection for every lease and when the tenant changes, even if
the change of tenant is only six months apart, not just the 12/24 months as proposed.
There should be mandatory ongoing inspections every 12 months for longer term
leases.

Certificate validity (two years for private pools and 12 years for shared pools) was
considered too long.

Costs should be borne by the pool owner not Local Government.

Inspections need to be undertaken by trained inspectors.

There were some attendees who were not in favour of mandatory inspections at point
of sale.
25

An analogy was made likening the mandatory inspection to a roadworthy for a car. A
necessary process to ensure public safety.

The mechanism at point of sale and point of lease for smoke detectors and residual
current devices (RCDs) has been effective in the past. Considering children are at
risk during the first six months of moving into a property with a pool or having a pool
constructed this will be a good model for mandatory pool inspections.

There needs to be a time limit for the pool fence to be inspected e.g. 30 days.

There needs to be consideration of tenants who sub-lease individual rooms.

Under the proposed measure, Local Governments have the power to charge every 12
months. There was some concern about the level of council power in this capacity.

Local Government should have some control over the level of inspector training
needed.

If inspections are undertaken and there are no compliance issues, there should be no
charge to the homeowner.

It was considered that a new certificate should be obtained for every lease.

The length of currency (12/24 months) for compliance certificates was considered too
long. It was also though that every lease of a private pool should have a compliance
certificate.

A mandatory system is an unnecessary expense for compliant pool owners.

Local Government should ensure they charge the pool owner for actual costs and no
costs are passed onto ratepayers.
Mandatory inspections following a compliant or an immersion

Immersions and near misses should be reported to and investigated by Local
Government to ensure the associated pool fencing meets the correct standard.
Pool fence inspectors

Pool fence inspectors should be licensed and have professional indemnity insurance.

The code of conduct should be similar to that for building certifiers.

Proposed new Queensland Building Services Authority licence exclusively for pool
inspectors will be helpful.

There should be input into training by Local Government as well as independent
commercial inspectors and technicians.

Pool inspectors should report to Local Government to assist with the register.
Powers of entry and enforcement

Feedback suggests that Local Governments are interested in taking over the
enforcement role for pool fencing.

Local Governments advised the use of enforcement notices produced an 80%
compliance rate.
26

It was advised that Local Government do not cover their costs when taking
enforcement action.

Compliance enforcement is complicated and some Local Governments will not issue
Prescribed Infringement Notices (PINs).

Concern that Local Government will be overloaded by certifiers passing enforcement
onto council following the six month non-compliance period.

Concern over who will monitor compliance after the phase-in period ends.

Some Local Governments wanted stronger powers of entry but were unhappy about
having to pay for the enforcement costs.

In smaller communities the enforcement of regulations is more difficult.

It was suggested that Local Governments be required to issue PINs and take further
action if required.

Some attendees suggested an enforcement matrix be prepared to ensure Local
Governments are consistent with enforcement procedures (e.g. first inspections,
notices, fines are consistent depending on the severity of the breach).

There was some concern that the public will ignore compliance.

Clarification is required as to what the building certifier’s responsibility is when they
realise pool fencing does not comply.

There was a mixed response to the level of penalties which Local Governments can
impose or seek from the courts. Some considered them adequate but others
believed it to be not enough or too much.

Local Governments need more guidance in enforcement procedures.

There needs to be an incentive – private certifiers may issue the initial show cause
notice but are unlikely to issue the following one due to cost impact on their business.

There needs to be a process for Local Governments to intervene before the
enforcement notice has been or will be issued.

Clarification of existing entry powers needs to be provided.
3.2.6.2 Other responses
Swimming pools should be inspected and a certificate issued before properties
with swimming pools can be sold or leased.
A number of researchers and authors have recognised that young families are at general risk
from toddler immersion in residential pools within the first 6 months of acquiring or moving
into a property containing a pool. Some jurisdictions have already moved to make pool barrier
compliance certificates a requirement on sale or rental of a property. The swimming pool
review committee proposed a new requirement that swimming pools be inspected and issued
with a compliance certificate at point of sale or lease.
There was some concern that the letter would only be of any real value for motivated pool
owners and others would discard the letter. Consequently, to be effective, the four-yearly
27
letter to advise pool owners to have their pool inspected will need to be accompanied by
mandatory inspections.
Local Government submissions
Most Local Government respondents (BCC, RCC, GCCC and Rockhampton Regional
Council (RRC)) were in support of the proposed measure.

MBRC do not support a point of sale and lease inspection system.

RRC suggested that mandatory inspections would achieve a greater level of
consistency and expressed some concerns about Local Governments with large
areas to service and the inspection cost which will apply. Further, RRC did not
support a four yearly letter mail-out to pool owners suggesting a compliance
inspection be undertaken, unless those inspections were made mandatory.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
There was general support from most peak bodies (including RLSS, RTA, QMBA and
Hannah’s Foundation) for the proposed requirement that swimming pools be inspected and
issued with a compliance certificate at point of sale or lease.

Hannah’s Foundation indicated that this proposal is a key to potentially saving lives
of toddlers.

The QMBA specifically noted its lack of support for the Western Australian model of
4-year periodic inspections, due to the cost imposition and resource concerns.

QMBA suggested that the proposed requirement for swimming pools to receive a
safety inspection and certificate prior to selling or leasing the property should apply
regardless of whether the pool needs to be fenced under State law. Rather, where a
swimming pool does not require a fence to comply with State law, this information
should be provided within a certificate to the prospective purchaser.
QMBA agrees that an owner should be granted an exception if they re-sell or re-lease
a property within one year for shared pools, or two years for non-shared pools, of the
last certificate.

CCYPCG believe some form of mandatory inspection program should be developed
to capture all pools not captured by the proposed inspection program. However, the
CCYPCG agrees that a pool safety inspection certificate should be required prior to
the sale or lease of a property. Statistics quoted in the review report state the average
term of home ownership to be around 15 years, and that people move home around
every seven years, implying that for many properties, inspections based on a point of
sale or lease model may occur only once every 7-15 years. The Commission does
not consider this to be adequate nor fair and equitable, and is of the view that regular
inspections should occur cyclically to ensure that all pool fences remain compliant
over time.

REIQ preference is not for a point of sale and lease inspection system but for a
universal mandatory inspection regime for all pools. REIQ noted some
implementation concerns such as, the point of sale or lease of a property would be
the primary trigger for inspection and compliance, as such requirements may
necessitate further specific disclosures in the contract documentation. REIQ believes
that requirement for disclosure may be problematic with regards to liability issues
arising from representations made by sellers on which agents and buyers may rely.
REIQ also indicated that the suggestion that sellers may have a greater incentive to
comply with the new standards because of the potential loss of a sale is not
supported by evidence and should not solely be used to justify non-action on a
universal compliance system.

The RTA noted that this proposed measure would place greater onus and cost on the
owners of rental properties because rental properties turn over tenancies more
frequently than houses are sold. The RTA suggested a sufficient grace period should
28
be considered, e.g. 1 year after new standards come into effect, to budget for the
additional costs that will be imposed on the lessor when tenancies end abruptly.
Further, the RTA recommended that any requirements related to ‘leases’ should also
include ‘re-leases’ or extensions of existing leases, e.g. where tenants may rent the
same property for a number of years through the renewal of 6-month tenancy
agreements.

QLS expressed some concerns regarding the implementation details of the proposed
measure, namely:
 Clear advice should be provided for when a pool inspection
certificate is required, e.g. before a property is listed by the agent or,
in the case of a house sale, when the final inspection is undertaken.
 The consequences for non-compliance and effects on sales
contracts entered into where an inspection has not been dutifully
completed or the pool inspection certificate is misleading. It would be
undesirable for residential contracts for sale to be terminated on the
basis that a prospective purchaser signed a contract without
receiving a valid pool safety inspection.
 The absence of an upfront vendor disclosure regime in Queensland.
In relation to requiring a vendor to conduct pool safety inspections
and provide an inspection certificate at point of sale will be ineffective
if it is introduced in isolation of a more general vendor disclosure
scheme.

QLS did not support the strengthening of the powers of Local Government to inspect
swimming pools without the occupiers consent or a court warrant, as this could be
considered an intrusion on an individual’s privacy and property rights.
Community responses
Over half of the community responses (54%) were in support of the proposed mandatory
swimming pool inspections at point of sale or lease, while a further 37% of responses were
unsupportive (Table 8, Figure 8). Comments were generally in support of the proposed
measure, and in some cases suggested further onus be placed on pool owners to maintain
compliant pool fences:

This proposal could have the most significant positive impact of any of the proposed
measures. As 80% of houses are sold every 5 -10 years it will not take long for most
pools to be brought into compliance.

The pool owner must ultimately be held accountable for the operation and
maintenance of the swimming pool and the burden of ensuring that it is compliant
should rest with the property owner.

The proposed swimming pool safety inspections at point of sale or point of lease
would equitably place the costs of inspections and responsibility on pool owners,
rather than the community at large.

Mandatory, random inspections of previously inspected pools should occur, due to
pool safety standards lapsing as fencing ages and general wear and tear on other
safety equipment.

Pool fences should be treated in a similar manner to car road worthy certificates when sold they should comply and if found to be faulty the owner should receive a
fine.
Table 8. Responses to swimming pools being inspected and a certificate issued before
properties with swimming pools can be sold or leased.
Response
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
29
Strongly agree
50
31%
Agree
38
23%
Neutral
11
7%
Disagree
19
12%
Strongly disagree
41
25%
3
2%
162
100%
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 8. Percentage of responses to swimming pools being inspected and a certificate
issued before properties with swimming pools can be sold or leased.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
Pool fence inspectors should be trained and licensed.
The review committee recommended that only licensed pool safety inspectors should be able
to perform the proposed mandatory inspections. Further, it was proposed that inspectors be
trained and licensed under a system similar to the licensing system for building certifiers.
Local Government submissions
Local Governments (including CHRC, RCC, GCCC, BCC, MCC and MBRC) unanimously
agreed with the proposed measure:

RCC also suggested the minimum qualification requirement for the pool fence
inspectors should be a Building Inspector or a Building Surveyor Technician.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
Industry and stakeholder groups (including Hannah’s Foundation, RLSS and QMBA) also
indicated agreement with the proposed measure:

Hannah’s Foundation suggested that a certifier employed by a construction
company should not be able to certify work for their employer. Hannah’s
Foundation also indicated that the Royal Life Saving Queensland is progressing well
with the development of its training package, which could be used to action this
proposed measure within a short timeframe.
30

QMBA suggested different qualifications should be required for those persons who
inspect pools at point of sale or lease, compared with building certifiers and Local
Government inspectors who would inspect pools when an immersion fatality occurs
or an immersion admission occurs at a hospital.
Community responses
The proposed measure received the highest level of community support (78%) of any the
proposed measures (Table 9, Figure 9) and had few additional comments.

Licensed pool safety inspectors need to be independent to prevent any possible
conflicts of interest.

The adoption of a single standard will reduce the likelihood of differing interpretations
by building certifiers.

Improved training should be carried out for building certifiers to increase consistency
across the board.
Table 9. Responses to proposed requirement for pool fence inspectors to be trained
and licensed.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
76
48%
Agree
48
30%
Neutral
8
5%
Disagree
7
4%
18
11%
3
2%
160
100%
Response
Strongly disagree
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 9. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement for pool fence inspectors
to be trained and licensed
31
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
Hospitals should notify their Local Government when patients who have been
involved in a swimming pool immersion incident are admitted.
The pool safety review committee proposed that hospitals be required to notify the relevant
Local Government if a patient has been involved in an immersion incident (fatal or non-fatal),
unless the pool does not need to be fenced under State law.
Local Government submissions
The responses from Local Government to the proposed measure were largely supportive,
including those of CHRC and MBRC. RCC submitted four responses, of which three were in
support of the proposed measure.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
Industry and stakeholder groups (including Hannah’s Foundation, CCYPCG, REIQ and
QMBA) unanimously agreed with the proposed measure.
Community responses
There was also a high level of community support for this measure (62% support), while a
further 27% of respondents did not support the proposed requirements (Table 10, Figure 10).
There were no additional comments in relation to this measure.
Table 10. Responses to proposed requirement for hospitals to notify their Local
Government when patients who have been involved in a swimming pool immersion
incident are admitted.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
52
33%
Agree
47
29%
Neutral
18
11%
Disagree
15
9%
Response
32
Strongly disagree
Don't know/need more information
Total
28
18%
0
0%
160
100%
Figure 10. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement for hospitals to notify
their Local Government when patients who have been involved in a swimming pool
immersion incident are admitted.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know/need
more
information
Response
Local Governments must undertake a swimming pool safety inspection upon
receiving a pool safety complaint or following an immersion incident.
The committee proposed that mandatory inspections of pool fencing should be required to be
undertaken by a Local Government following a complaint or when a drowning or near
drowning occurs in a swimming pool that is required to be fenced. This proposal is in line with
current best practice.
Local Government submissions
The majority of Local Governments indicated support for this proposed measure, including
CHRC, GCCC, MBRC and RCC.

RRC expressed some concern that Local Governments may be required to fund the
enforcement activities, which could result in the community bearing the cost of pool
safety compliance. RRC advised that Local Government officers currently respond to
complaints, but the proposed measure will require Council to employ sufficient
numbers of suitably qualified staff to undertake this role in a responsive manner.

BCC suggested powers of entry to allow council officers to inspect swimming pools
without the occupiers consent or a court warrant as an essential element to
successfully managing compliance of pool fencing.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
All industry and stakeholder respondents were supportive of the proposed measure, including
Hannah’s Foundation, CCYPCG, RLS, REIQ and QMBA.
33
Community responses
The community response to the proposed measure was positive (72% supportive) and few
additional comments were made (Table 11, Figure 11). The main comment was that
mandatory inspections should only undertaken following an accident.
Table 11. Responses to proposed requirement for Local Governments to undertake a
swimming pool safety inspection upon receiving a pool safety complaint or following
an immersion incident.
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
61
38%
Agree
54
34%
Neutral
9
6%
Disagree
7
4%
26
16%
3
2%
160
100%
Response
Strongly disagree
Don't know/need more information
Total
Figure 11. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement for Local Governments to
undertake a swimming pool safety inspection upon receiving a pool safety complaint
or following an immersion incident.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know /need
more
information
Response
3.2.7 New Australian Standard for pool fencing
3.2.6.1 Forum feedback
34

The revised Australian Standard 1926.1 and 2 – 2007 may need some variations to
the non-climbable zone definition. The 900mm arc needs to be reviewed. The
2100mm non-climbable zone may not work with the 1.8m deck requirements.

The revised AS still needed improvements in the areas of: boundary fences, the non
climbable zone in front of the 1200mm high fences, higher gate release heights, two
gate release mechanisms, gate hinges to have the cone tops integral and the 50mm
fence tops should have a 900mm long/10mm splay on the top when they intersect
with the boundary fence.

It is expensive to purchase and maintain copies of the Building Code of Australia and
the various applicable AS. There should be open access to these codes and
standards.

A guideline is required if Queensland were to adopt the revised AS1926.1 and 2 2007.

Some of the technical provisions of the AS could be increased, with the fence raised
to 1500mm and latches raised to 1800mm.

If the AS is adopted through the Building Code of Australia and alternative solutions
are permitted, there needs to be some assurance this will not create different
standards. Any alternative solutions should also be noted on the compliance
certificate.
3.2.6.2 Other Responses
Local Government submissions
The GCCC agreed that the new Australian Standard should be adopted, however they
believe it should be adopted in it’s entirety without variations or exclusions.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
CCYPCG generally supported the adoption of the new standard.
3.2.8 Miscellaneous
3.2.8.1 Forum feedback
Revised cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) signs

The CPR signage should detail the most up to date techniques and drowning
resuscitation.

Some concern was expressed about the efficiency of the use of CPR although the
revised signage was generally supported.

It was suggested that all parents should undertake a CPR course.

Some Local Governments provide free signs as part of its swimming pool inspection
campaign.

Many of the signs showing the older technique are still being sold and approved for
installation. Only new signs should be sold and displayed
35
3.2.8.2 Other responses
New swimming pools should be required to display the cardio pulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) signage adopted by the Australian Resuscitation Council.
The review committee proposed the current requirement for CPR signage around swimming
pools be changed to reflect the current CPR method that the Australian Resuscitation Council
adopts. Further, it was proposed that existing signage would not need to be upgraded.
Local Government submissions
All Local Government respondents, including BCC, CHRC, RCC, GCCC, MRC and MBRC,
indicated support for the proposed measure.

BCC recommended that the revised CPR signs around swimming pools should focus
on the resuscitation methods for water based incidents and drowning events. These
signs should be provided by the State at a discounted rate or at no cost to pool
owners as an incentive to have their pools compliant and inspected.

MBRC suggested the proposed measure should also apply to portable swimming
pools. Further, MBRC suggested that there is a need for an additional mandatory
sign to be displayed on swimming pools which clearly shows the requirements of the
external and internal non-climbable zones, along with a warning that these zones
must be maintained at all times for pool fencing to be compliant and help keep young
children out of the pool area.
Authorities, peak industry and community organisation submissions
Industry and stakeholder respondents, including Hannah’s Foundation, RLSS and QMBA
also supported the proposed measure.

Hannah’s Foundation advised that in many cases the providers of CPR at an
emergency have no or limited skill in CPR. Hannah’s Foundation also suggests all
adults residing in premises where there is a pool should be required to hold first aid
qualifications. This will enable them to immediately carry out CPR rather than having
to refer to the sign.

RLSS noted that signage should be specific to submersions. RLSS also agreed with
Hannah’s Foundation that strategies to encourage pool owners to learn CPR
techniques may be more beneficial than signage.
Community responses
The proposed requirement for new swimming pools to be required to display CPR signage
adopted by the Australian Resuscitation Council received the highest level of community
support of any of the proposed measures (78%) (Table 11, Figure 11). There were few
additional comments.
 Knowing or having access to CPR instructions is the only proposed measure that will
actually save lives.
 Funding should be provided for CPR education and water safety/swimming lessons
through school and community groups.
Table 11. Responses to proposed requirement for new swimming pools to be required
to display the cardio pulmonary resuscitation signage adopted by the Australian
Resuscitation Council.
36
Number of
responses
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
69
44%
Agree
53
34%
Neutral
21
13%
Disagree
5
3%
Strongly disagree
8
5%
Don't know/need more information
2
1%
158
100%
Response
Total
Figure 11. Percentage of responses to proposed requirement for new swimming pools
to be required to display the cardio pulmonary resuscitation signage adopted by the
Australian Resuscitation Council.
100%
Percentage of responses
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know /need
more
information
Response
3.2.9 Of all of the ideas considered in the review, which do
you think is most important?
3.2.9.1 Local Government responses

RCC considered the register of swimming pools, mandatory four-yearly inspections
and the rationalisation of swimming pool fencing standards to be most important.
3.2.9.2 Peak industry and community organisation responses

REIQ considered mandatory follow up inspections for swimming pools to be the most
important of the proposed measures.
37
3.2.9.3 Community responses
The proposed measures which were considered by the community to be the most important
were the rationalisation of swimming pool safety laws (27% of responses), followed by
mandatory ongoing swimming inspections (24% of responses) (Table 12, Figure 12).
Table 13. Responses regarding which of the proposals are considered most important.
Number of
responses
Percentage of responses
Application of swimming pool
safety laws
10
7%
Rationalisation of swimming pool
standards
36
27%
Restriction on Local Government
swimming pool safety laws
4
3%
Mandatory follow-up inspections
for new swimming pools
9
7%
Register of swimming pools
10
7%
Mandatory ongoing swimming pool
safety inspections
32
24%
New Australian Standard for
swimming pool fencing
14
10%
Miscellaneous
19
14%
134
100%
Response
Total
Figure 13. Percentage of responses regarding which of the proposals are considered
most important.
3.3 Further suggestions for improving pool
safety
38
Local Governments, key stakeholders/industry and the community were encouraged to
provide additional suggestions for further strengthening Queensland’s swimming pool safety
laws.
3.3.1 Local Government

Several Local Governments (BCC, CHRC, and RCC) suggested an ongoing
education and awareness campaign to raise awareness of any new laws and
standards.

BCC suggested subsidised learn to swim classes be made available for young
children.

MBRC suggested mandatory safety warnings be required to be displayed on portable
swimming pools. Similar to the CPR sign, an externally displayed sign indicating the
required non-climbable external and internal zones and that they must be maintained
at all times (e.g. highlighting how subsequent landscaping, furniture, etc will
compromise the zones).

MBRC and RCC suggested that all child resistant doors for pools constructed pre1991 be banned or phased out.

RCC recommended final building approvals should require evidence of completion of
CPR training.

RCC suggested the introduction of a “stamp of approval” for complying pool fencing
would allow for easy identification by purchasers and certifiers.

GCCC suggested new swimming pools should be required to be completed in three
months.

GCCC recommended that State Government should begin its summer safety
campaign at the beginning of spring each year. Particularly about the need to be
vigilant and to ensure that their swimming pool fencing is compliant.

RRC indicated Local Governments should be provided with a mechanism to recoup
costs from implementing the legislative changes. Further, RRC suggested the
Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Building Act 1975 be changed so if a private
certifier disagrees over non compliance and the Local Government has to pick up the
“ordinance role” then there should be a full cost recovery for the council.

RRC recommended that all fences should have a non climbable zone (including rail)
of 1100mm. Also, climbable and non climbable could be better defined.
3.3.2 Peak industry and community organisations

CCYPCG supports and proposes greater investment on education and awareness,
not just in relation to the compliance aspects of pool fencing, but also broader safety
messages about the supervision of children, which have been identified as a major
issue in past Child Death Annual Reports.

QMBA suggested educational and media measures should encompass specific
objectives to enforce the complaint criteria for the installation, operation and
maintenance of pool fencing. QMBA also suggested educational and awareness
programs should be delivered regardless of the season, and that the Stage
Government should promote swimming pool safety to Local Governments.
39

REIQ suggested Local Governments should have strengthened powers to inspect
pools, and those powers should be consistent across the State.

RLSS suggested CPR signage should be specific to submersions. Also, strategies
need to be devised to encourage pool owners to learn CPR techniques.

RLSS also recommended random inspections be conducted in addition to the
proposed measures

Hannah’s Foundation proposed the following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Flat top pool fences should be recalled and not be considered safe or
recognised as compliant pool fencing.
Greater obligations and responsibilities could be placed on retailers of
portable inflatable pools in relation to providing information about compliance.
Enforcement of these obligations for all pools that are over 30cm deep should
come under the authority of the Office of Fair Trading.
For pool and/or fencing retailers a requirement to view the permit issued by
the relevant Local Government, current to date prior to the purchase of pools
or fencing.
Establishment of Water Safety Taskforce, similar membership to the pool
safety law review committee.
Adoption of Royal Life Saving Australia Northern Territory Water Safety
Program model, which is run in partnership with the Northern Territory
Government. Under the program, every participating children under the age
of five and their families are encouraged to attend five free lessons, which
include a segment on pool safety, including pool fencing compliance, general
water safety, and wet water familiarisation lessons.
Use of SPER fines where enforcement action must be taken by Local
Government on advice of building certifiers and this enforcement would
proceed in a manner similar to that of the enforcement notices for issued by
Local Laws Officers.
Where the drowning is found to be a result of non compliant construction or
defective materials the onus should be placed on the builder or manufacturer
of the item to prove that their workmanship did not contribute to that death.
In the case of rental properties, the onus should be carried by the owner or
agent responsible for the maintenance of the rental property (which includes
the pool).
Pool fencing should be classed by the Residential Tenancies Authority as a
worthy emergency repair.
There should be compliance plates for fencing. Each piece of fencing should
have an Australian Standard stamp indicating date of manufacture,
compliance with AS1296.1 - 2007 and after construction another plate
indicating inspection date and inspectors licence/ID number.
A sign should be displayed at the point of entry to the property indicating that
there is a pool on the premises and in addition that the home owner is
qualified in first aid.
Clearances should be at least 1500mm, as most children within the risk
group are up to 1200 mm in height. As a result the gaps would be
significantly easier to gain access by climbing other structures.
Gate Lock Height should be increased to a minimum 1800mm due to the
capacity for a young child to reach 1.5m lock, and each should have a
mechanism at its base in order to prevent any sagging or lowering of its level
once a child stands upon it.
With regards to the construction of pools, access to underneath a fence
should be prevented, and the depth of concrete for support poles must be
adequate.
Police Form One should have a holistic view of the investigation and be
greatly improved if the current aspects be replaced with a separate web
based (Q Prime) drowning form. A stand alone form could be introduced for
40
o
non fatal drownings incidences to contain relevant information that can be
used in a coronial investigation if the injuries sustained through the drowning
leads to the victims subsequent death.
Child Safety Services within the Department of Communities should develop
a strict enforcement policy towards compliant pool fencing in foster homes to
reduce the possibility of further deaths whilst in care. A practice of yearly
mandatory compliance inspection could held by the home owners with a copy
provided to Child Safety Services.
3.3.2 Community
The most common suggestions received by the community for improving swimming pool
safety were:




State Government subsidised swimming lessons for young children
Larger more directed education and awareness campaign with targeted advertising
Promotion of the role of parental/carer supervision in all aspects of water safety
Standardised pools laws to make compliance by the pool owner, community and the
Local Government easier.
4. Attachments
Attachment 1 – Sample response form
Attachment 2 – List of industry and key stakeholder respondents
41
Attachment 1 – Sample response form
42
43
44
45
46
Attachment 2 - List of industry and key
stakeholder respondents
State Government
Department of Housing
Department of Justice and Attorney General
Rental Tenancies Authority
Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian
Local Government
Brisbane City Council
Cairns Regional Council
Central Highlands Regional Council
Gladstone Regional Council
Gold Coast City Council
Logan City Council
Mackay Regional Council
Moreton Bay Regional Council
Redland City Council
Rockhampton Regional Council
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Townsville City Council
Organisations
Queensland Injury Prevention Council
Queensland Law Society
Queensland Master Builders
Real Estate Institute of Queensland
Royal Life Saving Queensland
Foundations
Hannah's Foundation
Samuel Morris Foundation
General Public
47
48