Lifeguards will walk

PORT Macquarie-Hastings Council has been warned its career lifeguards will "vote with their feet" if it contracts out its service.

The United Services Union and Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguard Association (APOLA) have raised concerns about moves to change the in-house system.

It is understood council has met with Australian Lifeguard Services, the contract arm of Surf Life Saving Australia, about a potential contractor arrangement.

"Career lifeguards look for stability and security," said APOLA national secretary John Andrews.

"If the contractor was in place they could not offer the same benefits and the same level of salary that the council offers.

"Lifeguards working with the council will vote with their feet and leave the area."

Union organiser Narelle Rich met with council this week seeking assurances about the service.

"They told me council hasn't made a definite decision. However, by its own inaction in not advertising the positions, council has flagged the fact that it's prepared to consider other options," she said.

Traditionally, council advertises for lifeguard positions at the beginning of April. Interviews and physical competencies are completed on the first Monday after season end.

The Port Macquarie-Hastings' seven-month lifeguard season ends on Sunday.

"In excess of 300,000 people visit the beaches in Port Macquarie every year," Ms Rich said.

"The six seasonal lifeguards have a combined experience of nearly 50 years. Contracting out the service would have a massive impact on the tourist trade because of the possibility of having less-experienced and less-qualified people manning the beaches."

Other large tourist centres, such as Coffs Harbour, the Gold Coast and Noosa use in-house lifeguards.

Mr Andrews said Port Macquarie's lifeguards had reached "great heights across the industry" despite being a small unit.

"There are major differences between a contract service and what we call an in-house day labour service," he said.

"There is a history of some councils experimenting (with contractors), and what they generally find is that they cannot afford the same level of service."

Mr Andrews has written to the council of his concerns about the potential "loss of control and flexibility".

"The lifeguards are going to have less pay, less status and less control because of the nature of the job," he said.

He said he also had fears about resources like the lifeguard surveillance towers and rapport with emergency services being lost.

"This isn't local surf clubs saying we want to come and run your beaches and save the council money," he said. "It's these administrators saying we could do this, we want this done."

A council spokesman would not confirm if discussions had been held with SLSA.

"We are one of about 17 councils looking at various options, one of which is retaining the existing service," he said.

Mr Andrews said some of the councils considering options for lifeguard services were small and only operated six weeks of the year.

"Eighty-seven per cent of people who visit beaches are under the control of a lifeguard who works for a seaside council," he said.

Council is expected to make a decision on its lifeguard service in the "next couple of months".