Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Noosa Council meetings since 2014: papers, decisions and recordings, and from April 2023 the video cued to each item.

General Committee Meeting - 15 July 2019 Transcript

Monday 15 July 2019 · 6 hours 24 minutes of recording · 6,799 lines · 15 voices, 7 named

This is a machine transcript of council's recording, produced by automatic speech recognition and not checked line by line against the video. Councillor and place names are corrected where a human has approved the correction; everything else is what the model heard. Quote the recording, not this page — every timestamp below opens council's own video at that second. Recording © Noosa Shire Council; the transcript is ours, made from it so the meeting can be searched and read.

Speakers: the machine separated 15 voices and names 7 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. Begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians on the land of which we meet, the Gubbi Gubbi or Kabi Kabi people. Pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Councillors we have cameras here this morning to add to their live streaming cameras. Anyone have any objection to the media being here also? If anyone in the gallery is nervous or just about being filmed by the media please consider whether you remain in the gallery because there will be filming taking place here today. We have no apologies, we have no presentations and given the media's

00:01:00 interest Councillors I request that we move item 3 on the agenda up to item 1. Is that if that's all right with everybody? It is. Okay so item 1 is the Climate and Emerging Declaration. Councillor Wellington. Yeah I'd like to move that. Move Councillor Wellington. The seconded Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah look as the staff report notes the latest reporting from the International Panel on Climate Change was prepared by 91 authors from over 40 countries. What's more it cites more than 6,000 scientific references with contributions from thousands of worldwide experts. Now 6,000 scientific research papers and documents is nothing to sneeze at, it's what might be called the weight of expert opinion. Yet whenever I find myself listening to a fervent, climate change denier they always refer to just one or two of their own chosen experts,

00:02:00 not actual climate scientists generally, to prove their case. In other words they'd prefer to believe a handful of self-appointed experts than many hundreds of people who've dedicated their professional lives to the study of climate. When confronted with the weight of opinion the inevitable result is the same response, shouldn't we keep an open mind and that always makes me smile. Because I'm reminded of Australia's change in climate change and I'm reminded of our chief scientist Adam Finkel when he was asked the same question by One Nation's Malcolm Roberts and in response to the question, shouldn't we keep an open mind, Finkel replied, yes but not so much that one's brains leak out. It's a strange world we live in now where mere opinion has become equivalent to actual hard-earned expertise. The internet and social media in particular have debased rational thought by suggesting that every opinion has equal merit and I'm sorry but every opinion is not of equal veracity. If I want brain surgery I'm going to go to a brain surgeon, not a blogger who thinks

00:03:00 they know more about brain surgery. Climate change is real, it's happening faster than ever before in the history of humankind. Research has shown that across the globe the last five years have been the hottest on record. New studies show that the Arctic permafrost is thawing 70 years ahead of what had previously been predicted, with the potential to release masses of methane, which is around 30 times more problematic as a greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide. Just recently it was reported that Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica is losing ice at double the rate of six years ago, and this single glacier poses a significant risk of future sea level rise. Some scientists warn that Antarctica already faces a tipping point where glacial melting will accelerate and become irreversible. Ice loss across Antarctica is spreading from the coast into the continent's interior and into the ocean. This is a sign of global warming, with a reduction of more than 100m of thickness in ice at some sites.

00:04:00 In all of these situations, it's potentially the irreversible nature of the change that should signal to all of us that we need to classify climate change as an emergency. The latest IPCC report notes that we have just 12 years to take substantial action to avoid a genuine global catastrophe, and that is simply to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which even another half degree will significantly worsen the global warming of millions of people. It's the poorest people on the planet who are going to suffer the most. Meanwhile, our Federal Government is happy to continue to put out spin rather than fact. As reported last month, the Australian Federal Government's own quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory shows Australian emissions increased by 0.8% seasonally adjusted compared with the previous quarter. This same Government body reveals that Australia is definitely not on track to meet its rather lame Paris targets. In other words, our total emissions continue to go up, while the Federal Government tells us that we are doing our

00:05:00 bit to meet Paris targets. Meanwhile, of course, Australia remains one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. We produce 1.6% of global carbon emissions, yet we only account for 0.33% of the world's population. In terms of per capita emissions, we're at the top of the scale, just behind a few oil-rich Arab nations. And that's why we should take action. Sure, Australia is not a major player amongst nations, but on a per capita basis, we are definitely a major contributor to climate change, and we have higher per capita rates than either the USA or China. It is thus irresponsible for any country to opt out of taking responsibility on the basis that their total national contribution is not significant enough. That would be an arrogant thumbing of the nose to the rest of the planet. I mean, it's not as though we are in the middle of a global climate crisis. It's not as though we adopt that we opt out of other international agreements, protocols or treaties simply because

00:06:00 we're a small nation. And in any case, and this is the rub, our exports of coal and gas account for more than twice our domestic greenhouse gas emissions. And that is something we should take some responsibility for. It's worth noting, of course, that the Queensland government since 2017 has a strategy that commits the state to achieving zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. And that's something I'm proud to say that we have reached the 500th 30% reduction by 2030, mind you the IPCC says we need to reach 45% reduction by 2030. The state government also has a commitment to generate 50% of Queensland's energy from renewable sources by 2030 but let's not talk about a darn. So why are we declaring an emergency today, a climate emergency? To reinforce Council's commitment to tackling climate change by our emissions reduction. Also to send a signal about the seriousness of the climate situation and to join a growing

00:07:00 chorus of other governments including the ACT government, various New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and West Australian councils who have already made this declaration and that includes the cities of Hobart and Sydney, plus some 740 jurisdictions in 16 countries including the UK Parliament, plus the national governments of Canada, Ireland, Portugal and cities such as Paris and New York. A lack of reasons to urge immediate action on the greatest peril facing our planet and I tell you I want my grandchildren to inherit a world worth inhabiting. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes councillors. As someone who first learnt about the greenhouse gas studying climatology in the late 80s it gave me no pleasure. It gives me no pleasure to have to report that since I first stood up in this chamber after the first IPCC report in 1990 that the globe's inaction has led to us continuing

00:08:00 on the path of the worst case scenario. It gives me no pleasure to observe that the reason for local governments like ours around this country and the globe in declaring climate emergency is that higher levels of government have failed to call out the collective hypnosis. Councillor Stockwell. That we lurch from one election to the next based on short term fundamentalist economic thinking that there is an illusory utopian carbon fuel future. If this worst case trend continues for another decade or two then it is highly likely that the doctrine of economic fundamentalism of a carbon economy is likely to make the current religious fundamentalism look like a minnow in terms of the global conflict which will arise. The political muzzle on speaking up for an economy where future generations count is, I'm afraid, the equivalent of the legendary failure to call out the emperor for not wearing

00:09:00 any clothes. According to new figures, Australia's emissions are again the highest on record. Driven this time by an increase in emissions from the electricity sector, which rose to the highest level in two years. So, as a council, our own organisational zero emissions strategy is to increase emissions by 2026. We've installed 1,096 panels, with more budgeted in the current financial year, and are currently generating 579 megawatt-hours. In so doing, we've reduced the long-term energy costs to ratepayers by around about a third, I believe, across many of our larger sites. In our recent budget, we've reduced the cost of energy to about a third. In addition, we've also funded a new initiative to facilitate community emissions reduction through a community bulk buy scheme. But a much higher cost benefit can be achieved for council intervention is to require the

00:10:00 adoption of renewable energy and efficiency across all new developments. It doesn't cost the ratepayer much to set mandatory but realistic standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the planning scheme. It was therefore a great disappointment that the state government vetoed exactly such a proposal that we had put into our first draft of the recent scheme. The state government believes that it is the Australian Building Code that should set the standard. I believe it is a fundamental planning issue for all local communities to set their expectations for development in their local government area. New solar and wind farms can now produce energy at about 40% of what a new coal-fired power station can. Professor Ian Lowe suggested yesterday that the state government should set the standard to talk in Peregian that even if we were to leave all the coal in the ground from here on in, there is still only a 50-50 chance that we will avert to going above the Paris targets.

00:11:00 We need to move rapidly towards more active transport and more sustainable agriculture with large-scale tree planting to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Agriculture and deforestation in 2010 accounted for about 24%, a quarter of all emissions. Similar to what occurred in the renewable energy approach. We were thwarted by the state government in prohibiting very high energy intensive family factory farming of animals in our planning scheme. Reducing the energy embedded in our food is just one thing every consumer can do. There is much we can achieve through energy efficiency as a first step in the pathway to a low carbon economy. As council we have conducted energy efficient audits leading to the retrofitting of LEDs, energy efficient air conditioning and insulation in our main buildings. And we've set aside. Money in this budget for the same thing to be rolled out as part of a potential grant approach to businesses around the Shire.

00:12:00 Now council I could talk for ages but I want to finish with one thing. Recently Sir David Attenborough stated that he thought authorities cannot be radically enough in dealing with these issues. But it's not David Attenborough who we should be listening to. Cathy. The most significant stakeholders in this debate can't be here today because they are at school. Recently I recorded some of their thoughts on a day they weren't at school and I would like to use the rest of my speaking time to give them, the future, the opportunity to tell us councillors why they think there is a climate emergency. Is there a data point? No. Speaker 5: Stand up, make change, be the voice, because the time is now.

00:13:00 But the target crisis has already been solved. We already have all the facts and solutions. All we need to do now is wake up and change. So what will you do? Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

00:14:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you tell us how these numbers have been arrived at? Speaker 5: I actually might call on our project manager for the CHAP who's been doing this work to To explain the modelling and the mapping process, which came up with those numbers, is it okay to do that? Speaker 3: Yeah, so as part of the CHAP, we model where we believe these, or where these three different types of coastal hazards are expected to extend into landward of their current position as a result of sea level rise.

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 The next stage of the CHAP is identifying the assets exposed to these hazards and the types of assets and the significance of these assets. So through that process, we were able to identify, firstly in the storm tide scenario, that there is likely to be up to 2,000 residential properties, whether they are as part of multi-use. And then we also know how many of these properties are going to be in unit complexes or single detached dwellings within the projected one in 100 year storm tide scenario by the year 2100. And a similar process applies to the coastal erosion modelling. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thank you. Kim, could I also ask what the implications are for these property owners?

00:16:00 Speaker 5: Well, as Grant mentioned, these properties are potentially going to be in the ground. They are potentially subject to some form of inundation at some time. That might be intermittent. Grant could probably talk about the timeframes and likelihood a bit more. But this information then informs our planning scheme and a series of provisions and overlays in our planning scheme, which will be required to be considered should there be any change to the development or any new development. They become... Well, they aren't as they are now. And will continue to become constraints on the site, which need to be considered as part of any new development. Councillor Jackson: And have the particular people who live in these or have businesses in these houses been told about their house being one of these houses? Speaker 5: I might, again, call on Grant, but this information has been made public for some time now,

00:17:00 through the various stages of the development of the CHAT process. Yeah. Grant could probably articulate these specifics in the public realm now for a number of months. So, yes, this information has been made available. And there's been a number of community forums and public meetings about this. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, for almost a year now, this information's been publicly available. We have communicated the existence of this information and its availability to any stakeholder outside of Council across that period, through media releases, interviews with the media, other social media posts, information stalls at various points across the Shire, primarily the libraries and here at Council. We've held a series of pop-up events, stalls across the coastal zone.

00:18:00 Over a number of weekends last year, we've held community town hall meetings, town hall meetings, sorry, in here. We've gone and met with specific groups or individuals on numerous occasions over the last 12 months. And in fact, last year, with regard to the coastal erosion area, we sent letters directly to property owners within the erosion project, out to the 2070 line specifically. The rationale behind that is that the updates to erosion model, there may be future updates to erosion modelling. And so, but 2070 is within standard asset life for a lot of large assets, whether it's a house or a surf club, that kind of thing. So, we contacted those property owners directly and invited them to come meet with us.

00:19:00 In a private meeting to discuss the project, the modelling, implications of the modelling, and what the next stages would be. Just one thing I would like to point out around the modelling, is the modelling is based on a business as usual global emissions scenario, which is where we have been for the last few decades. It's not the absolute worst case, but it is founded upon a minimal amount of global effort to reduce emissions. So, it is not set in stone. It can be avoided if the world does take strong action to reduce emissions. But the reason we use that as our basis is because the intergovernmental panel for climate change, as you may know, puts out a range of emissions scenarios, and they tend to pick the medium scenarios

00:20:00 where they believe the world will go long term. Unfortunately, each iteration of their report shows that we are still tracking on a business as usual case. So, from Council's perspective, it's prudent risk management practice to use a conservative foundation, but also on the balance of evidence. It further adds further weight that we should be adopting that position and planning for a much less ideal scenario. Councillor Jackson: So, just to clarify, Kim, what are the implications then for, you mentioned the Noosa plan, what are the implications for homes that are affected in this way? Speaker 5: So, existing homes that already exist, we have, you know, some years, as you can see, these projections are out to 2040, 2070 and 2100.

00:21:00 Some of this information has been available for some time now. We've been planning for 2100 for a number of years. It's been a state requirement for many years to consider climate change, coastal erosion, coastal protection zones, having placed coastal building lines for development for many years. This isn't a new planning provision. So, some properties have already taken into account and needed to respond to such things as coastal building lines and setbacks from coastal building lines. So, that isn't a new thing. The new planning scheme does look to, again, reinforce those coastal building lines and reflect this new information so that these issues, these potential coastal hazards and potential coastal erosion and risks of coastal erosion need to be considered through the development process. So, lines are changing? Lines are changing, yes. Some lines are existing, some coastal building lines are existing,

00:22:00 but there are some new lines based on this new information, yes. Well, Mr Chair, Councillor Jackson: I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion and I believe Cathy is ready with that. Oh, thank you. This is my amendment and I'll read it out for those who can't see it. The amendment adds an additional clause to the motion, which is, commit to A, commit to A, immediately fully inform the estimated 2,232 property owners whose homes, businesses and assets are affected. B, support and assist them to take appropriate steps to protect their homes, properties and assets. C, advise them of the steps Council will take to protect their homes, properties and assets. And D, where homes, properties and assets cannot be protected,

00:23:00 advise property owners of what alternate steps are available to them. Mayor Wellington: Can I ask a question to the Chair of the Mover? Wouldn't this be better placed as part of the coastal hazards mapping refinement item rather than this item before us, which is the climate emergency map? The climate emergency declaration. The climate emergency declaration is about standing on, with other local governments, on a global issue, not necessarily such a local issue. The coastal hazards mapping refinement deals with this local issue. Councillor Jackson: This sounds like a, excuse me, Chair, this is not a question. It is a question I'm saying, Mayor Wellington: wouldn't it be better, I'm giving you the argument, why it might be better to have a, well, to explain the question, why it might be better to hold your amendment over for the coastal hazards mapping refinement? You're free to say. Councillor Jackson: I will answer that. The reason I've made that decision is that I have researched other motions by other councils

00:24:00 and their staff reports around the world and found that they focused only on emissions reduction. But our particular staff report chose to focus a fair bit on the issues that are likely to happen to Noosa itself and not on the coastal hazards mapping refinement. And for that reason, as you are aware, this issue has already become a media issue and I'm very concerned that these property owners have a risk that's been communicated through this particular motion. It is this motion that has raised this issue. And I am addressing the issue through this motion. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So may I raise another question? Yeah. To start, through the CEO, have council at this time, at this time, given what levels of support or advice that we can offer or what measures that we will undertake

00:25:00 to protect properties from climate change for the future at this point in time? Speaker 5: No, council hasn't made those determinations yet. That process is part of the development of the coastal hazards adaptation plan and what we call the CHAP. And that process will continue and over the next coming months council will be making those decisions and considerations through that process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I'm going to ask for a ruling by you, Mr Chair. I believe the amendment is out of order in that it doesn't reflect the nature of the motion at hand. I agree with the Mayor that it is more relating to the coastal hazards adaption plan and they've requested a ruling on whether the motion or the amendment is actually in accordance with the standing orders. Councillor Wilkie: Well, given that

00:26:00 in my view, given that the recommendation contains applause about writing to federal state and federal members representing the Noosa Shire region advising of the declaration and requesting to act with urgency to address climate change, I accept the argument and the amendment which suggests writing to property owners is another step the Council takes. I think it's consistent with the recommendation as it stands and the climate declaration also. So, do we need a seconder for the amendment for it to be debated or rejected? Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jackson, you have the floor. Sure. Councillor Jackson: Look, I would like to say that I do believe that climate change is a major threat and concern and that I think that putting this forward as an emergency is a valid point.

00:27:00 And for this reason, as the staff report has in a sense announced that there are 2,232 Shire properties at risk due to potential projected storm tide inundation and coastal erosion caused by climate change, I think it's important to address this. As it's been announced, I think it's only fair that individual property owners who at this point might be getting a bit frightened should be communicated with directly about the implications for their properties and including the implications of Noosa Plan and I take that you've done some of that. I do believe that it is Council's job to assist people to protect their homes, properties and assets where they may be at risk and as we are facing and talking about something which isn't considered an emergency because of the fact that things aren't improving in terms of emissions and climate change,

00:28:00 this would seem to be an appropriate step. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. Have property owners been informed? Written to? Property owners who are potentially affected by climate change? Not all property owners. Not all property owners? We are currently Speaker 3: exploring how to notify all asset owners, property owners within the coastal hazard zones, whether that's erosion or storm tide, Councillor Jurisevic: permanent inundation Speaker 3: through the rates the rates notices. So there's a note on their rates notice? Not just yet. We are getting it put on the next one Councillor Wilkie: so that Speaker 3: it will notify them to navigate their way to council's website for more information on what that means. It will notify them that they are within that projected area. Councillor Wilkie: So there are plans in place already to inform residents affected

00:29:00 by climate change mapping that they need to inform themselves of the ways in which they will be affected? Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. Thank you. Sorry, further question along those lines. With regards to the proposed new planning scheme, has there been any information in the planning scheme papers with regard to climate change and how it may affect property owners? Speaker 5: Yes. There's been quite a significant amount of information through the planning scheme process. And we've had a significant number of people come and talk to us about it. Grant outlined the community engagement that's happened. There's also been community engagement over three months through the planning scheme. We've had specific meetings in various localities, including places like the North Shore with the community over there specifically around some of these issues. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Glasgow had a question

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 and then Councillor Palmer. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Is this going to slow our motion before it's down or bog it down to reboot things carrying on with this amendment? Who are you asking? The staff. Speaker 2: I don't think it's for the staff to answer that question. That's a matter of the council Councillor Pardon: to determine . Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Pardon. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, look, I can't support the amendment. I think what's happening if we start on this role amendments with regards to this particular motion, it starts to dilute it. You need to be clear when you're going forward. I've spoke many times about state and federal governments and they're all pretty dopey. So once you start to dilute what you're trying to do, for me, yeah, it gets wishy-washy. So I can't support it. If this amendment was moved in item two,

00:31:00 I'll listen to a debate with regards to it in that position. But just in this one, I think it's dilute in the motion. Can't support it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington, Councillor Stockwell. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I agree with Councillor Pardon. I don't think this amendment's at all appropriate to the overarching purpose of the substandard motion. And I'm afraid I have to disagree with the chair's ruling on that. The report before us starts dark. The climate change declaration report makes passing reference to the impacts on Noosa, but is substantially about the global impacts of climate change. And that's what we should be debating here. The global impacts not getting down to individual properties within Noosa. And I agree that it would be more appropriate to the later discussion to come at this meeting. I do want to point out that Noosa Council has always been proactive in looking

00:32:00 forward into the future. We do have a responsibility to act or repair or prepare for future occurrences. So I have no qualms about debating the issues raised in the amendment, but I just think this is the wrong place to be doing it. So I can't support it. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I had a question to start. I look at B, C and D. They all appear to be a reference to potential adaptation responses. Are we preparing a coastal hazard adaption plan? Yes, we are. Would the adaption plan that cost about $700,000 go into detail and rigour about how is the best way to respond by not exposing this council to future litigative or excessive cost burdens? Would that be in the process of occurring? Yes. And would that be, you know, to me, the nature of how you protect and how you advise

00:33:00 what's good for assets should be constructed within a thorough analysis? Speaker 7: Is there a question Yeah, I'm sure it is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that have you got any fears of adopting policy on the run when we're in the middle of a very detailed coastal hazard It's a leading question, Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll talk to it. Speaker 5: What I would be happy to say in response to that is that yes, council is in the process of developing the coastal hazards adaptation plan and the next couple of phases go to the heart of this issue to actually consider what the risks are for various localities and how council responds to various localities may very well be quite different depending on the open exposed coast along the river. So those that detailed consideration and analysis is yet to come before council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I should have asked an appropriate question to get that response. So I'll be talking

00:34:00 at the motion clearly. I have no objection to a council wanting to inform owners and businesses if she feels that they may have heightened concerns as a result of media coverage. But BCND is really dropping that into a meeting. I agree with Samir. I believe the amendment is very marginal in terms of relevance to the motion. But I also think it's an attempt of policy on the run. It's an attempt to suggest that you don't need to do the detailed analysis. You don't need to consider the implications of both the owners and the council of recommending certain ways. Councillors, we've been told numerous times of the legal conundrum we find ourselves if we start down a path in responding to climate change. We know that if, for example, we start saying we can protect using rock walls, that it will take 15 years to finish that process and equivalent to about

00:35:00 10 times the annual capital work budget. So is that the sort of thing the council is suggesting? We have not come to a position as a council as to what we'll recommend as the appropriate adaptation measures and therefore it is totally preemptive to include items D, C and D. Councillor Jurisevic: And I take her concerns on board but I can't support the amendment for the reasons that Councillor Stockwell alluded to. It's very hard to immediately fully inform residents and advisers of the steps the council will take to protect what those steps may be. We're in the process of devising a Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan which will give us the information and be able to then provide them appropriately. From a timing perspective I don't see that this amendment has merit. I believe that the time to make that and fully inform those residents of the steps

00:36:00 that we can take to protect their home property and assets and where council have before us in this motion will certainly start to ring alarm bells with a lot of people. The term of the word of urgency will certainly make people sit up and take notice. If they haven't already they should be after that. But my concern with this amendment is that we don't have the information at hand to fully inform property owners at this stage but we will in due course once the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan has been completed and I'm happy to deal with the fee. Councillor Wilkie: Well councillors I still stand by the decision to test this amendment, pull it out and have it tested and have every councillor speak to it. The reasons why we're doing or do not support the amendment

00:37:00 as a process question it has been made clear that we are going to be addressing these issues in a future report and future planning but given the media interest it was worth pulling out and testing that amendment today in my opinion. Councillor Jackson would you like to close? Councillor Jackson: Yes I would. I would like to say first of all there was a useful question asked about thank you Councillor Wilkie about what the process of communication is intended to be and I'm glad to hear there is a plan but I am concerned that a rates notice with something noted in it may not be noticed if people are paying their bills so I would like to say that what I have written here about fully inform is something I would still stand by that there should be some full communication. There was a suggestion by Councillor Pardon that somehow this dilutes the motion because

00:38:00 we're going to go to the state members but of course this C had nothing to do with the state members it doesn't dilute anything. The state members I understand from the motion is about the quote the quotation in the first part where we commit to or agree to endorse this statement so I didn't think the dilution was an issue. Mr Chair Councillor Pardon: can I excuse me can I just clarify I said state and federal governments like big governments Councillor Jackson: I don't know about Councillor Pardon: state members state and federal okay no worries Councillor Jackson: it says state and federal I see that yeah um and I guess the concept that um some of these things have not been finalized um the the motion did not say that every single one of these things had to be done immediately it was the first one and obviously if we still have some research to do or some final decision making to do some of these things

00:39:00 I think the motion has valid um has validity and I believe our residents would appreciate such clarity from council about where council is going and where it stands about these matters um and uh I will call a division for this motion thing um amendment Councillor Wilkie: okay I put the amendment those in favour Councillor Jackson those against Councillor Jurisevic Stockwell Councillor Wellington and Wilkie amendments lost we go back to the original motion to which Councillor Wellington Councillor Stockwell has spoken Councillor Glasgow Councillor Glasgow: yeah look the tides are changing day by day degree by degree the globe is on track forward to a liveable future we and our kids in a hundred years are proud of look don't forget people today's generation is the last that can prevent

00:40:00 catastrophic climate change global warming degrees going up all of all of what not as well as the first that can be can stop these impacts as the youngest at this table this is the first step that out of many that I know in 50 years I look back and was an integral part of how we got to a liveable and sustainable Noosa globe and earth I just want to congratulate the mayor the staff and everyone that was involved in it bringing this to our fruition and I promise you I'll send you a tweet or an Instagram or something by then we'll say 2100 we'll have something to get up to the big pearly whites and I'll tell you how it's going down here so thank you I probably won't be able to read between you and your Instagram Councillor Wilkie: so whatever I do thank you Councillor Glasgow Councillor Puffett Councillor Pardon: yeah he is he's only going to hell who knows

00:41:00 yeah councillors I support the motion what I will talk about a couple of things here with regards to the man in the street and I've always regarded myself as the man in the street so we've talked about Councillor Stockwell mentioned Sir David Attenborough and what a great man he is so thank you I think the world has admiration for him but what he did say as well is the world should do whatever it takes all technologies should be involved going forward that's what he said he didn't particularly say what technologies but he said it's that radical all technologies should be considered so I'll just leave people to ponder about that one in our own reports on page 122 this is the confusion that reigns as the Mayor pointed out

00:42:00 there's naysayers people who believe in absolutely wedded to climate change and some percentage that aren't wedded to climate change now climate change is easy to measure climate it's getting hotter we can measure temperature that's easy sea level rise we keep talking about and it hasn't risen so till the man in the street looks out the window and sees or someone measures some rise across the planet that it has risen you're going to get naysayers that's just a fact of life or I'll be amazed if suddenly everybody's on board with climate change I'd be amazed so in our own report on page 120 it says sea levels are rising increasing the risks associated associated with coastal inundation events well then we've got our own report that's coming up the ADAPT the Coastal

00:43:00 the Coastal Hazards Risk Vulnerability Report going forward and on page 23 of that it says Department of Environment CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology so the CSIROs and amongst this I have the greatest respect for CSIROs some of the stuff they've achieved in this nation has been world leading so in the report they they suggest in by 20 by 2030 which is 10 years there'll be an increase of approximately 0.14 of a metre or 14 millimetres so in 10 years what they're saying we'll have a 14 millimetre increase now that's very measurable

00:44:00 as all of us we try and take in information and so far one of the leaders who was on the climate change panel said there's been no increase in sea levels across the oceans so that's that so if we get that and until we do get some measurable increase a lot of people aren't going to go with you on this climate change because until they can touch it see it smell it they'll ignore it and if you want to have a look at what's happened have a look at federal elections recently have a look at the talk have a look at the Queensland Government and the Darnie that's been spoken about oh yeah and they've all that Queensland Government's and all have wondered about the wonderful milestones that they've put in place well watch this space the Federal Government's been talked about the weekend

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 the Federal Government's lent 610 million dollars for a northern hydro pumping project which fills up the old Kidston mine in North Queensland full of water and it's hydro pumped for electricity generation and there's more of these to be built to be rolled out so whilst a lot of governments get flogged and they say nothing's happening there's a lot happening out there with regards to different alternatives to generate power in this country Whitehaven Coal at the weekend announced a 5% increase in their coal exports so regardless of what we do here and what we say the fact is big governments they've got all the say in power and you can take it to the UN which they do and whilst we'll fight and do things for our own people on our own ground here

00:46:00 to make a difference in Noosa I don't think what we do and what we put forward is going to make one iota of difference but I'm happy to support the motion I'm happy to try and have some impact as we should do but I fear what we're doing is stabbing in the dark with regards to what will really happen and I'm a realist so when when till the person in the street actually sees what's happening measures that ocean rise I fear that many people heads in the sand and nothing will happen thank you Councillor Wilkie: Mr Chair I've got a question yes I know Deputy Mayor Stockwell: we're using it as a challenge about until you can touch it smell it feel it and I always reckon if carbon dioxide looked and smelt like sewerage then we would have done something about it ages ago

00:47:00 but my question to staff is have you got a train graph you can show us about what is happening to the sea in terms of both temperature and more importantly the pH of our oceans and what that might mean to sea life if the pH continues to plummet Speaker 3: yes we do yep you might not have prepared it no it won't work Councillor Glasgow: it won't Speaker 3: so just in response to Councillor Pardon's comment Councillor Stockwell's question um the globally sea levels have risen on average and that is measured um the global average uh rise in mean sea level over approximately the last 150 years is around 19 centimetres it

00:48:00 differs by region and location for a whole number of different reasons uh to do with uh land movement the latitude of a particular location plate tectonics in a certain in certain locations um to date most of the sea level rise we have seen is the result of heat absorption by the ocean so when we talk about the planet warming um a lot of that heat is being transferred into the ocean so the water is expanding um estimates vary around anywhere between 10 to 15 percent um of that rise is from meltwater however um physics starts to come into play and the oceans will no longer be able to absorb that heat and it will remain in the atmosphere to increase the rate of um ice sheet and glacial melt what we're looking at here are

00:49:00 more regional effects of global warming so you can see that um that top graph these top infographic is from the bureau of meteorology and what you're looking at is the changes to sea surface temperatures um in australia as well as the air temperature so uh if if we could fit it on this on this slide um and that graph extended further back you would see a natural gradient slow variation across the long-term average and then in the post-world war two years when global emissions really kicked into gear um we see that um significant and ongoing upward trend um and the bottom image is also is taken from the CSIRO which uh in our part of the world um the bureau and CSIRO um play a huge role in informing the information provided to the IPCC that bottom graph is showing

00:50:00 the change in the ocean pH so that is occurring because the oceans are also absorbing carbon dioxide so the effect of that is it creates a more acidic ocean and that can have um quite significant impacts on ocean ecology so um at the at and most significantly at the bottom of the food chain so two prominent examples are um in the benthic environment um the animals that the entire global food chain rely on um they are less able to produce um their exoskeletons as a result so they are weaker um some of them um are no longer surviving so already studies are starting to um demonstrate how those populations in those in that um in that strata of the marine ecosystem are already starting to suffer that has huge flow-on implications

00:51:00 all the way up the food chain um and it's worth pointing out that we are also part of that food chain and hundreds of millions of people around the world rely directly on the ocean for their primary source of protein the other part is um coral reefs so an acidifying ocean also affects the ability of coral polyps to create coral reefs which as we know are the most biodiverse sections of our ocean and um huge huge um ecological frameworks rely on those reefs as do many coastal fishing communities tourist communities that sort of thing so yeah it's quite significant thank you Councillor Councillor Jackson: Councillor Thurston um Mr Chair I have another amendment I'd like to rule sure and Cathy if you could assist with that please I've got an amendment to the wording of our current um proposed motion um

00:52:00 in the first paragraph which um has a statement for Council to endorse which is about the impacts of climate change in Noosa I'd like to add the phrase unless global action is taken to reduce emissions is likely to affect Noosa natural and human environment and um the other thing I would like to add to the motion is rather than simply writing to the state and federal members local state and federal members write to the prime minister the state premier and state and federal opposition leaders Councillor Wilkie: we have a second for that Councillor Jurisevic: first of all the general the change to the first part there is no change to just that addition of that first sentence is that correct the red terrain that's all that's been added yeah Deputy Mayor Stockwell: can I ask a question

00:53:00 of staff please um if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today um would we not continue to have the ill effects of climate change for decades to come and is that still going to lead to likely heatwave more intense storms and sea level rise correct that's all Councillor Wilkie: um I'm happy to second it second it Councillor Jurisevic Councillor Jackson sure Councillor Jackson: um these are minor changes the first one is that it's stated in absolute terms that Noosa is likely to adversely affect and yet we're calling it a climate emergency and the reason we're calling it a climate emergency is we're telling people we have to act now to

00:54:00 start reducing make sure that the whole world works on reducing those emissions that's what the climate emergency is all about so I just want to have that endorsed statement stress that that in fact we can make a difference and if global action is taken the second part in B I felt that having read the article the whole staff report and the fact that in A we say this requires action on all levels of government that um it behoves us to go further than simply go to our local members but to the local government still write to the prime minister write to the state premier write to the federal opposition leaders and make known our view Councillor Wilkie: thank you councillor Janssen councillor I can't support Mayor Wellington: the amendment um the amendment suggests that

00:55:00 global action has to be taken and that's true but it doesn't refer to what global action or what intensity and how much global action there is already global action occurring to reduce emissions it's just not significant enough at this point in time so suggesting that peak waves more intense storms sea level rises may not happen if global action is taken is simply uh wrong uh they're going to continue to happen anyway even if we were to reduce uh climate change uh gases uh being uh put into the atmosphere right now because we're on a trajectory that has a degree of feedback loop within the planet um and in any case unless global action is taken as I say it's already been taken the amendment does not suggest the degree to which action must be taken which is the whole purpose of uh declaring Councillor Jackson: may I ask through your chair a question not Mayor Wellington: not while I'm speaking um which um the purpose is uh

00:56:00 to note that we have a climate emergency significant action not just any action but significant action has to be taken uh and I don't think this amendment helps us in terms of the original intent of the motion thank you may I ask a question Councillor Jackson: through the chair to councillor Wellington councillor Wellington what would be the wording in that first section that you would be comfortable with unless significant global or Councillor Jurisevic: significant global action is taken to reduce emissions Mayor Wellington: again this is on the run and it frustrates me councillor um I don't think it's even necessary to point that out because the whole purpose of the motion is to call on governments and everyone to consider the issue further to take further action I think it's a redundancy to put unless global action is taken because there you know we are facing consequences now and we have to deal with those consequences and we'll continue to have to deal with them

00:57:00 therefore I'm not happy to suggest an alternative wording because I don't think that phrase should even be in there Councillor Wilkie: councillor Stockwell Deputy Mayor Stockwell: yeah I'll one is for the amendment um B is fine happy to go higher um A is an amendment that suggests we don't understand science A is contrary to science A suggests if we don't if we take global action then we're not going to be vulnerable to climate change we know perhaps 50 years after we take meaningful action for the meaningful change to occur in the trends and scenarios up to 50 years it might not be but what we do know is we've locked in throughout the industrial revolution the climate change that us our children and probably further into our grandchildren will be experiencing what we have to do is take action

00:58:00 now to reduce the impact of climate change and make sure that by the time our grandchildren are our age that the planet is still livable Councillor Jurisevic: I mean that to me says unless global action is taken by all levels of government nothing will happen so I do see there's a bit of a redundancy the second part I'm quite happy which is the part that I was like Council Stockwell suggested I'm quite happy to to take it to the higher place because we are talking about an emergency emergency should be brought to the and our thoughts on it should be brought to the attention of all levels of government to the highest level. Councillor Pardon: It's I think

00:59:00 it's good to the Councillor Wilkie: most the government and it's good to the Can I put it to Councillor Jackson? Would she be happy with which requires urgent action to reduce emissions by all levels of government? Would you be happy with that? Councillor Jackson: Yes. Speaker 2: Which requires urgent action to reduce emissions. Do you need to check with a seconder? Councillor Jurisevic: Seconder. Is that the appropriate way to deal with that change, Mr? Speaker 2: If the mover and seconder are happy with it, then yes, but if it's improving it.

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy. Councillor Wilkie: So, we take from which requires urgent action. To reduce emissions by all levels of government. Yeah, to reduce emissions, which requires urgent action. You need to tell Cathy where you are. So, Cathy, the last line of A. So, the bottom line, sorry, second bottom line of part A, which requires urgent action to reduce emissions by all levels of government. Emissions, right, and then remove, unless global action is taken to reduce emissions, the part in red, above. Councillor Jurisevic: I think that essentially says the same thing, but in a better way. It does. In a better way, yeah, in a better way. I'm happy to support that. Mayor Wellington: Can I just suggest that grammatically that's suggesting that emissions are only produced by levels of government. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, and I know we didn't get a lot of hot air. A lot of hot air. So, urgent action by all levels of government to reduce emissions.

01:01:00 Would that be better for the, we're all very pedantic. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that mean better with your... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To me, it's changing the notion of the initial amendment. So, I don't think we should be going down that track. We shouldn't be... Councillor Wilkie: Oh, that's okay. We'll see if the move and the seconder are happy with that wording. Councillor Jurisevic: I said, I see... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Point of order. A motion, amendment's been moved and seconded. A motion to the amendment is actually changing the intent of the amendment, the order is not acceptable. Councillor Wilkie: All right, well, we'll put it to the meeting that the, I'll put the motion to, I'll motion to the meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I've raised the point of order, you haven't ruled on the point of order. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, look, I'll rule that if the mover and seconder are happy with the change of wording, that the amendment will reflect that change of wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I've moved the seconder from the chairman's order.

01:02:00 Mayor Wellington: That means we get to speak, or it can only be one person, so Brian's first, he gets to speak on the second and the chairman's rule, and you get to speak on the second and the chairman's rule. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so, quite simply, what you've done is change the notion of the amendment to a considerable difference to the nature of the original amendment. It has a different meaning, a different purpose, to do so after it's been moved, seconded, and debated, I believe, is contrary to the standing orders. It's not a minor amendment to, or grammatical change, it's a change to intent. Councillor Wilkie: But I ask how it is a change to the intent? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, because the first motion said unless we take action, which inferred that we wouldn't be vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, so there's a total different meaning to A, to what you've put in there now. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Well, part A, as it reads now, says, which requires urgent action by all levels of government to reduce emissions, which I think.

01:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not arguing that's a separate amendment. What I'm saying is what you've done is change a motion to an end after it's been moved, seconded, and debated, which is contrary to the standing orders. Councillor Wilkie: It needs to be debated again? Speaker 2: No. No, okay. All right. I think it's right. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right. Well, councillors, you wish to speak to the motion? Mayor Wellington: I can't. Speaker 2: So you've got a motion. You've got a motion to dissent. Mayor Wellington: The motion is that the speakers. Speaker 2: Willing to be dissented upon. Mayor Wellington: Yes. Okay. Speaker 2: So the process from here is that the chair has the right to respond to Councillor Stockwell's motion to dissent. Then the meeting makes the determination. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right, councillors, what I've tried to do with this amendment is capture the main, the thrust of everyone's arguments, the move of the amendments, and also other councillors around the table.

01:04:00 That's the reason why it's being done. Everyone's had a chance to make their points on the thrust of the original amendment, which I believe is captured more accurately in this refinement. And therefore, that's why I ruled the way I did. So I put the motion. Of dissent. Of dissent. So those who agree that the change should not be made. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can I clarify? No, we have to speak on the motion. Speaker 2: The motion to dissent, the only one that's a mover in the. Councillor Wilkie: Those who agree that the change should not be made despite the support of the mover and seconder of the amendment. Mayor Wellington: Well, it's really your ruling that the change be allowed. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Now, I ruling. So I put the motion. Councillor Pardon: Sorry, just a question. To the CEO, with regards to standing orders here, the question is this.

01:05:00 If we support the motion of the chair, are we in breach of standing orders? Are we outside standing orders? That goes to the heart of the point of order. Speaker 2: My advice to the council is that the change which was proposed, it's different to what was originally made. It has a different intent. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. That wasn't how I. Councillor Pardon: That didn't answer the question, really. It didn't round about. Yes, I know what you're saying. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: I do. Say it again, Frank. Councillor Wilkie: All right. So what we're voting on now is whether we allow the change. No. Mayor Wellington: No, we don't. Councillor Wilkie: We're voting on whether. Mayor Wellington: Whether your ruling that the change be allowed. Change be allowed. So if you. Yeah. So we are. Councillor Wilkie: You're allowed to change. Mayor Wellington: Which in my opinion. Councillor Glasgow: Contrary to what we first started with. Okay.

01:06:00 Councillor Wilkie: All right. All right. I'll put the motion. Those. Who dissent. Who dissent from my ruling that the change be allowed, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, so now on that, Councillor Jackson, Councillor Wellington, Councillor Stockwell have spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak?

01:07:00 I think we're nitpicking here, councillors, trying to find a way forward. I don't think it changes substantially what we're trying to do. It is a little bit repetitive, but I'm, for the sake of getting on with it, I'm going to support the amendment. Councillor Jackson, you wish to close? Councillor Jackson: I will. And in the sense of saying what I think you just said, a number of people have said, oh, well, it's a redundancy to have it in there. But if it's redundant, it's perfectly valid. So it's okay to have it in there. So I think it's okay. So, and I certainly think we should be writing to the Prime Minister, State Premiers and the Opposition leaders. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, okay. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? The amendment's lost. We go back to the original motion. Councillor Jackson: Can I please move an amendment? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to move the B part of my amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right. Second. Seconded. Councillor Pardon? You wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson?

01:08:00 Councillor Jackson: I don't think I need to. I think we're seeking to get some advocacy about climate emergency, and I think we should go to the highest levels. Councillor Wilkie: Right. I agree. That's my seat. Well, I just have my side. That was his. That was his. That was his. That was his five minutes. Councillor Glasgow: So, other councillors? All right, I'll speak too. Yeah. I agree. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'd like to speak. Yes, Councillor Sillings. Mine's longer. I really agree. Mayor Wellington: Oh, I move that the motion be put. I agree, even though it's me that's going to end up doing the extra work. Yeah. Mr Chair, I move that the motion be put. Mr Councillor, just put the motion. Oh, you have to vote on putting the motion in. Councillor Jackson: Are you serious? No. Councillor Wilkie: No. Councillor Jackson: Come on. Councillor Wilkie: I was serious. Councillor Jackson, wish to close? I did not wish to close. Okay, put the amendment. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. We go back some hours now to the original motion. What we're talking about? To which Councillor Wellington, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Glasgow and Councillor

01:09:00 Thornton have spoken. Mayor Wellington: Please note that the amendment becomes the motion. Councillor Wilkie: The amendment is now part of the motion. The amendment is the motion. Councillor Jackson: And I'd like to speak to the motion. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Wilkie: Thank God. Councillor Jackson: These declarations of climate emergency being made by local governments all around Australia and by nations all around the world are standing up for what must be done to reduce emissions and limit climate change for the sake of our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and for the whole planet, and about encouraging other levels of government to do so. I've researched the motions of other councils and countries and they're all committing to lower emissions and advocate emission reduction. Climate emergency is not a disaster that is here right now. It is calling it an emergency because it's time now to address emissions before the damaging

01:10:00 spiral becomes irreversible. I'm glad that Noosa Council is taking a stand on this matter. This is a major issue and the whole world is facing a real potential of climate change and we must, each and every one of us, take responsibility and take action to reduce emissions and every level of government also. I am happy that Noosa Council is taking steps to try and stop global climate change by working to reduce council's own emissions. Council staff report and motion, especially staff report, do not focus just on reducing emissions but on the potential impacts of sea level rise, storm surges and extreme weather events. When it comes to future coastal flood and inundation hazard risks to people and properties, I believe that council should be taking steps to support our residents in protecting their homes, properties and assets in the face of climate change.

01:11:00 Council's approach to properties at risk has yet to be approved by council in the upcoming CHAP, the Climate Change Adaptation Plan and the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, and I shall continue to advocate for council finding ways to protect people's properties. And I do support this climate emergency motion to advocate for emissions. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, whether you believe climate change is real or not, any climate change denier I've spoken to doesn't seem to deny that climate change is real, any of the causes of climate change. The last time, you know, as a young child I remember reading the last time that people did deny a major climate emergency.

01:12:00 I remember reading the last time that people did deny a major climate change event and then no-one built a boat. So, you know, maybe it's time that we think about it and we take time and we do listen. Declaring an emergency may cause alarm for some, but unless we act, and we're already being enforced to act, the information being put before us is overwhelming, that we should act and we should act now. Because if we don't act now, we're not going to be able to do anything. There may not be a future for many entities and many houses and many properties to handle. And there'll be islands in the Pacific Ocean that are already buying scurvy deer and getting ready for it. So, you know, if we wait too long, they won't be there to see. If we've got it wrong, what harm will be done? If we've got it right, we could be producing a new economy. There may be, but renewables are the thing.

01:13:00 In fact, the economy is changing. There was a Liberal government in the 1950s that turned around and was forward thinking enough to see an opportunity to bring in an alternative form of energy production in the Surrey Mountains Hydro Scheme, probably the most significant infrastructure project this country has ever seen. Still heralded to this day and now looking at a second stage being added to it. By far they came to work on that scheme, as did many others. We didn't deny the opportunities to look at alternatives then, why are we denying the opportunities to look at alternatives now? In the argument of renewables versus coal, look, I dare say that coal will continue to be dug out of the ground while it delivers royalties to this country and to these governments because governments will have to find alternative ways and means of raising their funds if we don't have those royalties. But the argument for renewables is, in my mind, a very simple one. What costs less? The time and effort to go and dig coal out of the ground and transport that coal to a station? Burn it and continue to do that or to use renewable resources that are there and free

01:14:00 for use forevermore? I don't think it's a difficult one. Again, the closing quote from my perspective is, I support this, I believe Council has an advocacy role. I believe the information coming before us is undeniable. We can't... The scientists are telling us that... It's time to act, and it's time to act now. We're joining other concerned communities across the world in declaring an emergency, and I see no harm in that. Again, if we are wrong, at the end of the day, what harm does it do? Councillor Pardon: Question, Mr Chair? Yes. Just a question in reference to an answer that came before. Given on page 3.6... Yes. ...of the report with regards to Council Coastal Hazard Risk.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: So which report are you referring to? Councillor Pardon: The next one. The Council. Our climate. Yeah. Coastal Hazard... So our modelling report. Our modelling report. Coastal. Our bad location. Given the answer that I received before from a question... Yes. ...that Councillor Stockwell asked. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Pardon: Under 3.6.2 on page 23... I'll wait until you get there. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Councillor Pardon: 3.6. The mean sea... Where it says... Yes. 3.6.2. In the country. Equilibrium profile. The Braun rule concept. Where it said... Yes. ...has remained or near the present level for about 6,500 years.

01:16:00 Right. But what staff said just before, the sea has risen substantially or it rose and continues to rise. So that's what I'm talking about, the man in the street and how you work it out. Councillor Wilkie: So you're asking for clarification on... Yes. I've got one too. Go ahead. Councillor Pardon: It's risen substantially. It says it hasn't risen in this report. It's not my report. Councillor Wilkie: So, yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that particular line says it has remained at or near the present level. Geologically speaking, sea levels can vary by tens of metres, plus or negative, and they have over the Earth's lifespan. In the last several thousand...

01:17:00 Councillor Pardon: Mr Chairman, over the Earth's lifespan. Yeah. That's what I heard there. The Earth's lifespan. Speaker 3: Yeah. Sorry. I'm just getting to address the... Councillor Pardon: Billions of years. I'm putting it within context. Yeah. Okay. But I... Yeah. Can... This is the problem where everyone grapples, Mr Chairman, with regards to clarity. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So it's putting your question in context. Okay. Speaker 3: So historically, sea levels can be tens of metres higher or lower than they are present. For the last several thousand years, the Earth's climate has been relatively stable. There have been small variations over that time that have led to, historically speaking, small changes in sea level. What we've seen over the last century is a consistent upward trend, and globally that averages out to around 19 centimetres.

01:18:00 So you're talking at over 100 years. And that's accelerating. So of that 19 centimetres, it hasn't been a nice linear rise. It's varied across the years. And like I said before, that differs around the world. So some locations, they've seen very little. Some locations, they've seen very little. Others, they've seen over a metre already, and this is due to a whole number of different localised factors. In addition to that, the rise is so slow and so gradual, and locally, we're talking a few centimetres in one person's lifetime, I would be very surprised if anybody anecdotally noticed that rise with their own eye. The reason sea level rise projections are important is because by the time you can, at the individual scale, anecdotally say, ah, this is definitely different to when

01:19:00 I was younger, the changes are already set in motion, and as Councillor Stockwell alluded to before, there is momentum within the climate system at that stage. So I agree to the average person on the street. It looks like nothing's changed. But the sensitivity of tide gauges and satellite altimetry data are so sensitive, they do pick up those small changes. Councillor Pardon: Thank you. Mr Chair, I have a supplementary to that. Are you aware that the Climate Change Panel measures sea level rise across the world? There's a committee that actually measures this across the world. Yes. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. They say no rise. Oh. Is that correct? That's not correct. No. Councillor Wilkie: That's not correct. OK. Councillor Pardon: OK. So one of the leading persons on that that I saw interviewed recently said that's what

01:20:00 he said. There's been no rise. Yeah. Speaker 3: Anyway. Yeah. Just in response to that, the primary body that measures sea level rise is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is a scientific entity that's part of the United States government. OK. It's the primary entity that studies this, and sea level rise monitoring data comes through that organisation, and they say unequivocally that global sea levels have risen. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move this along now. If Noosa Council joins the 627 national, state, regional, and local governments around the world that have already made this declaration, it only reinforces the direction of the climate change that this Council is already heading and recognising and planning responsibly for the risks and economic benefits presented in preparing for climate change. Not least among them is Council's Zero Emissions Noosa Strategy, which committed Council to

01:21:00 achieving net zero emissions for its own operations, with all the cost savings for rate-paid satin bowls by 2026. Council has developed a Zero Emissions Noosa Action Plan and budgeted for these actions, and also is supporting those by the community's end group intended to achieve this target. So I'm going to move this along now. Solar panels on major Council facilities have delivered cost savings that have helped keep rates rise to a minimum. Council already has a raft of policies that recognise its responsibility to proactively prepare for the impacts of climate change, such as its Emissions Reduction Policy, the Climate Change Adaptation Plan, supported by a Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, its Climate Change Response Policy to guide Council decision-making. Last month, Noosa Council endorsed the Noosa Environment Strategy, which sets a target for both Council operations and the Noosa Sustainable Development Plan. Noosa Shire to achieve net zero emissions by 2026. There are actions with budget targets set out to achieve these objectives. Future coastal hazard risks to people and property due to changing weather patterns

01:22:00 are factored into the current and proposed new Noosa Plan through updated development requirements. Charged with the stewardship of a community on Australia's eastern seaboard, where we've already seen homes and surf clubs falling into the sea due to storm surges, this statement should come first. It aligns Noosa Council with other forward-thinking governments in Australia and around the world. It recognises that Noosa is vulnerable to the natural hazards associated with climate change and acknowledges that, even as a small contributor, Noosa is willing to play its part. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report of Global Warming was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries and cites more than 6,000 scientific references from contributions from thousands of experts and government experts. Government reviewers worldwide. For us to fail to take their advice into consideration in our forward planning is not a responsible action. I support the declaration. Council, do you wish to close.

01:23:00 Mayor Wellington: Yeah, very briefly. Thank you. Look, it's true that in our lifetimes, there's a good chance that we're going to see some Pacific at-home nations inundated and become uninhabitable. Sea level rise is not the sole focus of climate change. But it's the focus of climate change and to build a new environment where we can And in terms of what's observable, it may not be sea level rise, but rather the product of rising sea and land temperatures. Now, with rising temperatures, you get more evaporation, which creates more droughts, and somewhat ironically, warmer air is able to hold more water, so you end up with much more intense rain events, thus more flooding. That's the great paradox of climate change, is that it will create worse climate events in terms of both flooding and in terms of drought, but also much stronger storm events. We know, for example, that sea surface temperature has a great deal of influence on the intensity of tropical cyclones.

01:24:00 So, these are the things that will become observable and are already observable. In fact, the report at my office, my suggestion includes the Bureau of Meteorology's graph relating to the incidence of heat waves over Australia since the 1900s. And it is a very definite upward trajectory that is undeniable. Therefore, what is observable is actually observable now. And indeed, the Northern Hemisphere, of course, has just had experienced its most extreme June in terms of high temperatures. That has ever been on record, resulting in hundreds of deaths across Europe, particularly in countries like France, which simply aren't adapted and able to cope with extreme temperatures. It caused significant numbers of elderly people to die. And that's a direct product of climate change, which we're witnessing.

01:25:00 There's a great difference between weather and climate. Weather is about day-to-day events. And yes, you can't pin climate change on any significant events. However, climate is about averaging out all of those weather events. And if you average them out, what you see on the graph is a definite trend. It is not possible to see climate change in terms of one bad cyclone or one drought. But if you look at what's going on, and that's why this fantastic graph from the BOM spells it out so nicely, that is, there is a trend. And that is climate, not weather. I think it's a shame that there's been an attempt to conflate this particular debate with what we'll be discussing shortly in regards to coastal hazard mapping. I think that's not been helpful.

01:26:00 What we're looking at here, in terms of declaring a climate emergency, is taking a position along with 740 now jurisdictions around the planet. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Those against? Carried. Thank you, councillors, for your patience and discipline during that long debate. Councillors, with your indulgence, I'd like to call a five-minute break for refreshment. Thank you.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:35:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Yes, after this item was placed on the agenda we received an appeal notice from the applicant appealing on the basis that Council had not decided the application within the timeframe allowed for under the Planning Act so essentially they've taken it as a deemed refusal so those provisions are provided for under the Planning Act and the Planning Courts Act.

01:36:00 So there is, Council can't decide the application because they're actually in appeal at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Alright, so we're very limited as to what we can do here, so if someone would like to move the, move Councillor Glasgow, second Councillor Pardon. Anyone wish to debate the issue? No, but I'll speak to it. Councillor Jurisevic: The only reason that I did raise it and I'm the one that asked if this matter be brought before the general committee is to highlight the fact that one of the most significant passes of land that has been under appeal and under application and under appeal for a long, long time is still ongoing and that the general populace and our community are aware of the ongoing court battles that we fight with regard to the developer in this case. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak? We'll take a motion. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We now move to item two, the coastal hazards mapping and refinement.

01:37:00 Thank you. Thank you. From the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda, page 118. Yes, I'll read it. Councillor Jurisevic: And also the one that's on the field. Oops. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Sorry. I'll read it. Welcome back, Grant. Hello. You've got a book of notes. Speaker 4: Back again. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Councillor, any questions for the staff? I have some questions. Yes. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. I'd like to ask probably questions of Grant largely. Grant, this assessment report appears to be largely a desktop study with generic modelling and mathematical calculations to arrive at flood and coastal hazards mapping. Can you explain if it is granular enough to include local geological variations and river

01:38:00 and coastal and shoreline changes? Speaker 3: Yes. So, starting at the top there. Yes, this study with modelling was performed on desktop. We weren't willing to pay our... Okay. ...consultants to go down to the beach with their laptops and do it from there. Okay. But the modelling is informed by the latest and most accurate set of data, data sets. So, whether that's around the storm scenarios that underpin the modelling, the wave climate, the topographical features. Which that informed the modelling, which have come from the terrestrial lidar surveying performed on behalf of local councils by the Queensland Government in late 2015 and

01:39:00 published in 2016, as well as more recent, the most recent near shore bathymetric data sets. So, it is accurate and reliable for the purposes for which it was used. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I do have a further question related to this. I guess, and I have spoken with you earlier, but this ultimately is called modelling. And so, this... What we have is mapping is a form of model. Is a model 100% accurate? Speaker 3: In this circumstance, because we are attempting to model a natural resource, we are trying to model a natural hazard within a highly dynamic system and predict how an event in the future may or may not behave.

01:40:00 There will always be a residual amount of uncertainty associated with the models. In addition to that, because every hazard event, whether it's a flood, storm tide inundation, bushfire, behaves slightly different to the events that came before it. It is effectively not possible to accurately predict exactly how future events will behave. But like I said, the modelling that has been performed has been done so consistent with standard natural hazard engineering practices and is fit for the purposes for which it was done. Councillor Jackson: And the main question also, the draft new Noosa plan, and online in particular, had some 2040, 2070 and 2100 mapping for coastal hazards.

01:41:00 Is this document before us going to change that in the Noosa plan? No. It's the same? It's the same. Speaker 5: It's the same mapping? That's right. Yeah. And Kim, I have a question for you. As the- Sorry, just to- Yes. The mapping on the system, obviously, the scale of maps here- Is minimal. Is minimal. So the mapping on the system obviously allows much greater detail and interrogation. And I'm just going to correct myself then. There is actually one iteration of these maps on the system that is different to what's in here. And I'm just going to correct myself then. And that is because- Speaker 3: That is because- So the three hazard types modeled were storm tide inundation, coastal erosion, and hermine inundation, which is tidal inundation.

01:42:00 When this particular report, as you can see, is dated April 2018, was done, it was based on information regarding tidal levels provided by the Queensland government. So at the time, it was the most- Consequent to that, following discussions with internal project stakeholders as well as consultants, we went to the state and suggested to them that those published tidal plains may be underplaying the levels of surface water level heights for tides within the Noosa River estuary. It just so happened that the state's principal coastal scientists responded that it just so happened the state was going through the exact same process and had identified the same issue.

01:43:00 And so we negotiated with them to redo that modelling using the exact same process but use tidal surface water levels that were more realistic. And so it lifted the surface water levels for the tides. In response to that. And that mapping, there is a, that mapping has been updated and it is publicly available. It was reviewed by the state's principal coastal scientists. Councillor Jackson: Which mapping is it? Permanent inundation. Permanent inundation. Speaker 3: So that's that sometimes referred to as HAT, the highest astronomical tide. Councillor Jackson: And I do have a question about Kim Rawlings. As we are going, being asked to endorse this for the purpose of the New New Silver Plan, adaptation, coastal adaptation plan, and obviously Capital Works.

01:44:00 As it is a model and it is not going to, it would be 100% accurate, is it going to be treated as a guide or will it be treated as definitive when development assessment applications are being considered? Speaker 5: What we're asking Council to consider and endorse today is a report that outlines a methodology to determine coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. Informing coastal hazard mapping, inundation mapping, flood mapping. So it's essentially a methodology. We're asking Council to endorse. And out of that there's a range of outputs which Grant's just talked about in terms of mapping. Those outputs do inform Capital Works planning, infrastructure planning, strategic land use planning, and the planning scheme.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 They're called up through the planning scheme. And they're used in various ways. Planning schemes are made up of a series of, a lot of provision as well as. Overlays and mapping that maps hazards, natural hazards, constraints on site. And that mapping is used through the development assessment process. And triggers at certain levels of assessment. So it can either trigger a greater level of assessment, greater consideration, or becomes a constraint on the site that must be considered through a development process. So some of these, some of the outputs of this methodology resulting mapping that's referred to in the planning scheme. That is a constraint on the site. And needs to be considered in future development. Councillor Jackson: So that doesn't quite answer my question. The question being that it is a model which is not 100% certain.

01:46:00 And that in fact we just heard that there are ongoing changes as well. Due to how things occur. But in particular that it is really a model. And that it is a desktop study. It is not a full definitive granular study of individual land properties. So my question was, is this going to be treated as a guide? Or is it going to be treated as if the model is definitive for every single location? And yeah, rather than as a guide. Is there going to be any room to move around localised investigations for geological differences? Speaker 5: Each of the layers have a slightly different role in the planning scheme. I might ask Rebecca if you want to get into the detail of each of those different layers. Speaker 4: Because they operate quite differently.

01:47:00 So at the strategic level, the erosion prone area that's mapped as an output of the coastal hazards report identifies an area of interest for further investigation. When we use it for the purpose of the planning scheme, it has a role in defining the land wood extent of the erosion area at different time frames. So at current day, at 2040 and at 2070 and 2100. It's mapped as a coastal building line in that context. So that it is definitive in setting a sea wood extent of development. So it works as a development control. When it's used in a different context to say infrastructure design and delivery, it will be used as one aspect of the design criteria. So it really depends the context in which it's used as to whether it is more a trigger

01:48:00 for further investigation or whether it's used as an actual development control. There might be instances where we need to do more localised assessments, say for instance in the location of the bike path. We want to know the specifics of the geology there in that instance and make sure that we're designing to ensure the longevity of that asset, for example. Councillor Jackson: So does that mean, for example, if the bike paths seem to be really an investigation, that if there was a developer, person, not a developer, development application, are they able to do their own study? Have someone, an expert do study that would be taken into consideration which would be more granular than the modelling that's been done? Speaker 4: It's possible. We need to take into account the asset life and Grant mentioned that in the previous agenda

01:49:00 item. Some pieces of infrastructure might have a temporary asset life. They might be dispensable assets or they might be ones that we would expect to be there into the longer term, such as a house. So when Council makes an assessment through a development application process, it has to take account of the fact that some assets are practically permanent in that the intention is that they be there ongoing. This is something that could be placed in that location for 20 years and there's an acceptance of a level of risk. When you go to something that has a longer term asset life and an intention that it be there ongoing, then we need to use the information in the coastal hazards report to make sure we don't push that asset in any form of risk.

01:50:00 We don't push that asset risk to those coastal hazards into the future. And we have that uncertainty around what climate change will do into the future. So there needs to be that extra level of cautiousness and consideration that's given to those types of assets. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Tristan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. At the committee meeting, I requested the staff bring forward a short presentation to make sure we understand what the process is and what might be driving it. So I'd request that we actually receive that presentation. I also note that on the first item, again, we talked about sea level rise. There might be some information about predictions on sea level rise, if you could provide which drive some of this. Just I'd like to make, you know, both put it on the public record and make sure we understand where we're coming from on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

01:51:00 Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: So a lot of this front end won't be new to a lot of people. But as I mentioned, in response to Councillor Japp's questions regarding the purposes of the CHAP and the modeling and what it's to be used for. So there are scientific consensus that we can expect under a business as usual scenario have a certain amount of sea level rise. So what the CHAP is seeking to do is understand what effect that may, that change may have on existing coastal hazards, the ones in focus being storm tide inundation, coastal permanent inundation and coastal erosion. That information is then provided to council and the community regarding these changes and what the potential risks mean at a local level in Noosa as a result of climate change and its effect on coastal hazards.

01:52:00 The information is used to inform strategic land use planning and decision making, infrastructure, asset planning and design and so forth. The reason we're doing it now, even though our understanding of what climate change involves is constantly changing, is because it will help us avoid costly reactive responses to hazard events and any impacts that may have on council budgets or other resources. The entire purpose is to minimise the risks to people, the environment and the Noosa economy and even if nothing ever eventuates, we still face extreme weather events today and so any actions put in place will help to make Noosa more resilient today. Oh, sorry. Oh, this is the screen. So this is the screen.

01:53:00 This illustrates what I was talking about just then, so you can see along the top, various climate change means certain elements of the climate system will change, they then have a flow on effect on other hazard types, so whether that's storm tide, erosion, sediment supply, and then that has a flow on effect to the major coastal hazards, which we're discussing today. I won't go through this because we just discussed that in response. So this is the screen. So as Councillor Stockwell just alluded to, and this was the particular set of maps that were updated post this report being provided to council, so this is the permanent inundation layer. So what we're seeing here is the highest astronomical tide, which is not a king tide. This is the level of inundation at the year 2100 under a 0.8 metre sea level rise. This is the level of inundation at the year 2100 under a 0.8 metre sea level rise.

01:54:00 In a given year, due to a whole range of factors, whether it's meteorological or changes in the dynamics of the river mouth. Councillor Jurisevic: I was just going to ask a question regarding the word there of permanent inundation. Permanent inundation seems to suggest it's there all the time. Yeah. It's not there all the time, it's tidal. Speaker 3: Yeah, so basically that has a defined term in coastal sciences, meaning that the area that is subject to, within the HAT timeframe, inundation under tidal waters. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So, to clarify, the nature of the word permanent conjures a different image to me. Speaker 3: Yeah, I know. We've had that feedback from people before. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that, but as part of our engagement material. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, so it's not our terminology. No, it's not. It's terminology used elsewhere. That's right. Yeah, that's right. Okay. So, to be consistent. Speaker 3: Moving on to storm tides. So, the way we look at and the way we modelled storm tide was to input into the model the various storm scenario.

01:55:00 So, that's the storm surge component, so wave heights, atmospheric contribution to sea levels, plus HAT, and that gives you the storm tide. So, what you're seeing here is just a visual representation of how the one in 100 year storm and the effect it would have on tidal water levels at the entrance to Noosa River. So, what you're seeing there to the left of the centre of that graph is the days leading into the peak of the storm and then the days leading out. So, you can still see that. So, you can see that the waters ebb and flow in response to the national tidal cycle. We modelled three different scenarios. We modelled the what's colloquially known as the one in 100 year storm. We also modelled the one in 20 year storm, which is far less severe, but it happens more frequently and can have a, even though a single event may not have a significant impact on a particular location or asset, because of the frequency, it may have significant impacts as to what's going to happen in the future.

01:56:00 Also used to the attractiveness or the structural integrity of an asset. And, we also model what's called the one in 500 year scale event, which can happen today and is useful for understanding the exposure of critical infrastructure assets such as hospitals and the like, which we are required to do under disaster management regulation. One thing that is worth remembering is. So, the third one we modelled was coastal erosion. So this modelling was applied to the open coast locations along Noosa Shire, so everywhere from the edge of Cullula down to South Peregian. This modelling was based upon a 1 in 100 year scale event, including sea level rise.

01:57:00 The modelling approach used, or the methodology which is described in this report, is prescribed by the State Government through the Coastal Hazard Technical Guideline which was published in 2013. That guideline, consistent with hazard modelling and engineering practice, includes safety margins to account for uncertainties around the beach conditions, future storm intensity and sea level rise projections on any given day. However, also through that process, we believed that the State's prescribed methodology and some of the, in our view, with the support of our consultants, conservative model inputs could produce what would be viewed as unrealistically large erosion prone area model results. So we successfully lobbied them to have some adjustments. So we successfully lobbied them to have some adjustments made to how that model works in order to minimise the defined erosion prone area extents.

01:58:00 So an example of this is a change to the input of the original wave conditions, so wave heights. So the way the guideline's written, we need to use wave heights of x metres, but we could prove to the State that those wave heights were unrealistic for this part of the world. They were too high. So we were able to get agreement from them that we could reduce them in the model. The second one is this short-term erosion cut component, the C factor, which has come up for discussion a few times. And we were able to get the State to agree to us to adapt the erosion model so that in certain locations we wouldn't be the defined erosion prone area. So the rate at which we'd be able to adjust the erosion component in certain areas of the area wouldn't be viewed as punitive as a result of the conditions at the time that the surveys were done.

01:59:00 Councillor Wilkie: So the wave heights that you fed into the model, measured by instruments of the Sunshine Coast? Speaker 3: That's right. Yeah. And the State wanted to use wave heights that were more consistent with cyclonic conditions much further to the north and weren't consistent with the storm scenarios that we get down here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just on the second point there in terms of the differences between C1 and C2. We've adopted a particular date for when we measure the coast erosion for short term and varies. So can you give us an indication in terms of why you have to be a little bit conservative is if we had done that on the beach conditions as they exist today, would the line have moved west further inland or further to the coast? Speaker 3: Yeah, so to start with the second part of your question, if we were to perform this LIDAR modelling today, the erosion model results would be further landward of their current position as they appear in the map.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 So the way that the modelling methodology requires originally required council to perform the modelling was to use either this is apologies for this getting technical. Is either way. This line, this blue line intersects the dunes. So what we're looking at is a side profile of the dune system. Either use where this blue line intersects here or where this green line, which is the state's defined coastal line, which is in their view, the high watermark defined intersects the dune. The starting point for the modelling is whichever is most seaward of those two. So the sea being over this side. The way the modelling was originally modelling forming. Is prescribed to be performed is that the model would start from here where this green line intersects the dune. The guideline also requires the model to include a margin of safety, which is calculated based on the entire model distance.

02:01:00 Take 40% of it and then apply it on top. Like I said, that's to account for a whole range of uncertainties, given we're trying to predict an event in a dynamic system. What we did was go to the state and say, in some instances, when that LIDAR was performed, there was more sand down the bottom of the beach. Unfortunately, that would mean then that sand hadn't had a chance to move further up the beach profile. So when the modelling would be done, that sand would be taken into account. And create what could be viewed as an unrealistically westward erosion prone area extent. So what we successfully lobbied the state to do with the support of our consultants was to have this originally what was called the C factor split in two.

02:02:00 And where there was a distance between here and here, we would separate that out. And so it would not only ensure that the model starts from there, but it wouldn't have an effect on the overall extent in two ways. The volume of sand that's here gets eroded first before getting eroded here, and it is exempt from the 40% factor of safety. So instances where there is sand between this line and this line have helped to minimise the defined erosion prone area extents. Does that answer your question? Councillor Pardon: Is it that? So just on that, so that gives you a more conservative, would that give you a more conservative sort of situation than what originally you had given that? No, the opposite. It gives you a more impact.

02:03:00 Speaker 3: Realistic. Councillor Wilkie: Just frankly, would another word be moderate? More moderate. Yeah. Calculation-wise. So less westward. Speaker 3: Yeah. So less severe. Less severe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. That's what I was... So in simple terms, you're not applying the 40% on top of that area between the green and blue lines. Speaker 3: Yes. That area has... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And you're taking into account the sand that's in it. Exactly. So that will be eroded first. So it has the effect, if we'd gone with what the state had said, we would have not taken that into account and the erosion prone mapping lines would have been further westward. Speaker 3: Correct. It reduces the severity of the modelling results in two ways. Both those ways. Councillor Jurisevic: Only on this coast. On the other coast it's eastward. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a question, Geoff? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Just to clarify, I thought you said that the green and the blue line were... With regard to the...

02:04:00 The ocean levels that were measured and the green line was the one that the state had measured? Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. So what... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm confused if that line is below the other line where the state's levels were higher than the modelling that we're using based on the coast's figures that you said were lower. Speaker 3: Yeah. I can clarify that. So the green line is the state's definition of the high water mark. The blue line is under that storm scenario what height the water levels would be at. The way the guidelines are written is that whatever is most seaward of that is where you must start. Councillor Jurisevic: So if you were using the state's figures, did it be even higher above that? Yeah. Exactly. That's right. I'm just confused by when you said the state's figures. I was like, hang on. That doesn't bring through with what we're seeing on the graph. So I don't know. I understand you're using... I misunderstood the terminology you were using. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions for staff, councillors? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah.

02:05:00 Chancellor Jackson raised a question about modelling. And I'm listening to what you were saying or what you've been saying with regard to new information becoming available. I'm assuming that as new information continues to become available or as modelling is undertaken, we question the... We question all the parameters of the model. And so the most appropriate figures are being used. Speaker 3: That's correct. Yeah. So which... Councillor Jurisevic: And that to me is evident from what you were saying about using the state's figures versus the local HIK figures. So that is something that we continue to undertake. That's correct. That's correct. Yep. And that as new and more relevant information or updated information comes to hand that is applied to modelling to see what differences that makes to the modelling. That's correct. Speaker 3: Yeah. The right type of information. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Speaker 4: And it would be applied for the whole of... For example, the whole beach unit. Not necessarily iterative changes to a localised area.

02:06:00 Any new information should be applied to the whole of the methodology. Councillor Jurisevic: The thing about modelling at any one time is it's relevant to the information available at that current time. And as new information is available and applied, then that modelling is likely to change or depending on what information is being used. Yep. Speaker 5: That's correct. Council's own climate change policy makes that statement that when new information, new science becomes available, that we will review our key planning documents, key strategies, key initiatives like this. So yes, that's the intent. If we do a review of the CHAP, if there are changes that result from that to the planning scheme, if there's new science. There are a number of... Yeah. I guess triggers of new information that would result in reviewing these methods and the outputs. Councillor Jurisevic: The second question I have is about to...

02:07:00 I said I'm going back to the actual report. The last paragraph refers to community feedback on the draft CHAP that we sought in October 2009. The final CHAP document will be submitted to Council in December 2019 and include a detailed action plan with proposed measures to help mitigate coastal hazard risk over the life of the plan. Is it appropriate to include a detailed action plan with proposed measures to help mitigate all of the measures that Councillor Jackson referred to in the amendment she proposed earlier? That action plan... Identifying the number of properties that will be affected, how we would inform those properties, and what actions we would take from it. Speaker 3: Yeah. So the action plan will include, where appropriate, where Council has endorsed that action, specific mitigation measures. It may also include actions to carry out further studies. For example...

02:08:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And the likely actions that Council would undertake in those areas to... That's right. Either protect, retreat, or whatever measures are suggested. That's correct. Speaker 5: It should just be worth noting that there is another round of community engagement before we finalise the CHAP. Councillor Jurisevic: It says that. Speaker 5: In October. Councillor Jurisevic: In October. Yeah. That's why I clarified that. That's the first statement that there's more community consultation to come. And then the final action plan will be submitted to Council in December 2019. That will cover all those points raised by Councillor Jackson. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Just in terms of continuing on to the next slide. The outcome was such that if we look... Yeah. Previous slide. Sorry. I'm sorry. I thought it was the last slide. You know. So what... By doing the modelling, the red line there is what DHP... Is that what's in the state planning policy at this stage? Yeah. So in fact, the modelling has reduced the... The... The land would extend of the... Where the 2100 would come. Is that correct? Is that principally because of the light height differences?

02:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: A whole range. Speaker 3: A whole number of different factors in the model. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the arrow means? Speaker 3: Arrow. Sorry. The arrow is pointing to this question of being a desktop model and the accuracy of local... That LIDAR picked up the variations in the coastline in a way that the state's more simplistic, less locally relevant modelling approach done back in 2012 did not. Councillor Wilkie: And for those that don't know, could you explain what LIDAR is please, Graeme? Speaker 3: Oh sorry, LIDAR is essentially a laser shot from a plane, hits the ground, pings back to the plane, and it represents with all these data points the shape of the land, the heights, that kind of thing. Incredibly accurate. Councillor Jurisevic: A topographic representation of the land. Yes, and it's incredibly accurate.

02:10:00 Speaker 3: It can be incredibly accurate. So what that arrow is indicating is how differences along the eastern beaches, whilst from a coastal processes perspective, are quite uniform. There's not a lot of variation along the eastern beaches around the beach. The composition of the dune systems, the sand types, and how they respond to events. The LIDAR was still able to pick up the variations in the topography, including things like Burgess Creek, and that's all that arrow is pointing to. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it was one in Burgess Creek. Yep. And with regard to LIDAR mapping being undertaken, what frequency are we looking at undertaking and identifying the changes over periods. Because I know we did it in Kynkin Creek, and we saw the significant change over a period of time. In this area, what sort of time frame

02:11:00 are we talking about potentially looking at and seeing the changes so that we can be mapping those changes as they occur. Speaker 4: I know we've got another one that's being flown at the moment for this year. And what frequency is that at? I don't know if it's every year. It may be every second year. I know the vegetation data gets updated every two years. Councillor Jurisevic: So within every two years, that's keeping you fairly careful. Speaker 4: Yes, fairly regularly. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Excuse me, Grant, I still don't understand what that yellow arrow shows. Speaker 3: It's showing the entrance to Burgess Creek. I'm sorry, not the entrance, the outflow of Burgess Creek. Councillor Wilkie: You're referring to LIDAR. Is that arrow indicating anything with LIDAR? Speaker 2: I think what he's trying to show is that's an example where LIDAR has shown up differences compared to what the state brought in the model. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, the lines take a bump into account for topography. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: One would think Burgess Creek flowing would impact on the sand down there because it constantly moves. Councillor Wilkie: And what do the black lines indicate on there? Speaker 3: Oh, those are cadastras. So, sorry, I should have taken those off. That's just the foreshore

02:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: reserve LIDAR. So otherwise, without the LIDAR, those purple, orange and green lines would have continued living in a straighter fashion along that? Speaker 3: Without, amongst the various inputs, without more accurate LIDAR, yes, it's reasonable to assume that the modelling results would have been further landlord than what they are now. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 3: Because we would have had to use more conservative topographical assumptions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, technical question. I've talked about this was given there. There is a quote when we talk about the Bruinman. It's a method which was used. And there's a line that refers to a paper by Rani Singhi and Steve, which I've just found. It talks about there being variability and uses a term, you know, a term about there is, you know, up to a 500 times difference in that.

02:13:00 I just looked at the paper. That's based on one scenario only. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Making clear that, like what my concern is, it's not the reference, it pulls out, by the consultant, it pulls out, oh it's up to this much, it's a bit of a throwaway line, whereas in most circumstances there's going to be nowhere near that level of variation from the model, to what I can understand, and so should we do any more in the motion or should we include this paper as a console or whatever to the report so that that statement is more fully explained? Speaker 3: I think we can certainly include, make the paper that's referenced there available, and I would need to check with DES, but I'm sure they would support us adding a footnote on that page just to clarify, put some more context around that particular figure, because they go on to clarify in the next sentence as well.

02:14:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's important because it's a big statement. And then just to quickly look into favourites based on one study. That's right. So it's not necessarily going to be a constant problem. Councillor Wilkie: Is there more to the presentation, Brian? Is there more to the presentation? Oh, great. Last one. Speaker 3: Sorry, yes there is. It was just to run through the remainder and Councillor Jurisevic's question. Councillor Jackson: Could I ask a question in relation to Councillor Jurisevic's question? I appreciate the Councillor, I've actually got a copy here of the climate change response policy. Council's climate change response policy, which is about reviewing, says councils will regularly review policy, strategies, plans, etc.

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 If it involves changes to mapping, does that mean that the Noosa plan has to go through an amendment? Speaker 4: To change the coastal building lines, yes, if the coastal building lines are mapped in the planning scheme and the underlying information that informed those lines changed, then that's... Councillor Jackson: And what about the non-coastal, the flooding and the inundation mapping? Speaker 2: If it changes the overlay, is it also? Speaker 4: Yeah, so the storm tide information is a lesser extent than our catchment flooding. So I guess you could say it's contained within the flood overlay area. The response, whether you're dealing with catchment flooding or whether you're dealing with ocean flooding, storm tide, is the same. And it's basically raise your minimum floor heights to a level that's above the flood level

02:16:00 and then some design criteria. So changes to the storm tide layer wouldn't affect the flood overlay and therefore affect the application of the planning scheme. So it's a bit different than to the coastal erosion. Councillor Jurisevic: But in the event, sorry, in the event that a change... If a change does occur, we can do amendments to the planning scheme through the life of the planning scheme, which would enable us to undertake changes that anything like that brought up. Speaker 4: Yeah, we would tend to do a round of amendments every two or three years. Councillor Jurisevic: I wouldn't need to wait seven to ten years. No. Councillor Wilkie: Anything else for the presentation? Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to... This was, again, just visually representing what I was... I responded to Councillor Jurisdict's question around where we're currently at in the process. So we are combining, we're at the stage now where we were locking up the risk assessment results

02:17:00 and we will pair that with the preferred adaptation approaches that the community provided feedback on and the councillors and other stakeholders provided feedback on in the last six months. That information will then inform a cost benefit analysis. And then in October, the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan will be put out for public comment. So I just wanted to run through the next steps of the project. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to make a motion? No. I'm happy to move that one that was modified and provided. I suggest you read that one out. Councillor Wilkie: This is Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The Council report by the Programme Coordinator for Climate Change Adaptation to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 9 July 2019 and endorsed the Coastal Hazards Mapping... Refinement Report provided in Attachment 1 including the methodologies contained therein for the purposes of completing the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan informing land use planning and capital works planning design and delivery.

02:18:00 Note that any associated mapping outputs developed using these methodologies may be reviewed and updated periodically as required in response to new relevant information, legislative requirements or climate change predictions in accordance with Council's Climate Change Response Policy 2017. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We should speak to it, right? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, briefly. It is an important part of your work. The report being presented was a process of making sure it was on the public record and adopted. It is really important that that last slide occurs before December. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Pardon: No, just a quick question, yeah. With regards to the properties, I... Oh, with regards to the... No, I'll debate it. I'll debate it. I'll speak to the motion.

02:19:00 My concern going forward is not so much for the future with regards to people who might want to do, or developers and development properties. My major concerns at this, because they'll have to prove and ground truth that their properties are capable, given the climate change adaptation planning, et cetera. A particular concern is for the properties, a couple of thousand, as Councillor Jackson alluded to earlier, the people that already live in these areas. That's my major concern going forward. So, in amongst this, if Council signs off on this, the questions arise, will there be a notification? Will there be a notification on the rates notice? Because if it's obvious, if we adopt this going forward, so for me, that's a problem in itself.

02:20:00 But if we don't alert the people, then what are we doing? So, going forward, there needs to be warnings, there needs to be attachments on rate notices. And people, as Councillor Jackson rightly pointed out before, people need to know just what effect these particular policies and coastal mapping going forward, the effect on their properties. The other thing for me is already people are ground truth in their own properties. Now, we know the LiDAR study is pretty accurate, we say within a metre, and could be more accurate in other places. And it's obvious Council's not going to go in and ground truth every property affected. The sheer cost of that to bring in surveyors, et cetera, et cetera, would be enormous. So, what do we do with people that actually ground truth

02:21:00 their own property? And some might show they could be on a hill or a little knob that they're clear of the inundation. The other thing is the effect on insurance policies, in fact, and the impact on people's lives, et cetera. So, these are all the things going forward that our people, I'll call them, the people that are affected, this will be the sort of impact on them. Now, some are insured already for these impacts. So, there's a raft of things that I think as a Council that we're going to have to inform these people, some people that are sitting what they think is covered by insurance, those type of things. And we've seen this with flooding up north and other areas in the past where people suddenly find out they're not insured. So, those are the things that I think we need to address going forward.

02:22:00 And also, but I think we need a lot of information flowing out there to the people that are involved or that this affects. The other thing is with regards to a lot of these matters, I think in some matters, obviously, the courts are going to have to play a part in that. So, you know, we'll have to, we've pretty much got reports as accurate as we can, but we know or we should know what's coming. So, it's going to happen over time. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to make a minor but I consider important change, amendment to the motion. One word. In B, where it says, any associated mapping outputs developed using these methodologies may be reviewed and updated periodically as required.

02:23:00 I'd like to change the word may to will. Councillor Pardon: I'll second that. Councillor Jackson: So, I think it's really important, not just saying, and I've had a look at regularly reviewed policy strategies, plans and other relevant systems. So, I think while this is a small change, it's a commitment and that a council should take. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll say it's a small but important change. I'll support it. Now, the council should speak to the amendment. I'll put the amendment. Are you wish to close?

02:24:00 Councillor Jackson: No. Councillor Wilkie: And those in favour? Against? The amendment now becomes part of the motion. Can I ask this to speak to the, Mayor Wellington: I think it's important to note this is just one step amongst a great many in terms of council, so that it can be absolutely transparent and clear how council is dealing with this issue. This is not the end of the process. This is just one small part in the very long process. The other thing in terms of the impact on resident properties, it's worth noting that the impacts of, of carbon dioxide on global warming in terms of the greenhouse effect was noted in the 1960s. In the 1970s, climate warming became a serious topic. And in the 90s, the notion of human induced climate change

02:25:00 became part of the public parlance and awareness and was being discussed in popular media. And since then, of course, the reality of climate change has become increasingly more convincing year by year. And I have no qualm with the fact that council needs to communicate with properties that are identified as having potential impact on climate change. There's a curious question here, and that is, where does Bioware begin and end on this issue? At what point do we accept that residents have been fairly warned about the potential of climate change and its impacts? What we're trying to do is now provide more information, more detailed information, so that purchasers and property owners can be even better informed. But arguably, property owners purchasing in low lying coastal areas have known about the potential for climate change for some time.

02:26:00 It is almost impossible to determine when the actual case of Bioware should have stepped in. It's a difficult area. It is a problematic area for all councils around Australia. We are going to need not just councils operating collectively, but also we're going to need significant amount of support and advice from higher levels of government and from the insurance industry and from the legal profession as we go forward. This is just one stage. I'm proud of this council. I'm proud, as we saw earlier today, that this council takes the dangers posed by climate change very seriously. And this is just one of many steps that we will need to take in order to fulfil our obligations to the future. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask a... Sorry, John, you go. I thought you were going to ask a question. I was going to do the same. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, just a quick question.

02:27:00 Often when council does this forward plan, the question of insurance comes up, and the insurance industry is often ahead of the game in terms of the way it pitches its premiums to people on coastal areas. Can you tell us anything about your understanding of how the insurance industry already offers insurance or does not offer insurance to people in areas that's known to be prone to flooding and coastal erosion? Speaker 4: I'm no expert on insurance, but I have been advised that storm tide inundation, is not part of flood premiums, insurance premiums already. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Could that in itself be considered some sort of warning to property owners that insurance agencies are unwilling to insure them for storm surge? Speaker 4: It's an important bit of information. Mayor Wellington: It could be a huge flood. Councillor Jurisevic: OK, sorry, John. Yeah, well, my questions are along the same lines and following up from Councillor Pardon's spiel with regards to notification on rates notices.

02:28:00 One would suggest that... This would flag something on a property search and would be reflected in any property search through Council's system, and I assume the property searches that are on would be done on every property purchase. Is that the case? Speaker 5: That's our intention, to have this information available, so it's done on a property search. Councillor Jurisevic: But is every change of property... I mean, I'm assuming that every change of property... that every legal entity undertakes a full property search and that these things would be discovered. Is there any situation where a property search would not... or a sale of a property would not have a property search done? Speaker 4: Yeah, many instances. A lot of people do not opt to get a town planning search or full planning search. Councillor Jurisevic: OK, that raises my question. Speaker 4: But most solicitors would advise their client to do a rate search to see if there's any outstanding debts on the property.

02:29:00 So, that's the best opportunity for us to alert people. Councillor Jurisevic: So, here's Council of Partners' comment about rates notices as opposed to property searches. So, we would flag them on every legal avenue of search? Speaker 5: That's right. But various levels of searches are opt-in for the buyer and many don't opt-in for those levels of search. Councillor Jurisevic: The other question, from a building certification point of view, Council is no longer the only agency responsible for building certification. Council of Partners also alluded to the fact that individual property owners may undertake their own process to go through to ensure that a property can be developed in a particular way. With the use of private certifiers, then what's the likelihood... I mean, is there a likelihood that all of the warnings that are given will be undertaken

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 and the properties won't be developed in such a way that they will risk inundation in the future if done by a private property certifier? Speaker 5: The planning scheme makes building work accessible as a result of these provisions in the scheme. So, building work applications would need to come through Council in that situation. Every property? Yeah, where the planning scheme makes building work accessible for coastal erosion, things like that. Councillor Jurisevic: All right, so if it's flagged, that way every one of those would be assessed and reassessed by Council. Speaker 5: Yeah, there could be situations where there is private certification work done on some lower areas, but they would still need to comply with floor pipe requirements. Councillor Jurisevic: Is it likely the properties in these areas may undertake a different level of compliance step, similar to an MCU? That if you are in that area, you have to go through a higher level of application check

02:31:00 as opposed to... I'm trying to think of the word. In comparison to a standard housing development proposal. Speaker 4: That is the case now. So, if you're in the coastal erosion area, you come to Council for a code-assessable application. You can go over... Councillor Jurisevic: So, that's already flagged. Yeah. It's still... It's a building work application. So, it does have to go through that extra. Yeah. That's right. Just confirming all of those areas. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can the Council speak to the motion? Councillor Catherine? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do. I just want to first of all say that I certainly agree that Council is some must-take plan for the potential future of climate change because that's very clearly something we're having to deal with and I appreciate that we have the grant and that... Grant? We have the grant

02:32:00 and that we have the grant. We've got the grant. So, for all this work being done. I also have flagged through my questioning my concern that generic modeling can end up being applied as if it's definitive for every single location and I still continue to have that concern and I think it's important that we do that. I've heard that, you know, perhaps for Council works such as Bikepad, there might be investigations down to a more generic or granular level but I think we might have to look at whether we have an obligation to our residents as well. And linked with, of course, what Councillor Pardon was saying, we haven't as a Council come to an agreement through... because of CHAP climate change. Speaker 3: Council hasn't. Council hasn't. Councillor Jackson: Coastal hazards mapping isn't finished. Or the other one, the climate change CHAP adaptation. Speaker 3: The mapping is finished but the plan is not

02:33:00 Councillor Jackson: established yet. Plan is finished. So, because, as a result, we are still as a Council to discuss to what extent we believe that as a Council we have an obligation to our residents to protect their properties rather than to just allow natural things to happen to them. And I guess I'd be leaning, and I have already said this, I'd be leaning on the side of supporting property owners and helping them protect their properties and assets because this is something we are going to be facing. We are a coastal shire and this is an important thing. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The whole purpose of this project is to understand and prepare the risks in order to better protect the Noosa residents and their properties. And I think The Queensland State Government's Q Coast 2100 program was established and funded to help us, other local governments, responsibly plan strategies to address the impacts of climate change on the communities.

02:34:00 The program is supported by the Department of Environment and Science, Local Government Association of Queensland, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning. Knowing how vulnerable the Noosa coastal community already is to seaborne erosion and storm surge, this state-sponsored program has allowed us to better understand current and future risks and how they may change or intensify as a result of climate change. This understanding allows us to plan ahead to better protect public and private property against coastal erosion, storm, tide, surge, flooding and any potential permanent flooding due to sea level rise out to 2100. Thank you. The work done in this vulnerability and adaptation assessment is the third stage of the work and will be used for the next phase which is to identify key assets at risk of these three coastal hazards and identify what may be done to avoid, reduce or adapt to these risks in order to look after our residents and their properties and also natural assets and community infrastructure.

02:35:00 The methodology and calculations in this assessment has been reviewed and endorsed by the Department of Environment and Science and the Local Government Association of Queensland. The community will have further opportunity to make submissions on the plan in October, so the final document can be presented to the Council in December 2019. I commend the staff and the consultants for the work done so far and for the Council's support for the work. Councillor Jurisevic: Hear, hear. Councillor Wilkie: So we don't take audience comments from the gallery, but we're happy to meet with you afterwards, sir. Face to face with you afterwards, if you like. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion?

02:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Look, it's clear that generic lines on maps that have been created in the past have, you know, no longer apply and that the science has to be fully investigated and more accurate measures undertaken to ensure that those areas that may be subject to inundation in the future are more clearly mapped and more clearly known. So I look forward to, well, I don't necessarily look forward to the check being completed because of the amount of work that it's going to create for us and the challenges that it will produce for the future, but it is one document that needs to be done. It needs to be completed. And I look forward to the challenges that it will create for us in the future. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Jess, did you want to say something? Brian, would you like to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would close, yes. And Cathy, if we could have the second last slides of Grant's presentation up, just so I can run before that one.

02:37:00 That one. So, councillors, on there you see a red line. It's the Department of Environment, Heritage and Planning 2012. Jesus Christ. It's a generic line. Okay. It's quite a lot further landward than the chap, 2100. So when we talk about people understanding, there's a couple of things you need to know. I've literally bought a property that was one of the most vulnerable in the Shire to climate change through storm surge of lakes. And I knew exactly the risk. And every time the state changes these lines, I look at them and I know exactly how much worse or better I'm on. What this process has allowed us to do is, in fact, remove a whole lot of properties that are between the state line and our new line. Councillor Jurisevic: Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we've become more accurate. It might not always be the case. But what we have to be really clear is planning works at a scale.

02:38:00 Planning and development control occurs in accordance with scale. And ever since Adam was a boy, beach protection was achieved by setting fairly hard, firm lines that aren't very. There is a degree of uncertainty in modeling. But the uncertainty and approach that we've adopted is improving the accuracy of the lines, not reducing it. I think it's really important to understand that coastal hazards are very, very, very important to be potentially some of the highest cost considerations for the Noosa Shire Council for the next 50 years. As I mentioned earlier, if we would go down the foolish line of starting to protect houses with rock walls on the eastern beaches, the back of the envelope suggested it might take 15 years to complete at 10 times the capital works budget for each year.

02:39:00 So 10 times the current capital work budget for a year. We have to be very clear about that. And we have to be very careful when we talk about protection to make sure that we understand that there is a range of different adaptation measures that may and will have to be considered to ensure that we, A, don't impose extraordinarily high costs on future councils and rate payers, because it's the rate payers that will be paying for it. That we do educate and do that. Beachside owners understand that. They understand the risks and make decisions accordingly. As I said, I'm quite fully aware that when my insurance company comes on, that my bottom floor of my unit was flooded by the river before the storm surge came. Fully aware that that's what happens in the future. Because I know that I'm not coming for storm surge.

02:40:00 Every owner on a beach or near a flood plain area should be aware. And if they're not, it's not council's opportunity. Certainly, I agree with making people aware. And having communication. There might even be an opportunity to bring that to their awareness by having a specific search that says, climate change search. Generate it automatically. Make it cheap. Boom. Here it is. There's their plans. And then there's no excuse. We did this in the 90s and cleared the Shire with flooding. Made it automated from the GIS system. Reduced the cost. And everyone got one. So it's really important that we are protecting the whole community. Against climate change. The coastal hazard is one. And as we talked about earlier. The heat stress. Further west is going to be a significant issue for particularly older people living on their own. And there's related issues of bushfire. But it is really important to understand that this is the best available modelling. Coming up with realistic recommendations in terms of what might be risks going into the

02:41:00 future. That we need to consider right now. And I've used it. I've said it before. I'll say it again. In this year's budget we'll be looking at stormwater in Noosaville that won't be working in its design lifetime. Because they'll be frequently taking the river water to the streets. Rather than the street water to the river. So this is what the modelling tells us. And this is what we have to realise is the future. It's not easy. We can't necessarily be the good guys without exposing future councils to exceedingly high costs of protection. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. But the motion goes in favour. Against. The motion is carried. We'll move on to. Thank you Grant and Rebecca. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Next item is the events policy public consultation outcomes and amended policy for adoption.

02:42:00 Which is from the services and organisation committee agenda. Item 1 page 3. Referred to the significance of the issue. Welcome Michael, Dennis and Jill. Councillor's questions for staff. Mayor Wellington: Can we just have a look at the new recommendations. I don't think it's been. Sure. I certainly haven't seen any. Has there been a new one? Yes. There's been some changes made as a result. Questions posed. Councillor Jackson: Oh I didn't see that. Mayor Wellington: That's fine. I saw it, I saw it. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all right. Speaker 2: Moni rose out of her question about the accuracy of one of the tables in the report, and two Deputy Mayor Stockwell: of the columns were transposed. And that's a suggestion of myself. Speaker 2: Just to clarify that, so G was the result of the table being not correct in the original

02:43:00 Councillor Wilkie: You have questions first before we move to, before Councillor Stockwell moves the motion? Or you have already? Do we have a seconder for the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: Second Councillor Glasgow. Mayor Wellington: I raised the issue of weddings being not here in the definition. Councillor Jurisevic: I remember that being talked about. I was just duck ducking into there, being in the middle of things going forward, you know? No. Mayor Wellington: I raised the committee. Now I ask the council to consider it up to the day and do something about it. Yeah. You do?

02:44:00 Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Well, I'd like to ask a question of the, of Councillor Stockwell. Can you explain your proposed F a bit more so I can understand what we're looking at? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor, I had a myth. I'm sorry. Section J of the policy clearly says that we may introduce such a charge. Mayor Wellington: Mr Chair, the question seems to ask Councillor Stockwell to explain his motion, whereas that really should be part of his address to the motion by request. I'll leave it to you. I mean, asking why someone's put a motion before they've spoken to the motion just doesn't make sense. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I'm happy to wait. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Speaker 2: I'll be back. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Well, Councillor Stockwell, you're off, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will hand it off with the generality. As I said, Section J of the policy clearly outlines that council may do exactly this,

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:45:00 is to introduce a form of levy or some form of payment so that the people participating in corporate, tourism, or events run for profit to go towards, you know, some form of payment to go towards local environmental initiatives. It's something that I've been proposing for a couple of years now. That went out to the public and received no adverse response. Cathy, if you could just bring up that other PowerPoint slide. My logic is this, is, you know, we've got quite a bit of press recently looking at our endeavour to make, to work with industry to look at how tourism is going to be implemented and how tourism is sustainable into the future. This little formula that I used with first year geography students at university talks about three different levers you can use to manage the impact, in this case, the impact

02:46:00 of events. Okay. One factor you can do is population. So the policy talks about we're going to limit the number of events in high profile to reduce the impact on congestion and other things. It talks about affluence, which is really critical. Consumption per capita. And so if you looked at that in the policy, we talk about we're not going to consume a whole lot of car parking. We've got to reduce the amount of congestion and car parking by events by making it a requirement that they, the larger events, provide shuttle buses. Okay. This particular suggestion is about the last bit. It's about how do we apply the technology of environmental management to reduce the impact of the actual uses of the resources by the environment.

02:47:00 The people who are making money at them, which is a particularly, you know, the reason why they want to have events here is because this council, this community do such a great job of looking after its natural assets. They want the hero shots for the media and the TV at night to show the well-kept beaches and the foreshores and the Noosa spit. And what this says is, well, the community should also benefit by getting a small amount of resources. It's not setting how much that environmental charge would be to contribute to the management of those natural areas, those beaches. We talked about coastal hazards. The best way to protect houses is to make sure that we have great vegetation, deep rooted, multi-level vegetation on our foredunes, that we've actually got the walkways and the beach accesses so that people aren't walking across the prime dunes. And all this takes money. And so what this says, it may, in my view, it's just going to be one or two cups of coffee costs goes on only to those that are for people who have been charged or corporate events or making money out of it. It's not to all the events that are for the community. And it just says this is a mechanism that makes some contribution to ensuring that you don't destroy what you come to enjoy.

02:48:00 Councillor Wilkie: So just a question, qualifying question. You're asking the CEO to investigate. The initiatives, similar to what tourism is, are already applied to the triathlon and the food and wine festival. I understand they already make a contribution, which is what you've said. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, what it's saying is putting into policy, about a year and a half ago, got the CEO to investigate, is to actually include that charge in the guidelines. So when staff are assessing it, they will then come back to a future council meeting to set what that might be. So it's not... And it is very similar to what is currently a couple of bucks, I believe.

02:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: The triathlon and the food and wine festival already contribute. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. From... How much would we want? Via ticketing. Via ticketing? Yeah. Yeah. This is about a... Well, it's based on the Great Barrier Reef model. When you go to do anything in the Great Barrier Reef, you may know or not know, you're paying an environmental lender to charge to go on a cruise, to do this, because it's a thing you contribute to the management of the reef. I believe we can make these corporate events something that you contribute a small amount to the ongoing management. It would create money for the community then to go away and work with council. And I think, yeah, in those areas that are most important. So that's the change. It was in the policy. There's no adverse reaction. I believe it is about those events as Tourism Noosa is already doing. Exercising corporate social responsibility. I just think it should be a trigger for all events, not just the ones that go through Tourism Noosa.

02:50:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Sir. Councillor Jackson: I do have a question now. So it's really a question of staff. I see Councillor Stockwell recommending an investigation of some options. Can you clarify for events, corporate events and events run for profit organisations, what they currently are being asked to do? For example, plastic free or are there any other initiatives that they're having to do? As a result of our rules and are they doing any contributions? I've just heard Councillor Wilkie suggest that some of them are. Speaker 8: That's the main one we're aware of. So Councillor Wilkie raised his Tourism Noosa and Star Trees for Tourism contribution on two of their events. Councillor Jurisevic: That's one of the resorts that actually started that, but Tourism Noosa is called Pomona. Speaker 8: At the moment, I think it's a dollar on ticket prices for those events.

02:51:00 Which is going towards programs with land care. So perhaps we may be able to piggy bank on that initiative or work in similar ways. But that's the primary one that's been introduced. Councillor Jackson: So it's two events. Is that like the food and wine? Is that what we're talking about here? Yes. And what else? And the coffee. And the coffee. Speaker 8: And the coffee. Councillor Jackson: And the coffee. And the coffee. And the coffee. And the coffee. And the coffee. Given it's your land care to do some work generically around the shop. Speaker 8: There's specific programs but it's handled between those parties, so Tourism Noosa and Land Care at the moment. So you know the intent of Brian's addition there is broader than that. So I think we need to look at where it would sit and how it would work. Brian initially talked about it sitting in the guidelines. Personally, I think that

02:52:00 We need to look at the instruments to charge, so it will require a bit of work. Councillor Jackson: Okay. And in terms of other environmental accountabilities or responsibilities of these managers who are managing these events, do they have obligations that council requires in terms of environmental impacts? Speaker 8: Yes, in relation to transport, waste and so forth, so a lot of what we require are environmental requirements. Councillor Jackson: So transport and waste are examples. Anything else? Speaker 8: Two. Councillor Jackson: That's two. So how they manage waste, how they manage transport, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And they reduce plastics. Councillor Jackson: Do they have something about plastics? Yep. It's meant to be encouraged, but it's not, we're not talking about it. Okay.

02:53:00 Thank you. Thanks for the answer. Councillor Wilkie: Move amendment. Do you have a council to speak to? Councillor Pardon: I was going to move an amendment. Councillor Wilkie: You can move. Mayor Wellington: Okay. You do your amendment. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Just remove that part, F, with regards to the charge for events. Bring it down a bit. What is it? Yeah, F. That's the official request. Amendment. Yeah. Just remove that. Request the CEO. Okay. I'll read it down. Request the CEO. Amendment. Oh. Amendment to remove that from the motion that's before me up there. Request the CEO to investigate options for environmental management charge applied to attendees of tourism events, corporate events and events run for profit organisations. That's for in section of the policy. Yeah. I'm just saying. Move amendment to remove. Councillor Jackson: Can I just check with the CEO? Mr. Councillor Pardon: Mr. Mr. Mr. Councillor Jackson: Is this allowed as an amendment as it's negating a part of the motion?

02:54:00 Speaker 2: I don't believe it's negating the adoption of the policy. It's really about what actions follow. I think it's a legitimate amendment. Okay. That's allowed. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Moving proposals . Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Well, for discussion, I'll second it. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Park. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yeah, my reasons for doing this don't have a problem with the various intent, but my reason is that... It says management charge to apply to attend people who turn up to tourism events. Let the operators come to us rather than be top down driven. This sort of motion that I see before us is top down driven. I prefer community upwards driven.

02:55:00 And so there's a message here, there's a good message as regards to environmental management. There's also another message, and I won't be spelling it out, but that's the way I see the world. And I don't like that message getting out, and I've said in the past about messages getting out of council. And so I don't want any negativity. This could be seen as a positive, and it will be by certain people, but it could be seen as a negative. And I'll be interested to hear your debate on it, given that you sit on the tourism board, Councillor Wilkie, as a rep for us with regards to policies, with regards to events, et cetera. I'll be guided by you. Sure. Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Did you ask me a question there? No, I'll be guided by you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Brown. The notion is already contained within the policy, and Part F is simply requesting further

02:56:00 investigation to bring options back to council. I don't have a problem with further investigation. It's not committing us to anything. There's no stick and paper to stick our feet on. So I'm not going to support the amendment. I'm more than happy to assume what the options are. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? That's right. Mr CEO, if you were to investigate options, would that include the option of allowing industry to determine setting their own price rather than council imposing a price? Speaker 2: That's certainly an option that could be considered. We obviously haven't thought too much about this until we get a council decision. But that's certainly one thing that could be considered. Councillor Wilkie: And councils might choose to support that when it comes to that. But the options come before us. Councillor Jurisevic: Chair. That's exactly my point. I've seen where Councillor Pardon's coming from, but investigating options does leave us open to a range of possibilities.

02:57:00 And that includes talking with the tourism operators and all the rest of the ways and means that they could be the ones envisaging this, and the opportunities that presents for them going forward. Not necessarily that it's a council imposed charge. So I welcome, as the Mayor alluded to, I welcome the opportunity to see our investigation. But if you were to investigate options, which then we can discuss at a future date, may or may not mean anything, actually it does. Councillor Jackson: I have a question. Yes. I've now looked at, I have it in front of me now, the policy, the draft of the policy, and Jay, and Jay actually does say, council may seek to establish new initiatives whereby tourism, corporate and for-profit events contribute towards local environmental management initiatives. So my question, and perhaps this is of the CEO again, is whether or not you would like to do that? Given that that's written in the policy, is there a need for writing it into our motion? Because it's written here. I mean, many things come to us through council workshops, where things have been investigated

02:58:00 without anybody saying it had to be investigated. It's obviously something that's decided it should be investigated. And, you know, I'm not really clear why we're putting it into the motion, given that it hasn't been thought through. I'm totally unclear whether this is actually going to happen. I don't know. Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with what's in the original proposal F. I'll answer that question in a double negative. Yeah. It's not inconsistent with what's in the policy. Yeah. And what it goes a little bit further and says that we look at the options about how Jay would be implemented, effectively. Councillor Jackson: Or what, the options for environmental. Is that, okay. Because I mean, in a sense, you could also, in the end, not, options just allow us to. Speaker 2: The way I read it. Yeah. The way I read the original F, which Councillor Pardon, his amendment is looking to remove, is that you're requesting the CEO to look at how paragraph J in the policy could be implemented,

02:59:00 because there are a number of ways that could be done, and to have a look at all those different options. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So, I raise the question. My reading is that if that says may, and this actually says that the CEO will, that the two don't. Speaker 2: Yeah. What F is that? F is asking is to look at the options as to how J can be implemented. Councillor Jackson: So, in that case, and I'm thinking on my feet here, I suspect I'd like to make a slight amendment to that. Speaker 2: The amendment is being considered at the moment. Councillor Jackson: Oh, there's an amendment. I'm sorry. Okay. We're an amendment to remove. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Judge, did you have something? Councillor Jurisevic: No. That was a, just to clarify, that says may, and that actually indicates that that is asking too. Councillor Glasgow: I am back in the meeting room. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Mr Chair, I can't remember. Have I spoken to you? Have I spoken to you in the meeting room? You have spoken to me. You have? No problem. Councillor Wilkie: Brian, do you wish to speak to our members?

180 minutes in

03:00:00

03:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just briefly, I understand Council Pardon's concerns about if there is a wrong message. And being top down or bottom up, can I say that since I first, when I mentioned before that I got the CEO to actually check with it, there is options here legally for us to go down. And then we got to that point about a year and a half ago. And since that time, the CEO of Tourism Noosa and his previous role within private enterprise has introduced a voluntary one, which is highly commended, showing great leadership. But it will only affect that within the ambit of Tourism Noosa's purview, whereas there are a range of corporate events. There's a range of nonprofit entities using our natural resources. And at the moment, all we do is get some of the charge to assess it. And then we get our application back. I would think that if I was paying $120 to go to a conference dinner, that $5 or $10 out of that going towards actually maintaining the beaches that I'm eating my dinner on or whatever is something that, as a conference provider, is something that you badge your event on.

03:01:00 In fact, you know, when I go on holidays, I always look for those enterprises that go the extra mile and do contribute to environmental needs. And I'll choose that provider over the one that doesn't actually badge their initiatives being sustainable and contributing towards the broader community. I also note that there's one of the things that did come out of the community after the last triathlon is that we should be getting this sort of a thing from the events to look after the spit and take out all the environmental weeds. And this is just a simple mechanism. As I said, I don't see the charge is going to be exorbitant. I see it's going to be something that can be across the board and something that council can then, whether it goes to land care, whether it goes to bush care or coast care, it allows us to show and demonstrate to the community that, yeah, we do understand that this can contribute to the management of the places they come to be doing.

03:02:00 Councillor Wilkie: Now, look, if I can just reinforce that industry is there already in terms of a major resort chain charging a dollar or so for every conference event they have, the food and wine festival, a dollar, I think it's a dollar for every, the tickets sold, and the Noosa triathlon, a dollar there, and that's generated about $20,000 already to go to land care for those projects. As the observer on the tourism Noosa board, the feeling around the table from the industry experts is that it's very well received. It gives people a good, even though it's a small amount, it gives people a good feeling that when they come to Noosa, they are contributing in some small way to the upkeep of their natural assets and keeping it beautiful. I understand your sense of that. I understand your sensitivity about this, but because it's not saying that we're going to impose anything, it's about investigating what's happening already and what we may be able to do in the future,

03:03:00 I will support keeping the lean agenda on this occasion, I'd like to do that. John. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a question for the staff. With regard to tourism community and corporate events, we know the numbers of events that are currently being staged, do we have any, do we have an accurate number of the number of attendees each year as we go through all those things? Councillor Jackson: They have to provide the number of attendees in your actual application, but it may vary slightly. Councillor Jurisevic: So we don't then get a clarification at the end of it, an event like the triathlon would have a fixed number of entries available? Councillor Jackson: I'm not sure whether they have fixed numbers, but with a major event like that, will we have a debrief? We will get information on how many actually participants, actual participants there were. Councillor Jurisevic: So we do get feedback on how many participants? Councillor Jackson: Yes, on the major events. Councillor Jurisevic: So we'd be able to, we'd be able to come up with a figure as to how many participants attend each of those functions?

03:04:00 Councillor Jackson: Yes, yeah, for tourism events, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Second question from the staff. Something along the lines of environmental management charges would be akin to a carbon offset for an airline, for example? Councillor Wilkie: I think so. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I might just say that given that I've now found that Jay does suggest this is something that could be explored, I'm not, I'm quite satisfied with the idea of just investigating because that doesn't commit to anything. I'd be interested in looking at options and whether they're viable. So I'm quite satisfied with doing that. So I'm okay with that. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Clark. Councillor Pardon: Oh, yes, Mr Chairman. Just what I was just pointing out, I guess, was don't have any problem with the councillors in the debate

03:05:00 and don't have any problem investigating. And I know we're already going there. We're already down that path. And Tourism Noosa, as you say, has already led on this particular issue. I guess what I'm highlighting here is sometimes what jumps out, and I hadn't seen this particular motion until now, and sometimes what jumps out at me is certain messages. And I guess it's the message that sometimes I think is a bit, can be dangerous. So that's why I highlighted it. But I, your debate, Mr Chairman, was so good that, you know, I think I'll vote, I'll vote with you, Mr Chairman. Speaker 2: I wish anyone had done that, sir. Oh, no. He's going to vote against his own motion. He doesn't want to lose this one. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, this is what you do in the club.

03:06:00 It's a strong, wise man who will vote against his own amendment. I'll put the, I'll put the amendment of those in favour. Thank you. Oh, sorry. It goes against the amendments lost. We go back to the original motion. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to make an amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: An F. With F, I'd like to add a couple of words. And maybe when Cathy brings it onto the screen, I can see what it is. Thanks, Cathy. Okay. There it is. So, yes, I am favouring F as an investigation.

03:07:00 But I would like to add words. In other words, CEO to investigate options for and feasibility of an environment management charge. I, okay, that's my amendment. Yeah. And I'll call, obviously, I'll speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it for a second. Goodbye. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, I'll just speak to that. I'm comfortable with investigating. I don't feel I know enough about how this would be done to want to be writing it in a way where it looks like we're committed to options. I'd prefer to have a full, you know, understanding before that got so definite. And this allows to investigate options, but also assess feasibility.

03:08:00 Okay. I don't know how that charge would work and whether it's in fact even productive. I mean, for all I know, it wouldn't actually help much. It could just be a few dollars. The big ones are already doing it. So, I would want to know more before I could feel that I could commit to saying just investigate options. But rather, I'd like to see the feasibility. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I don't have a problem with the change of wording. I expected that one to be included in the report. So, I support the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Chair? Same. I mean, I think we're adding redundancy. For the sake of adding redundancy, I would have thought investigating options would incorporate the feasibility of any environmental management charges, part and parcel of that. But for the sake of adding those words, I'm happy with it. Councillor Wilkie: Now, if councillors wish to speak to the amendment. Put the amendment those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried. The amendment now is part of the original motion.

03:09:00 All right. Only Brian has spoken to the original motion. Brian, is there any, I'll ask you a question, is there any value in signalling that, for example, an F requests the CEO to investigate options for an environmental management charge for private attendees of tourism events, corporate events, and events run by not-for-profit organisations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Runs for-profit, not not-for-profit. Councillor Wilkie: For-profit organisations, as already in practice with the Noosa Triathlon Food and Wine Festival, and as foreshadowed, no, you don't need that. You don't need that, okay. Councillor Jurisevic: One of the mayor's cabinet offices of the airline fund. Mayor Wellington: All right, let's move to the motion, yeah. I just want to congratulate staff on the work today, and I think this is a very useful piece of policy. It sets out our priorities, especially noting that public access and use of community land must take precedence over events, it allows us the opportunity to set caps, particularly in the high use area of the Hastings Street precinct, and it provides a blueprint for staff assessment of event applications.

03:10:00 One thing that surprised me, though, when we went out to public consultation, was the minimal number of submissions we received. I had expected more, given the number of times that events seemed to be the target of criticism, both in emails to me and also in letters to the local papers, yet we finished up with only 19 submissions, of which 13 were from residents. I guess we can philosophise to some degree about why that might be. One possibility is that maybe events themselves aren't the issue, but rather events are indicating a bigger problem, and people focus on events because they become a symptom of a bigger issue for them, not necessarily for everyone, but for those particular residents, about the trajectory of Noosa and about us managing our success, et cetera.

03:11:00 I just wanted to raise the fact, nevertheless, that given we went to this events policy because we thought that there was significant community concern about events, we allowed six weeks, we advertised the public consultation, and very, very few residents or community organisations decided it was appropriate or worthwhile to put in a submission. I find that somewhat telling. But, yeah, that'll do. You can respond to that. Councillor Pardon: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, also notice the lack of, yeah, people who really got stuck into or for one way or the other, because other councillors' had concerns as well from residents going forward in complaints about events.

03:12:00 I certainly remember speaking about raising the issue of road closures, and that if Council didn't have a look in the future, we would start to cop a lot more flag. I suppose I'm carroting the out of your mind. But it's kind of interesting. I think the mayor's analogy with regards to complaints and what he was hinting at is the bigger picture. Our biggest problem that we know, the biggest problem we face is traffic and transport issues. And I think the events were copying, bringing some of that stuff in to a head, if you like, when it was really in your face, when you close roads and etc. But I think the broader issue, and we can go as broad as you like. And Airbnbs across various complaints we get there. So it probably wasn't so much the events, but it was certainly the disruption, I'll say, to residents.

03:13:00 But if we didn't take policy or take issue going forward, the question was, how many events were we going to allow over time? You know, is it seven or is it... Is it 20? And all the reasons have already been spoken about with regards to, I'll call it iconic Noosa and why it's the big hook and why all the fish want to come here to do events and to make money. But I will say, in amongst all this, there's many of our people here really enjoy the events. And it's a celebration of Noosa as well. So let's not get hung up on... You know, too many events or the negativity when we should be celebrating the events. And that's what it's about. And look, it ticks every box.

03:14:00 There's the economic, as Councillor Stockwell always talks about, the economic, sorry, the environmental impacts of what's happening in Noosa, but the social and economic impacts are huge as well. I mean, this is a lot of jobs. Whether they're just part-time or full-time jobs, our cafes and restaurants certainly sweat on that. And we know the economics, especially when you get up into tries and that. It's millions of dollars injected. And I know Councillor Glasgow, he doesn't miss many events and loves them all. He just doesn't remember many on Sunday. So, look, but we needed a policy. As I say, where is the upper echelon? How many can we fit? And then we've talked about going forward about placemaking, about how we will manage these various precincts. And that's another body of work going forward. And once we get those sort of things incorporated and tied down, it'll give us a better idea of usage of those areas as well.

195 minutes in

03:15:00

03:15:00 So, but I think this is a great start. Thanks, staff, for your work. It's great. I know the amount of, what do I say, every week. Lord knows how many events. We've come into council or applications, I would say, for events. It's huge, a huge workload. So, this will help staff as well with some guidance. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Smith-Jones. Councillor Jurisevic: For me, this one's been a long time coming. It's one thing about talking the talk. And I've said it since the day I started on council. And council have finally taken the attitude towards the waste they generate for events. It's one thing to inundate the place with a lot. But a huge number of people, until you take responsibility for all the waste they generate, becomes a community impost in the community. We're at the cost of limited exposure to the landfill and all this stuff being done without being recycled and looking at all the opportunities for reducing the amount of waste that is generated.

03:16:00 Noosa is at the forefront of reduction of waste. Our policies are there. We can't turn around and expect the people to come to visit not to take a valid part in that. And having that in our events policy means that those events now take an active part in waste reduction management across the board. So, now we can hold our heads high and those events can be proudly running in Noosa and saying that, guess what? When you come to Noosa, you're not only talking the talk, but you also get to be part of the philosophy of Noosa in managing what impact you have on the local economy, on the local environment, on the local waste, and on the local community, as far as costs go, with regard to managing the waste that they generate. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'd like to commend the staff on the work done.

03:17:00 And it may be true that there are only, say, 19. 20 submissions, but if you read through each of the concerns listed in the submissions page, they do represent very real concerns from the community. And I don't know what the statistics are, but for every person who goes to the trouble of making a submission, it's something they feel very strongly about, there may be a hundred, I don't know, I don't know how many there are, there may be a hundred people who feel exactly the same way and just as powerfully about an issue. Thank you. Thank you. We are taking the submissions seriously and that's why we have a policy at the Initiation of the Mayor and council staff and councillors and the purpose of the policy is another step forward in allowing the council to come to grips with responsible stewardship required to keep Noosa a really great place for residents and visitors to enjoy and ensuring we get the balance right between the number of type of events that do enrich the community's

03:18:00 socially, culturally and economically while minimising the negative impacts on the community's natural assets, residents' amenity and waste to landfill and again I commend the staff for the work and I thank all those stakeholders, residents and businesses who took the trouble to make submissions. Thank you. Any other councillors which would speak to the motion? If the motion goes in favour? Mayor Wellington: Oh, this is right. Sorry, right. Yep. Very quick. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I take, I take Council Pardon's concerns very seriously. Concerns very serious is that the message we are sending from this policy, the message we're sending or hope to send is that we're not going to be able to do it. We want Noosa events to be successful, to engage the community, have community support and to showcase the culture of Noosa nationally and to the globe at a standard that is suitable for events nationally and to the globe.

03:19:00 The policy is about setting where we want to head and it's about creating the conditions which will have successful events going forward rather than conflict going forward. And so I take a different view than the Mayor on what 19 submissions mean. Can you imagine how many submissions we would have received if we said we want 100 events on Noosa main beach and we want to close the roads three times more often and we want to have a short-term economic funnel that we're going to get as much money out of events into this economy as possible? We would have had to ask because what the policy did is set out the reasonable cost. It set out the limits to what the community can expect from those who want to conduct events for us and for our business.

03:20:00 So it has been a little bit of the straw in terms of when you look at social media and notice to the editor, events tend to be that little straw that gets people to where their limits of acceptable change are. Are we getting to the point where, oh no, it's slightly out of balance and I think you used the right term, Councillor Wilkie, you said it's about getting the balance right. Events are mentioned both in our social strategy and our economic plan. And they do form a critical ingredient. In the 80s it was about filling great big voids in the economy during outside school holidays. We don't have those voids anymore. So now we readjust. But I do think when we look at what we've got in here is we've got the recipe to ensure that Noosa continues to have high-quality events and continues to be something that the community enjoy and doesn't create conflict. And I think that's the heart of the policy.

03:21:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Suttler. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Against? Motion's carried. We can have another short adjournment. Mayor Wellington: Mr Chair, there are people who are here, I think, waiting for us. Can I suggest we do the next item and then take a lunch break? Sure. No, okay. Alright. Alright. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is Expressions of Interest for Community Activation Level 1 at the Bridgham Beach Surf Club. We have a procedural issue to deal with first. I'll go first. Speaker 2: No, you do the decorations first. Right. Mayor Wellington: Should I wait for Councillor Stockwell to return? Speaker 2: Might be wise. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, we've got a vote to apply, so he'll be voted. Speaker 2: I'd wait. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Although he's in the similar circumstance and can't vote on this. Right. Councillor Jackson: Has he left the meeting for a reason? Speaker 2: He's not in the same scenario, is he? No. No? No. He's not looking either. I think my advice to the council would be that you would wait until Councillor Stockwell

03:22:00 will return. If you're having a declaration of a conflict of interest, all the councillors need to hear that so they can make a judgement in terms of what that issue should be, because you're going to have to determine whether or not the council will stay in the room or leave. So the only way to do it would be to wait for Councillor Stockwell to return. Just while I'm waiting for Councillor Stockwell, just to give the other councillors a heads up. Obviously, Councillor Wilkie also declared a perceived conflict of interest at the Services and Organisation Committee meeting. I assume he's going to do the same today. That will mean that you will need to appoint another chairperson to consider this while you consider that matter. Councillor Wilkie can't chair that while that matter's being considered.

03:23:00 So once Councillor Wilkie has called or made his declaration, I'll call for a nomination for another councillor to chair that matter while you're considering this issue. Councillor Jurisevic: Good bye, Mr City. Good bye, Mr City. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: So I'm declaring a perceived conflict of interest in the matter. President Barry Cottrell was a contributor to my 2016 election campaign for the Tune of Friends. He made his claim for $500 on the 17th of March 2016. I can now confirm that Mr Cottrell is not on the current committee of Ocean Lifesavers Association Inc, one of the submitters on the EOI, but I understand that he may have once held a position on that committee. Mr Cottrell does not appear to be directly a submitter on the EOI process.

03:24:00 However, he is a committee member of the Bridge and Bridge Community Association and that association appears to have some sort of loose affiliation with Ocean Lifesavers. As far as I can tell, there is no direct or indirect pecuniary benefit to Mr Cottrell arising from the decision facing us today regarding the EOI and I am aware that Mr Cottrell has written to Council seeking information about the process in relation to the EOI. I am not nor have I ever been a member of Ocean Life Saving Association Inc. nor Pridgen Beach Community Association nor Surf Life Saving Queensland. I believe I can make an impartial decision on the matter before Council, however I seek a decision by my fellow councillors as to whether or not I remain in the room for the debate and the vote. Councillor Wilkie: I too would like to... Mayor Wellington: I'll have to deal with one department. Speaker 2: He should make his declaration first because I don't think Frank can stand in the chamber.

03:25:00 I think the Chairperson should be able to make the determination. The matter has been dealt with with Tony. I think the declaration should be made. So what I'm saying is that I think my advice would be that Councillor Wilkie should make his declaration now as well and then stand aside. You then appoint another Chairperson and then you deal with each of those one at a time from that point. Speaker 8: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I too would like to declare a potential perceived conflict of interest due to receiving a $200 electoral donation from resident... Barry Cottrell for the 2016 election on the 12th February 2016. Mr Cottrell is the President of the Pridgen Beach Community Association. Pridgen Beach Community Association did not provide a donation to my electoral campaign. Pridgen Beach Community Association is not an applicant in the EOI process for the Pridgen Surf Club. PBCA is noted on the OLSO website as a supporter of the OLSO Alliance. Ocean Life Saving Association is an applicant in the current EOI process.

03:26:00 Mr Cottrell is not an executive member of OLSO. I'm not a member of the PBCA or the Ocean Life Saving Association or Surf Life Saving Queensland. I believe I can make an impartial decision on the matter before the Councillor but seek a decision by fellow Councillors as to whether I remain in the room for discussions on this matter or not. Speaker 2: So Councillor the process from here is that you would need to appoint one of your colleagues as the Chair of the meeting to deal with this matter. Which is the two declarations. And then obviously the normal process is as Councillors you can ask questions of the two Councillors and if you need more information to be able to make your determination. Those two Councillors can't participate in the debate. They can only answer questions and they can't vote on the matter either for their own or for the other Councillor because they're so similar in relation to the decision as to what type of conflict of interest it is and whether or not they should remain in the room.

03:27:00 Councillor Jurisevic: There's actually a Councillor Stockwell being appointed as the Acting Chairperson. Speaker 2: So we've got moved by Councillor Jurisevic to appoint Councillor Stockwell. And seconded by Councillor Palahniuk. Are there any other questions? Councillor Jackson: I have a question of yourself Mr CEO. Speaker 2: Does that relate to the appointment of the Chairperson? No. Oh we can do that first. I think you need to do that first. I'll do a question. So any other nominations? Otherwise I'll put the nomination that Councillor Stockwell. Chair the meeting for the purpose of this item. So this is a matter that only the remaining five Councillors can vote on. All those in favour? Against? I don't know. Do you want to run? Councillor Stockwell. It's just as easy to run this item from there I would have thought. I think so, yes. The matter's now. The matter's now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The matter's now. The matter's now. The matter's now. The matter's now. The matter's now. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. I do have a question of the CEO. Brett de Chastel, could you please explain the Local Government Act, Section 175, which is duty to report another councillor's personal and material conflict of interest at a meeting?

03:28:00 Speaker 2: Sure. The provision that was put in recently to change the Act, it actually came out of the Galkara report, primarily associated with Gold Coast City Council actually, where in that case councillors were aware of potential conflicts that other councillors had in a council meeting and said nothing. So the Galkara report identified that where a councillor is aware of a particular conflict by another councillor, they have a duty at the council meeting to identify to the Chairperson of the meeting so that the other councillors are aware of it and that that councillor who has that potential conflict, can then address it. So it pushes that obligation beyond the person who just has the conflict of interest to other councillors to raise the matter at the council meeting.

03:29:00 Councillor Jackson: And having read the Act, I see there's a clause 2A in that section which says a councillor who reasonably believes or suspects conflict of interest must provide the relevant facts and circumstances if they have that information. Is that correct? Speaker 2: I don't have it in front of me. I do. I can pick it up pretty quickly. Just bear with me. I've got it here if you want to. I always have a copy of the legislation on my PC. Councillor Jackson: It's on page 241, section 175G2.

210 minutes in

03:30:00

03:30:00 Speaker 2: Okay, so it's the councillor who has a belief or suspicion must as soon as practical inform the person who is presiding at the meeting about the belief or suspicion and the facts and circumstances that form the basis of the belief or suspicion. Councillor Jackson: Okay. And could you please also explain what happens to a councillor who does not provide relevant facts and circumstances under the legislation? Speaker 2: Sure, that's a misconduct which can be reported to the Office of the Independent Assessor. Councillor Jackson: So I understand penalty can range from having to make a public admission of misconduct or all the way to dismissal of a councillor. Speaker 2: Yeah. Dismissal I would have thought would be highly unlikely in a circumstance like that. It's more likely a misconduct and it would depend on the facts about whether there was detailed knowledge or peripheral knowledge or whatever it might be and that's what the Office of the Independent Assessor would look at.

03:31:00 Councillor Jackson: So because of the obligation under the Act, I have some factual information that I feel I need to provide to council and so I'm informing the Chair of this. And I do have documentation with me if someone is interested in seeing the full thing. So I'll need to just explain what information I have to the council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep, go ahead. Councillor Jackson: Well, we've heard that Barry Cotterell has given $200 donations to Councillor Wellington and Councillor Wilkie for their election campaigns. And I think that's a good thing. I also have a copy of Mr. Cotterell's PBCA President's Report of 11th of November 2018, which he gave at the meeting and circulated to members.

03:32:00 In that report, he wrote that in relationship to the potential for an EOI, that the PBCA, for example, could incorporate the Ocean Life Saving Foundation and seek charity status for it and otherwise set up the Ocean Life Saving Foundation. So that's actually written in the minutes of the PBCA that the Chairman has, or the President is saying that this is possibly something the PBCA will do. And it does appear to indicate a relationship between the PBCA and the Ocean Life Saving Foundation. Which later was incorporated as the Ocean Life Saving Association. A week later, after that minute from Mr. Cotterell, a week later, 18th of November, all

03:33:00 of us, including the CEO and some staff that are sitting here, and possibly some other staff who are not sitting here, received a letter signed, signatory being Mr. Cotterell and in his dual capacity signed as President Peregian Beach Community Association and Vice President Ocean Life Saving Foundation. And in that letter, Mr. Cotterell wrote that he had been elected Vice President of a newly established organization called the Ocean Life Saving Foundation, which was about to become incorporated, and that he was hopeful that Council would give the community access to the upstairs part of the Peregian Beach Surf Club building, and that the community is gearing up to take over upstairs. This letter indicated that Mr. Cotterell was an office holder at what was then called the

03:34:00 Ocean Life Saving Foundation, which was later incorporated as the Ocean Life Saving Association. And the OL, that eventual incorporated association, is an applicant to the EOI. The Ocean Life Saving Association website specifically says Ocean Life Saving Association is a community alliance, and then, of community groups, of course, and then it shows that the EOI is part of that alliance. That's part of it. So they, it's defined as an alliance, and PBCA is part of that alliance. So this information seen may suggest that PBCA in fact is party to the expression of interest.

03:35:00 I do have also something that pertains specifically to Councillor Wilkie, but if we're, are we dealing with only councillor, one councillor at a time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think proceed. Proceed, okay. Councillor Jackson: Well, I do have a copy of an update by Councillor Wilkie, which was provided to the Creegee Beach Community Association, also on 11th of November, 2018, at one of the general member meetings. And this report was then circulated to all members. Councillor Wilkie wrote a long report about council activities, and he also wrote, on issues dear to this group, I have always aimed and will continue to advocate within council and provide the information and contacts necessary to help further the PBCA's aims and

03:36:00 objectives. So that's the information I have. I'm going to stop there. Under the Act, I have to disclose information I have, and I obviously was now in the Council's decision to see what type of conflict each individual has and whether that person can stay in the group. Speaker 2: The only other information I could add to what Councillor Jackson has identified is that I did a check of who was registered on the, I think it's called the Office of Fair Trading, in terms of the Ocean Life Saving Association Incorporated. What they do there is to identify both the current and past executives on that register. So, the President is currently identified as Sharon Kerrigan, and no previous President is identified.

03:37:00 The Secretary is identified as Mary Crawford, with no previous Secretary identified. And the Treasurer is identified as Peter Currie, with no previous Treasurer identified. So they're the three that they were called on their register. Councillor Jurisevic: So do you have a date as to when that was carried? Speaker 2: As of the end of last week. Okay. I've ordered that earlier in the week. No, no, but when that change occurred. Oh, it's from the time of registration. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is, so from November. Speaker 2: Yes, it would have been the 14th of December they got their registration. The date of incorporation was the 14th of December, and there's been no change to the three names as their executives. Councillor Jurisevic: So there's been a change of personnel from the time of November of the, of being lodged to December of it actually being incorporated. Speaker 2: The date of incorporation was the 14th of December. So my suggestion would be that the Chair identifies which one of the two you want to deal with first.

03:38:00 Sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if I can just request from you, so what, what Councillor Jackson has given us some more detail behind the, the declarations, there is a, and your advice is that while in the 18th through the 11th, where it was described very as the, he described it himself. It's the Vice President that appears to be in the unincorporated entity that preceded the incorporated entity that has made the submission. Is that the? Speaker 2: Well, his name doesn't appear on the register that's in the Office of Fair Trade, which incorporated from the 12th. So that record goes from the 12th of December. Sorry, 14th of December. My mistake. 14th of December. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we'll deal with Councillor Wellington's. Councillor Jackson: May I ask a question? Mayor Wellington: Yes. I just want to point out that in my declaration, I did state that I understood that Mr. Cottrell

03:39:00 had been a previous committee member of the, the submitting organisation. And I said, in fact, that I understand he had one, maybe once held a position on that committee. And I had also noted that the Fridgham Beach Community Association had some sort of affiliation, the Ocean Life Saving Association. There was nothing in what? I don't know. Councillor Jackson: May I ask Mr. CEO a question? I see we've written the motions as a single motion saying conflict of interest and then must stay or not or leave. I think they should be separate motions because those are separate decisions. The motion hasn't been written. No, but I'm seeing a written motion and they're only seeing, it's an omnibus motion with two bits to it.

03:40:00 Speaker 2: Your question about whether or not we should have separate motions for the two councillors, that's certainly the case. Councillor Jackson: No, that's not my question. My question is should we disaggregate the single motion which talks about what kind of... Mayor Wellington: Mr. Chair, we do not have a motion before us. All that's on the screen is... The chair's over there. Oh, sorry. I'll accept your point of order. We can get to the... We don't have a motion. We cannot be talking to a motion unless a motion is being put... I'm not talking to a motion. I'll accept the point of order. I'm asking a question. Cathy's putting something on the screen so she's ready. Councillor Jackson: All right, may I ask you a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, Councillor, I'm the chair. Councillor Jackson: What? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I'm the chair. I'd like to ask a question. Yeah, so there's been a point of order. The point of order was that the question related to a notation on the screen which had no place in the meeting at this point, so I agree with the point of order. Councillor Jackson: So I'd like to ask another question, a slightly different question. Mr. CEO, when we develop a proposed motion for each of our councillors here,

03:41:00 Councillor Wilkin, Councillor Wilkin, I would recommend or would like to see two separate motions for each councillor because this is a complex matter and the first motion would be... The first one would be about what type of conflict of interest it is and the second one would be about whether, as a result, the person may stay or not in the room. Speaker 2: And your question? Councillor Jackson: Can we divide... Because the non-motion... Can we have two motions if there are one... Speaker 2: The short answer is like many things that the council deals with, there's a number of ways to do it. Historically, this is... We've put both of those together, but there is no problem if the council wishes to do so as to break those into two parts, that it's certainly within your power to do so as a councillor, or you can deal with them as one combined. As I said, historically, we have done them as one combined, but there's no difficulty in doing them separately. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. We'll leave that to when the motion is actually moved. Can we move to the motion?

03:42:00 So the... Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask another question to the other side? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You may. Councillor Jurisevic: With regards to conflict of interest in a matter, if a person's immediate family have roles and responsibilities on an organisation, would that preclude them from, or further the perception of a conflict of interest in a matter? Speaker 2: Can you explain that a bit more? Councillor Jurisevic: So, for example, I'm talking, you know, your hypothetical brother is... Say my father was a president or an executive on a committee, would that give me a perceived conflict of interest? If we were speaking for all, would that give us a perceived conflict of interest? Speaker 2: Absolutely. If they're an ordinary member, that may not, but that depends on the circumstances. As you know, these always depend on the individual circumstances. So, for example, if your father was an ordinary member, wrote a funding application for a grant or whatever, that would exclude you in that regard. But if they were just an ordinary member, had no involvement in making a grant application,

03:43:00 to take that example further, then that wouldn't necessarily exclude you from consideration of a matter. Councillor Jurisevic: May I ask a question of Councillor Wilkie then? If we are to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, we're dealing with Councillor Wellington at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: We are. We haven't... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie, I said we're dealing with Councillor Wilkie. So, the fact, as I see it, is we have an individual who has made a campaign donation. There is one step to that individual also being an executive member of the Bridging Beach Students Association. Councillor Jackson: Excuse me, speaking to a motion. Excuse me, I've got the chair. Oh, sorry, chair. Chair, point of order. You cannot speak to the motion without the... There is no motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think he's clarifying the circumstances around us. Mayor Wellington: Chair, you can speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you for the point of order. I had ruled it out of order. I was trying to establish the facts by which we then may either make a decision or ask more questions. So, the fact that it's established is that an individual has made a campaign donation.

03:44:00 That individual holds an executive position with Bridging Beach Community Association. Bridging Beach Community Association had some form of loose or, I don't know what it's called, alliance with the applicant. The Bridging Beach Community Association, neither the Bridging Beach Community Association nor the Ocean Surfly Saving Association has made any campaign donations that have been made apparent to us. So, we're dealing with a perceived conflict that relate, or a potentially perceived conflict that relates to an individual making... Point of order. Councillor Jackson: You are making judgments. You are making judgments about this information which you are not in a position to make. Only the council can make that judgment on the basis of a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did correct myself. I said either a perceived or conflict of interest. I am trying to establish the context within which councils have to make a decision.

225 minutes in

03:45:00

03:45:00 So, I will accept your point of order and try and make sure that I keep to establishing the facts upon which we can ask further questions or to vote on the motion. Thank you. So, the conflict arises from the perceived or real conflict arises from an individual making a personal decision and whether that is sufficient to be real in terms of the established links between the applicant and the councillors involved. So, councillors. Do we have any further questions? Or would you like to... Anyone wish to move a motion in regard to Council Wellington? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move a motion that Council Wellington has perceived conflict of interest and that you may remain in the room to participate. No, we do want to... Councillor Jackson: Oh, you want to do the whole thing.

03:46:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm moving the motion. I'll second it. I'm not doing it in two parts. I'm moving it in one. It's my motion. Yeah. And it may remain in the room to participate in the vote. And vote on this matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, Councillor Glasgow, you seconded it? Yeah. Do you wish to talk to that motion, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I believe... Well, you'll like it. Yes, I will. Look, I understand the association to be proceeding daily, that the... Whilst it was contributed, the links towards between the organisations, as has been pointed out by the CEO, is not at any executive level. So, I don't believe that, technically, the links between the organisations, as has been pointed out by the CEO, exist in this matter, even though Mr Cockrell may or may not be a member of OLSA. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I've put the motion. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson? Actually, I do. I want to ask... Councillor Jackson? I want to ask a bit of a question, again, of the CEO. This differentiation between real conflict and perceived, I always find that a bit confusing.

03:47:00 Can you explain that a little more? Speaker 2: Sure. Sure. As soon as you get to what I call a real conflict scenario, there's no choice. You must leave the room. No, that's material. And it can be for real as well. Oh, yeah? When you get... And the same is for material, by the way, because that's essentially a financial benefit to the individual. Where it's perceived, it may be perceived on a graduated scale, where something is so significant that councillors can still decide it's perceived and should leave the room, or perceived and stay. So it is a thing you need to make the first determination about, is whether it's perceived or real. And then the second is, if it's perceived, should they stay in the room or should they go? Mayor Wellington: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. CEO, but material personal interest is about to become a declared personal interest. So we'll have to change our nomenclature. Speaker 2: Please. The legislation before Parliament at the moment, you might recall, which is called the El

03:48:00 Carro Stage 2. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll just say that in my view there's probably enough evidence in front of us to say that there is probably a relationship between the applicant and the Peregian Beach Community Association. However, I think that neither the Peregian Beach Community Association nor the Ocean Surf by Saving have made a contribution to the campaign and you can't link the individual contribution of a member, even though they are executive, to the actual groups or groups that they may or may not be involved with. So for me it's a perceived conflict of interest and I have no trouble with the council of all gentlemen remaining in the room to support the motion.

03:49:00 Anyone else wish to close? I put the motion. All those in favour? Those against? Now Councillor Jurisevic, we'll move on to Councillor Wilkie and you have a question of Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jurisevic: I do, Councillor Wilkie. My recollection is that your parents have had an association with the Peregian Beach Community Association and or other entities involved in the OLS application in the past. I'm just wondering whether those relationships are still ongoing and whether they hold any executive roles. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic, look, neither of my parents held any role as a member or otherwise with OLSA. My mother is a member of the Peregian Beach Community Association as is Councillor Jackson.

03:50:00 Councillor Jackson: She doesn't hold an executive position. Excuse me, I'm no longer a member but I have been a member as you have been for a long time. Councillor Wilkie: My father was president. You're referring to my late father. Who passed away in May 2017, well before this issue ever arose. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'm not a member of the Peregian Beach Community Association. The Peregian Beach Push Care Association are also mentioned in the OLSA development. Councillor Wilkie: It's a subgroup of the Peregian Beach Community Association. Councillor Jurisevic: I just wanted to clarify what the current situation is. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any other questions of Councillor Wilkie? Speaker 2: Am I allowed to? No, I need to respond to questions. Okay. I'll move it. I'll second it. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're moving the same approach as we did for Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Pardon: Yes. I'll second the same.

03:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have anybody who wishes to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, given that the conflict appears to be identical, I'll move it. I'll call to Councillor Wellington so that no member of Councillor Wilkie's family are associated in any executive role in any entity. I'm happy to support the perceived conflict of interest that he arranged in the debate on that. Councillor Pardon: Just for this Councillor, Councillor Pardon, with regards to these matters, as I've always said, councillors will live and die by their own statements and what they present to council. So if councillors present that they have this perceived conflict of interest and wish to participate in the debate, then I will always support those councillors.

03:52:00 As I said, it's up to the councillor. If down the track something untoward comes out, well, that's going to affect that councillor. So that's, councillors, we know the rules and if we don't apply them in the future, we'll wear the consequences. So on that basis, I'm happy for this motion to be supported. Councillor Jackson: So yeah, I'm going to be not supporting the motion because I think there's additional evidence in relationship to Councillor Wilkie that indicates a special relationship with the councillor. And I think there's no doubt that the Peregian Beach Community Care Association, and I think there's no doubt that the Peregian Beach Association has been party to the application, although this could of course be tested. Yeah. So I would not be supporting this motion. And I will have my name recorded to that effect.

03:53:00 I didn't ask for the vision. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm happy to support the motion on that. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie, the report you gave talked about supporting the objectives of a community association. I'm sure many of us have made similar commitments in the past and would hope that many elected councillors would be saying exactly the same thing for a range of community organisations. It doesn't suggest he comes to this debate with any preconceived notions. He hasn't made a specific commitment, in my view, towards the support of the community Anyone else? Okay. I wish to close. Those in favour of the motion? Those against? And Councillor Jackson voted against. And I will grab the meeting back to Councillor Luton.

03:54:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Ex-Chair. Now, Councillors, do you have any questions of staff about the recommendation for the expressions of interest item? Welcome Dennis and Michael again. Which? What are we looking at? We're looking at the next item, which is the expressions of interest for community activation at the Fischer Beach Surf Club. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm asking the question because there had been a change circulated. Yes, there is. And Part D? Part D, I have suggested the addition of the words with any future long-term trustee lease to explicitly prohibit the installation and operation of gambling machines or gambling facilities. Mayor Wellington: So that's only sitting there pending in case someone chooses to move it? I'm happy to move it if that opens it up.

03:55:00 Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for the motion? Yeah, I'll second. Seconder, Councillor Powell. Councillor Jackson: I have to ask the CEO a question in relationship to this motion. Yesterday, all of us councillors and yourself received a letter from Barry Cotterell. Get them all into it. Which specifically put forward a number of recommended conditions that should be put to the trustee lease in the future. I am questioning the procurement probity, or probity, of that email and also of now something appearing on the email. As a motion, which was included in the letter that came from Mr Cotterell.

03:56:00 Speaker 2: So your question is? Councillor Jackson: Is there a probity issue here, given that we have no legal opinion on whether Mr Cotterell, who signs himself as the President of PBCA, is actually breaching the EOI requirements by writing us that email and whether there's a probity issue with that influencing and now appearing as a part of the motion? Speaker 2: I can answer the first part pretty quickly by delegating it to Dennis. There's a question about probity and exclusion of tenderers. It's whether or not they are lobbying in relation to an issue as opposed to putting a question in relation to a process or putting forward some observations. Is that a process? I understand we've got advice from our probity auditor in relation to that. Speaker 8: Well, mid last week there was correspondence about the process in regard to the strategic plan that's referred to in the report for the SLSSC proposal.

03:57:00 And so it was a process question around the availability of that strategic plan to the councillors in making their decision. So we sought probity advice on that specifically. That correspondence was mid last week. And the probity advisor confirmed that they were happy it wasn't lobbying to do with the outcome. It was a process question in relation to something that came through yesterday. I've not read or sought probity advice about that. Councillor Jackson: I have the letter here, but that letter was not about process. It was putting forward a request to put certain conditions on... Speaker 2: I think the letter related to a request to put some conditions on the permit.

03:58:00 Obviously, council has standard conditions that it would apply. We have a large range of different leases across the community. We apply standard conditions. We have standard conditions on those. So that's what the staff would be doing. Councillor Jackson: But the letter, which is here, two and a half pages, has a set of conditions requested to be included as part of the lease. And one of them includes not having gambling poker machines. So this appears to have come after this letter has been written to us. Speaker 2: I can't answer in relation to timing because I don't know that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I clarify the issue? I'd like to point out, and I think the suggested change was even circulated before that letter came in. That's true. On the 4th of July, I sent an email to the two gentlemen at the end, and it says, I know that Councillor Jackson has asked for another item to go to the general.

03:59:00 Could you please assist by preparing appropriate wording for an addition to your recommendation, which would, one, add a clause to the lease agreement which specifically prohibits the installation of any gambling machine or facility. So predating by... 10 days. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wellington? In any case, just for clarity, Mr CEO, during an EOI process, the actual submitters cannot lobby councillors, but there is nothing to stop any other member of the public from lobbying councillors on a decision such as this, as long as they're not a submitter. Is that not correct? Speaker 3: That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: We haven't got legal advice on whether he is a submitter because PPCA, in fact, is part of the alliance of the submitters. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't think the councillor has long held a... That's a long-standing belief, and it wouldn't have had any bearing anyway. Councillor Jackson: But I'm happy with Councillor Stockwell's response. I think that clarifies that. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic: I will. Sorry, can I ask a question of staff report, if Councillor Stockwell indulges you?

240 minutes in

04:00:00

04:00:00 Can I just clarify, through staff, that the conditions of a three-year trustee permit do not prohibit commercial activities operating in any part of the building? Speaker 8: It's not explicit that the three-year permit that we're offering would exclude commercial activities at this point. Councillor Jurisevic: So if a restaurant or bar facility were to... The re-establishments have been there in the past, that wouldn't be precluded? Speaker 8: Well, I can say as part of the building, yes. I can say as part of the assessment panel that assessed the material that that is not part of the strategic plan in establishing the club over the three-year term. Councillor Jurisevic: So there's no... It may... Okay. Not within the immediate three-year term. Okay. That's right. They haven't given any indication to undertake those sort of activities. Speaker 8: They would be... Following that. They would be beyond that.

04:01:00 Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Not within the first three-year term. Thank you. That's all I know, at least. Thank you. Councillor Scotland. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm happy to support this motion and the small amendment I'll get to at the end, a small addition to the staff recommendation at the end I'll get to. I think it's important to put this in context. We called for this expression of interest with an aim to try and resolve this issue so that it didn't continue to create a lack of cohesion in the Peridgian community. I think that the Surf Life Saving Queensland is a good organisation to bring about what hopefully is an even more significant rejuvenation of Surf Life Saving, a facility. But at the same time, I also strongly support the notion in the report that there'll be opportunities for community to utilise the upstairs at times when it's not required Surf Life Saving. I think always the best outcome is to maximise utilisation of our resource and there should

04:02:00 be plenty of opportunity for the nature of uses that were suggested by Ocean Surf Life Saving to be incorporated where that doesn't conflict with its operation as a surf club. So I think that will hopefully lead to a more cohesive community and one that shares from this facility both an aspiration to teach our community. We are also looking at how to engage with young people about how to swim safely in the ocean, to also protect those who are within the banks, and also to create a vibrant hub for the local community in a not-for-profit situation. Now the long-term lease aspect, the gambling aspect is, I even think we may have put that in part of the terms of reference for the OI from memory, it is, I think, something that we should roll out in every country.

04:03:00 Councillor Pardon: I support this motion. Speaking right back, I said this is a surf club, was a surf club, is a surf club. So I'm happy that it's going to remain a surf club for all the reasons Councillor Stockwell talked about, especially, you know, the hundred odd nippers training. And speaking more I've learned about nippers, me being a North Queensland boy, I was never a nipper. You go in up there, the crocodiles or sharks get you, but down here, it's just the sharks. So the... Councillor Jurisevic: Is that a croc? Councillor Pardon: That could be a croc, mate. Well, it could be, in North Queensland we have box jellyfish and a mountain of problems up there.

04:04:00 But yeah, nippers and the training they do, if you look at a lot of nippers that are growing up these days, the business people teach them teamwork, those type of things. And they tend to be, the discipline of being a nipper, they tend to be great citizens. If you look across the Shire, because there's many of them still here and many of them running great businesses, but there's also many that have left the Shire and very successful people. So I believe it's a great program, but on top of that, we need lifesavers for obvious reasons, to save lives. So I'm happy with the motion. I'm also happy with the intent to share this facility. And that's what Surf Lifesave in Queensland has proposed, to share it when they're inactive or when they've got room. And I imagine for a while they'd have various opportunities for other people to use it.

04:05:00 It's a shame really, some of the angst that's gone on and I won't get into it, I never got into it. Was there angst? Angst? Well, I pick up a few, I've read a few emails and newspaper clippings, et cetera, et cetera, that ran across this whole saga. But as always, I'm a positive person and I want to move forward and that's what today is about. Moving forward. So I think it's a great outcome for Peregian and a great outcome for the Noosa Shire itself. And I look forward to seeing the progress down there of this surf club and I hope it grows. And also Council's commitment. I mean, it's our building, we've got to spend a lot of money going forward to actually get this building up to repair. There was various questions about, I've seen in emails about compliance and that. Well, many of our buildings don't comply with regards to disability access and that.

04:06:00 You need lifts in various stories and you could refer to butter factories and other buildings across the Shire. But they predate a lot of legislation in these buildings and that's why a lot of them don't comply. So there's a raft of expenses going forward for Council. But I just hope the new entity can get crackling and get enough money to keep going. I mean, we talk about, I'm not talking about gambling. I think I agree with Council of Stockwell, not that I'm a wowser, but I think the country's, if we look at the big picture and what's going on with Woolworths and Coles, we see the whole country's inundated with poker machines, billions of dollars spent and wasted, I believe. So I won't talk about that. But there's other economic opportunities, cafes and raffles and various ways that sporting clubs, the footy clubs, get on with our poker machines.

04:07:00 So I think this is a good result all around. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Parker. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I actually have a couple of questions. Not of the CEO. One question is, at the March meeting, I proposed seeking legal advice, but that was not agreed to. And the legal advice was about, I don't know what the legal advice was. It was about whether, in fact, the upper floor could have been leased to a community group, given the gazetted CERF life-saving purpose. And I've noticed in your report that under the OLSA option, it says tenure options for that proposal would require consultation with the Department of Natural Resources Mines Energy determined if the state government would agree to the lease proposed by OLSA. Is that correct? Yes. Can you explain what information you sought? I don't know if you sought legal advice, or whether you sought advice from the Department

04:08:00 about this matter? Speaker 6: No, we didn't seek legal advice. And as we mentioned in the report, we would be discussing with the Department to sign off on any tenure. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So there was no discussion with the Department? Speaker 8: So based on the model that was put forward by OLSA. One of the primary options would be a lease as opposed to a permit. So a trustee permit is for the purpose of the reserve. A lease could be proposed with sign off by the state. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I see. Is that what this is? It doesn't say that here, but yeah, I see. Speaker 8: So that's one of the options. Councillor Jackson: So you had no information from the Department at all about this use? Speaker 8: Well, we're aware of those options under the Land Act. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Okay. I see. Okay. Okay. And now I do have another question, and it's something that I circulated previously to you. And that's in relationship to the third dot point, where it's...

04:09:00 I think it's the third dot point. I'm not reading this stuff. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Oh, yeah. It says, the third dot point says, agreeing that opportunities for ratepayer financial support... I'm reading this, so people know what it is. Financial support are by application through its community grants to the state. And no commitment is provided by council for direct ratepayer capital investment in identified or submitted strategic plan. Now, I've actually had a look at the council's grants that have been given out, community grants that have been given out over the last three years. And I found that community grants ranged, for infrastructure, ranged from about $2,500 to about $30,000. And I do understand, from your staff report, that community grants have ranged from about

04:10:00 I have, however, also had a look at our Council budgets over the last three years, and I found there have been larger amounts spent, for example, Noosa Gymnastics Club at Bicentennial Hall for infrastructure, 100,000 by Council, clearly the Cooroy Memorial Hall, 192,000 by Council, re-stamping Wallace House is in the budget for 88,000, and yeah, we've done things like Timbirwa Hall Flooring Renewal, 50,000. Now, none of these were distributed as grants, so there was some other process there where these Council buildings, where Council is trustee or owns the building, were contributing this money for capital works to, you know, more repair, or whatever.

04:11:00 Speaker 6: I think you've nailed it on the head there, that capital, a lot of those were Council assets, and under our policy, or our internal policy, we look after our assets, we renew when they need renewal, because obviously some of these groups, our tenure arrangements support internal maintenance of those facilities. Any structural works, generally, or significant internal works, Council comes to the party and funds those. Look, some of the significant ones, like you mentioned, the Gymnastics Club, that's a unique one. They sought significant funding for that, that's an upgrade, they, the 100,000 in question was actually, they're repaying that through their lease arrangement with Council, which is more of a commercial lease than a $304 community lease. Which would be the case here. The Cooroy Hall, there's a whole different kettle of fish all together, so I probably don't even need to go into that, in terms of the fact that it's not Council's asset,

04:12:00 and there was 50% funding put forward by the community in Cooroy, so there's, but generally, to your point, is a lot of the things that hit our capital program for community buildings are Council's buildings. Councillor Jackson: And this is... Speaker 6: And the renewal. Councillor Jackson: How is this fit for it? Speaker 6: So, you know, these are upgrades, suggested upgrade works. Councillor Jackson: They're suggested upgrades? Speaker 6: Yeah. So, you look in my advice to Councils last Thursday, they're talking here about the expansion of amenities, disability access, which Councillor Pardon sort of pointed to before regarding potential changes in current levels of service, current standards. Downstairs work, in terms of building a first aid room, communications room, fuel storage

04:13:00 Councillor Jackson: But that's not capital works, you're knowledge of something else. Speaker 6: No, I'm talking about that the works would potentially support a professional mid-week lifeguard service. So if you're talking about a communications room and so on, that would sort of fall into that remit. So that's why it was getting a little bit grey here in terms of the requirement for the upgrade works specifically to grow the membership base, which is what one of the strategic initiatives that was put forward to activate the new CERT club. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify, where significant works are required for council-owned facilities or council-operated facilities, the trustee-owned facilities, council has in the past found the funds for significant works outside of the ground frame? Speaker 6: For council buildings? Yes. For renewal works, yes. Councillor Jackson: So this is a council building? Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Jackson: And so for renewal?

04:14:00 Speaker 8: So the example would be the Hall of Pomona where they had the roof issue out there. The roof, yes. Councillor Jackson: So I'd like to just make a minor amendment to that dot point, the third dot point. Because it doesn't really talk about renewal or upgrade, it just talks generally. Okay. I'll just wait until Cathy's brought it through. Thank you, Cathy. So what I would like to add, after the word, oh, you're not quite ready. After the word grants program, the community grants program, I would like to add, or through other normal council processes.

255 minutes in

04:15:00

04:15:00 And after the word provided by council, I would like to add, so no commitment for other council, within the terms of this EOI process. Speaker 8: No? I think you mean within the terms of the offered permit. That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Because we're setting aside the . Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay, sorry. Thank you for that. So it's within the term. Thank you, Dennis. Thanks. Is it, and it's permanent, this stage, yeah. So, yes, let's exit. So I'll move that amendment. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Does someone wish to second the amendment once you've resumed it?

04:16:00 No. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Cousin Jackson, I'll second it, so I'll give you an opportunity to speak to it, and you can help us understand it. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, thank you. All right. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll just speak to that, and I'm actually using wording that I found in the actual staff report. The staff report on page, whatever, 24, said the submission indicated a notional need for Council to invest in significant building upgrades during the three-year permit timeframe. However, the panel considered this would fall outside the terms of the process. Yeah, but we've changed that to suit the situation.

04:17:00 And normal Council processes should apply should SSC be offered a permit. And so I'm suggesting adding that wording, which is the way it was written in the staff report, so that it doesn't... necessarily limit sort of assistance only to the grants program, which from what I have seen is quite limited in opportunities for funding. That it opens the possibility of other normal Council processes as stated in the report. And furthermore, I'm suggesting that we... because this motion is focused on the permit, not on the rest of whatever we do,

04:18:00 that it's specified that we, in this motion, where we're talking about the permit, that... I've lost it, Cathy, it's not there. Oh, that we, that within the terms of this permit, we are not committing to this investment. Yeah. Okay. That's, that's... Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Now, if councillors wish to speak to... Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I can't support it. It's redundant. The, the, the, the... What the Council, Council is inferring is that our normal Council processes need to be documented out in an amendment when they're part and parcel of the way the Council already operates. The motion that's put before us already incorporates that in the fact that the, the, the opportunities are there for ratepayer financial support by application and that maintenance of the building is being conducted by, by Council where necessary. The, the, the, the amendment is just an amendment for the sake of an amendment.

04:19:00 I'm sorry, I can't support it. It's just... Councillor Jackson: May I ask Councillor Joe Jurisevic what, what it is he's referring to there? Because you've referred to a couple of things. You're talking... You've referred to examples of something else. Councillor Jurisevic: You've quoted... Yeah. ...through the report... Yeah. ...that we already undertake maintenance and facilitation through other Council processes. Councillor Wilkie: I didn't quote that. You did. Councillor Jurisevic: You quoted it straight out of the report... Councillor Jackson: ...and you put it into the... It says that's the way to... It doesn't say that. It says there is... Councillor Wilkie: Okay, Jo, do you wish to speak? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And the report clearly states that that is normal Council processes. We don't have to then take that out and quote normal Council processes in an amendment. It's normal Council process. I'm not seeing those words in an amendment. I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: I can take it. You're not supporting it. I'm not supporting it at all. You can have a go. Okay, any other Councillors wish to speak on that?

04:20:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand what Councillor Jackson was trying to do is that it may have been perceived that by just referring to grant applications that there wasn't other opportunities to look at upgrades. I understand what Councillor Jurisevic is saying as well. That doesn't have to be the case. I'm not supporting the motion because it's normal Council process. So I'm neither here nor there on the amendment. It's stating the obvious, I suppose. Councillor Glasgow: I won't be supporting the motion either. I'm sorry. It's like Councillor Jurisevic said. It's in the... It's already there. It's plain black and white. It happens already. We're just clunkifying it. And it's in red. So it's red tape. It's red. It's red tape. It's just clunkifying it even more. So it's already a process. I can't support it. I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Clunkifying it. Is that a word? It's a neologism. I'm making a note of that. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment?

04:21:00 Councillor Jackson, Mr Clarke. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will clarify. And I guess perhaps unusually amongst Councillors, I've actually studied law when I've done my Masters. I... Every word that is written in our motions has a legal meaning. And if we only say grants, and it is very clearly written that way, we are actually limiting opportunity. The reason I'm adding an additional bit of wording is because if you don't write it in there, it's not in there. And that is how legal things work. So I'm... I'm sorry. But I actually think it's very important to write things exactly and have the meaning clear so that later when those of us who are here are no longer here, but someone else is, and they're reading the motion and saying, well, what are we supposed to do?

04:22:00 Then it's very clear what it is that Council agreed to. And I think to say that it's redundant and we do it anyway. I've heard that quite a bit today. And really, if it's not written down, it's not legal. It's not tied down. And people... It can be lost. So that's why I'm putting it there. I think it's very important for Council to be very clear on what they intend. Councillor Wilkie: All right. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? Amendment's carried. Amendment becomes part of the motion to which... The motion is carried. Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Pardon have spoken. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. Now that we get there. Look, I think this is the outcome that we're all... For all intensive purposes was the hope that ultimately we're going to get a breaching

04:23:00 of the beach surf club empty. And the likely and most honourable empty to facilitate that is Surfly Soap in Queensland. And I think we're going to get a breaching of the beach surf club empty. That's not to belittle or begrudge any of the work done by the members of the Noosa Head Surfly Soapy Club over the years to maintain the facilities down there, maintain the services down there. And I commend the efforts of all of those members in facilitating that service up to this point. But it's time that we get a Peregian Beach Beach Surf Club standing on its own two feet. And this is the way forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Joe. Anyone else? No. Jess. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. I think this is... I think this is a great step forward. It's very short-sighted to think that Peregian Beach's not going to need a surf life-saving facility function in the next five or 10 years. It's very, very short-sighted. It's great that we've come to this conclusion. I won't even go into the talk about... Is it red? Is it just gone? There was a bit at the end about gambling machines and...

04:24:00 Still there. Still there? That's... Okay. Don't talk about that. I won't even go into that... Into the state of that we've put in there. We've had numerous amounts of workshops on here telling us that poker machines are the devil. And I agree that they are corrupting our society. But you've had to chuck in that little bit at the end of it that says... Where is it? Gambling... Speaker 7: Parking. Councillor Glasgow: Gambling facility. I don't know about you, but the old tab on a Saturday at the Noosa Surf Club is pulling in some pretty big numbers of the guys going there and we even had the guy sit down at this table and himself was saying, it's not the conventional horse racing and the kink and the kino and the dish lickers being the dogs. It's these poker machines. So we had to chuck in that little gambling facility, which to me doesn't sit that well with me at the moment. But I agree that, as Councillor Pardon said, football clubs will manage to get by as they do. And you can hit a pitching wedge and go along with Peregian Beach Pub and put a bet on the horse if you want. So like I said, it's a great step forward and I'm proud this is finally happening with kino.

04:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you, Jess. Councillor Blakeney wants to speak? No, thanks. Okay. Can I speak? Yeah. Councillor Johnson. Thanks. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Well, over the last few weeks, there's been very hazardous surf conditions and high winds, swell and currents, and some of you have experienced it and some of us have heard it on the radio. Noosa News reported that the conditions saw 22 swimmers rescued at Noosa Main Beach in just one weekend, compared to 24 across the Sunshine Coast. In April, the Sunshine Coast reported Sunshine Coast had 66 surf rescues, with a flash rip at Noosa Main Beach saw 12 people. So these are just brief snapshots. But this goes on all the time, and thanks to our Surf Lifesavers and Surf Lifesaving Clubs, people's lives are saved. And I think that is wonderful work, and I know the people are very dedicated.

04:26:00 Surf Lifesaving, I'm very happy with the outcome because I really think that having a Peregian Beach Surf Club is something that was intended by the gazetted purpose in the past. And it's something that is needed by the community and by the people that swim there. There's already good things happening, nippers got established there, and I know that is a terrifically supported group. And those nippers, they're nippers now, but later they grow up and they become our lifesavers. So it's such an important thing that every club has the opportunity to grow that. And into the future, not just for now. So I'm very satisfied, I'm also happy with the information in the staff report saying that the SLSQ Sunshine Coast will be happy to make the facility available to other community

04:27:00 groups. And I'm delighted that this is the new beginning for a revived and hopefully successful Peregian Beach Lifesaver Club. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I support the motion and commend the applicant Surf Life Saving Queensland for agreeing last year to take over the surf club permit in response to a highly divisive campaign to build a bigger surf club on the dunes. The upper floor of the building has been vacant for many years now with councillors and staff receiving many requests and ideas during that time as to how it could be used. For this reason, I also commend the council staff and fellow councillors for hosting an expressions of interest process as the fairest and most transparent way to identify the groups The genuine will, resources and capacity to activate the Surf Club building on the existing Peregian Beach Surf Club lease site for the benefit of the wider Peregian Beach community. Offering SLSQ Sunshine Coast Branch a permit with conditions reflecting their state of commitment to move rapidly towards re-establishing and affiliating a new Peregian Beach Beach Surf

04:28:00 Club entity offering nippers and volunteer life saving which all the community supports will deliver benefits the community collectively wanted all those years ago. But it's SLSQ's magnanimous commitment to offer community groups like the Ocean Life Saving Association shared access to the top floor as operations allow that on face value offers the greatest opportunity to heal the rift in the community and guarantee the long term success of the club. It gives SLSQ Sunshine Coast Branch the opportunity to embrace and be embraced by the heart of Peregian Beach with the Ulster Alliance supported by many long standing Peregian Beach businesses, marine life carers, coastal clean up and re-vegetation groups, academics and the community kindergarten all dedicated to supporting the nippers and fostering a more integrated understanding of Peregian Beach's magnificent beach and ocean environment in the next generation. Some may lament the time it has taken to get to this point but over that period the Peregian Beach

04:29:00 community has become infinitely more informed of the pivotal role the Beachfront Surf Club plays in the cultural community. And more informed about Peregian Beach Beach Surf Club. With the safety assurances the professional council funded lifeguards provide all year round and the valuable role the volunteer life savers have played at Peregian Beach on the Saturdays during the season from September to May, Peregian Beach was never ever going to be without surf protection or have an unsafe beach, no matter what happened. The unprecedented issue has also created the time and space to allow the rise of an extraordinary community alliance which has the potential to make Peregian Beach Beach Surf Club a hybrid model of other Australian coastal communities. In a time when we have never known more about climate change and the impact of humans, especially our plastic waste, on marine ecosystems. The clarity offered in the conditional permit to affiliate a Peregian Beach club and offer other groups shared use of the building as operations allow seemed unthinkable even one year ago.

270 minutes in

04:30:00

04:30:00 Because of what has happened in the past and the community's collective hopes for the future of Peregian Beach, there will be considerable interest in how the club will be run. I pledge full support to all partners involved in this effort. All parties who are genuinely committed to working together in good faith to make all aspects of this new arrangement succeed and prosper. An invitation and hope extended many years ago that all parties, stakeholders and council work together to create an inclusive village scale club on the existing site for the betterment of all the Peregian Beach community still remains. I fully support the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair. Yes. We'll make a little correction on the screen with Cathy. You've got subject to the permitti in B. I think when making some changes in B, at the end of B, it says subject to the permitti. Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the permitti. Sorry. I thought it was a typo. My apologies. Sorry.

04:31:00 I just looked at it. I just looked at it. Sorry. I just wanted to clarify that. Good scramble. Councillor Wilkie: Any further clarification, councillor? All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I will defer to councillor Wilkie's excellent summation of the issues and use that as my response as well. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor. I'll put the motion as in favour. Those against? The motion is carried. Councillors, we're not even halfway through today's agenda. Oh my God. That's why. That's why. That's why. That's why. Mayor Wellington: That's why. That's why. But I wouldn't, we do need to call a short break. So how long? Speaker 2: Can I suggest you actually have a motion to defer for a set time? I'll move. And make it about 20 minutes or something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll go into speech. How long do you want? I'll defer till 3 o'clock? Yeah, 3 o'clock. A adjournment at 3 o'clock. Moved. Councillor Stockwell.

285 minutes in

04:45:00

04:59:00 Thank you. Thank you. We are now back on item 6, which is the LGAQ Annual Conference proposed motion, Utility Relocation Costs and Custody Solicited. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, Mr Chair, I'd like to move a motion of deferral of this bill, the Thursday ordinary meeting, forward to give staff time to review a recommendation and add a little bit more information to the recommendation.

300 minutes in

05:00:00

05:00:00 Councillor Glasgow: We are seconding that. Seconded by Councillor Gloucester. Councillor Wilkie: We'll talk to you if there's a reason why you'd like it. Councillor Jurisevic: I think I've already done that. Okay, all right. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Gloucester, speak to the motion. Deferral of motion. Those in favour? Against? Carry. Okay, next item is the Annual Conference proposed cost policy motion for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I'm happy to move. Move Councillor Stockwell. Only seconders for this motion. I'll second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, one on the General Committee, I'm on the agenda in front of you, sorry. It's item 7, direct to General Committee. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington has rejoined the meeting. Councillor Stokoe. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Councillor Stokoe? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do, and I thank the CEO for putting this on the agenda and to continue to work collaboratively

05:01:00 with the Council from today. We're all aware that the Kabi Kabi of Gungawee people from this location were forcibly removed. Many of those did go to Sherburg, so there's a whole lot of apical lines that flow from this place through to the community of Sherburg, and I think it's both a generous offer for them to come to us and for us to support their call for the Uluru Statement. I think it's important that the local government as a whole advocate to the federal government that for us to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship with the traditional owners and first people of this continent, that the constitution needs to recognise their prior ownership and their ongoing relationship with land.

05:02:00 And I do believe that what we can do here is just a small step that links to those major businesses who have already committed to the Statement, and it is something that will help bring attention to what is a well-overdue constitutional, I suppose, oversight, it probably wasn't an oversight, it was probably deliberate at the time, but is now no longer in keeping with modern values of Australia. Thank you. I actually think that when Australia becomes a republic, we should really consider about how this country was governed before Europeans found the place. I actually think that we should learn from the American experience and avoid the problems that presidents can create. And perhaps what we should consider in the constitution is a council of elders in a ceremony

05:03:00 role sitting above the parliament. So, to me, I wholeheartedly support the request and the proposal as enunciated in the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockman. Councillor Wharton, Councillor Hyner. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, look, it appears that the federal government is somewhat divided on this issue, just as they were on same-sex marriage, in fact. On the one hand, we've got Ken Wyatt, the Minister of Social Development, and on the other hand, the Minister for Indigenous Australians supporting a referendum on recognising First Nation people in the constitution. And yet, on the other hand, we have colleagues of his, like Craig Kelly, saying they think the idea is too divisive. Meanwhile, other government representatives, including our Prime Minister, are doing their usual trick of exaggerating the debate by suggesting the Uluru Declaration would result in a third tier of federal government, or a third chamber. Yet, that's not what the statement from the heart calls for. It calls for, quote, a First Nation's voice, a Makarrata commission.

05:04:00 The commission is not a new tier of government, it is a consultative and investigative body, not a third chamber. But, you know, we live in hopes. Imagine if our parliamentarians could actually count a bipartisan agreement on this matter. I think a considerable amount of healing would take place if the entire parliament could actually come as one, and accept the fact that it's in no sense for Indigenous people, and it's in no sense for Indigenous people, and it's in no sense for Indigenous people, to have the right to be heard on matters that affect them. I mean, being heard on matters that affect individuals simply makes sense. If the LGAQ can assist in bringing this about, and I think this is a very worthwhile proposition, then it's wonderful that we can stand with Shireburg Council at this year's conference and put this forward. I'd like to congratulate our former director of community service, Fox Rogers, who, in fact, brought the matter to Council's attention, and the CEO of the LGAQ. Thank you.

05:05:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor. Councillor Parr. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Just a question to the CEO. With regards to the statement from the heart, would, does, well, could you just explain it, what it means? Sure. The earlier statement from the heart arose out of a conference that occurred across Speaker 2: Australia, where, you know, a couple of years ago, a couple of years ago, a couple of years ago, the two different indigenous groups got together and eventually brought that to a, what's the right word, a central point where there was a debate about what statement the indigenous community wanted to make. They've done well to get a statement down to one page. That's attached to the report. And really, what that is, it's about hearing the voice. Hearing the voice and the message in terms of the issues that the indigenous community is currently dealing with, how they can understand the issues that the community has to deal

05:06:00 Councillor Pardon: So when I first saw this report, councillors, I jumped because, well sorry, read the report at the weekend and my first instinct was I wouldn't support this because not knowing the detail, statement of the heart, also reading various reports in the paper and that, various Aboriginal leaders, Warren Mundine, etc, said this does not have to be in the, inside in

05:07:00 the constitution, etc, etc. So when the Aboriginal, and I have respect for Warren Mundine and others, of course, across the board, but when I read that and see that and you think, well if the Aboriginals are split on this already, we need a consensus going forward. But what I would say is, for a start, the other thing I thought is the constitutional recognition for First Peoples is just way overdue in this country. So what I didn't want to do by supporting things like this that might end up divisive, rather than help us get there, if you like, in a referendum, and that's where we're headed here, or they say we are, Ken Wyatt says we're headed there, the Prime Minister says we're

05:08:00 headed there. So I didn't want anything that, when you read that statement of the heart, it talks about sovereignty. Sovereignty, ownership, things like that. But the devil's always in the detail. So I had to know, and I had to talk with people in the know, to find out exactly what that means. Because the last thing I wanted to do was to support something that was just totally not going to achieve that recognition for First People. So that was my first instinct. Thank you. But now I understand about it. That's fine. And so I support the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Now I understand. Thank you, Councillor Pardon. Do councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. I wholeheartedly support this motion. Recognition of our Indigenous First Peoples is well overdue in our constitution and throughout

05:09:00 our processes. We've waited until 1967 to have been granted a vote. So I support the motion. Councillor Stockwell was clearly a deliberate, not an accidental oversight, clearly a deliberate oversight on behalf, but not even recognising that people even existed as an equal in any way, shape or form. It was clearly there in the culmination of the words that have been, that guide this country. And it's well and truly time we rectified that. I see the opportunities here. Thank you. Honest, forthright discussion about these people taking their rightful place in our society is something we should all aspire to and I support this motion wholeheartedly. Councillor Jones. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jones. Councillor Jackson: Well, I'd like to say I also support wholeheartedly. I think it's an excellent thing to see that as a council we are going to be advocating this to other Queensland councils.

05:10:00 So I'm proud to be part of that. Councillor Jones. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, councillors, it's not so long ago, it's within all our lifetime, probably with the exception of Jess, when Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples were not counted as human beings within the census but counted among livestock. It wasn't that long ago. In 2017, Uluru Statement represents an unprecedented consensus endorsed by 250 representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It follows extensive consultation. This country's traditional owners have requested the constitutional recognition and structural reform as embodied in Uluru Statement from the heart. It's the first time there has been a national consensus on the constitutional change that is desired by our Indigenous Australians. Our neighbours and the Indigenous Council of Shireburg have requested we partner with them to seek the support of our councils for the statement at the Local Government Association of Queensland and Uluru Council.

05:11:00 This is an opportunity to support Indigenous Australians in what they have told us is important to them and presents an opportunity to depart from the position whereby powers that be dictate what's good for them. Personally, I cannot utter the words of acknowledgement and respect for traditional owners at the start of each meeting in council and then refuse a request from our Indigenous neighbours for support for a statement that testifies to their hard work and their aspirations. I support the motion. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will briefly go. I think it's also important to recognise that constitutional recognition comes with it, an embedded sense of empowering the Indigenous people. You notice in the actual statement that they talk about proportionately being the most incarcerated

05:12:00 people on the planet. And that many youth are languishing in obscene numbers in detention. And they talk about it as the torment of our powerlessness. And I suppose what everyone in the country can do is to look at whether that disempowerment is institutionalised. And I think it's clear that the constitution is just one example of that institutionalised disempowerment. And I do take note that I did use the wrong word and tried to correct myself. That yes, it was at a time where there was a different set of values. The values that aren't captured in modern Australia. I also think looking at the process of the Makarrata process as proposed had very many

05:13:00 similarities to what happened in South Africa post-apartheid. And I think that truth telling is a really incredibly important part of reconciliation. And therefore I think just adding more weight to the need at a national level to take these steps. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the motion those in favour. Those against. The motion is carried. We now move to item eight, which is the alliance and funding agreement between Noosa Council and the Nature Conservancy. It's a report directed to the General. Thank you. It's on page 10 of the agenda. Hello, Kim. Hello. Well, we've got a mover in Councillor Glasgow, a seconder in Councillor Pardon. Speaker 2: Does that include, we've made a suggestion there in terms of the wording that would authorise the CEO to make any minor amendments to finalise the document. Yeah, of course. Please. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Glasgow. Oh, sorry. Any questions?

05:14:00 Councillor Casterly-Wood should speak to the motion. No, you can have my word. I'm going to ask Councillor Ford. I've got a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Go. Has there been any discussion about what type of forms the more permanent structures may undertake, what form they may undertake at this stage? Speaker 5: There has been some initial discussion with the Nature Conservancy about the structures. They have examples of reef, shellfish reef restoration in many parts of the world, so they'll be drawing on how they've designed and constructed the structures. However, it hasn't been determined yet because there's quite a bit of local modelling that needs to happen in the next six months. They will be of a different nature to the pilot trials that are in now, which are the sort of core bags of oyster shells, and a much more solid type structure. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, my question is whether the solid structure that already exists can be utilised as some sort of a basis.

315 minutes in

05:15:00

05:15:00 I mean, we're talking in the river plan, the further jetty structure. We're talking about a lot of different structures that have been included, but such structures are actually beneficial to oyster numbers and the like. So whether they can be incorporated in and around existing structures without impeding boating access is one of the things we've clearly had is where they've been exposed, and it's been alluded to in here that there has been some loss of some of those trial sites. So if they're around more permanent structure that already exists, there might be greater capacity for them to adhere to. Speaker 5: Yes. Look, that's a good question. I think that could potentially be the case. Like I said, in the first few months of this partnership, there's quite a bit of local modelling that needs to happen and consideration of activity on the river, recreational activity, tourism activity, business activity. We definitely do want to try and avoid some of the situations that's happening in phase one about damage to the reefs. So the location of the reefs, based on a whole lot of consideration and detailed modelling

05:16:00 that the Nature Conservancy will do, will take into account. So we'll take into account all those sorts of factors. Speaker 2: Joe, probably first of all, that's the report that Council's looking at now is about the process or the agreement as opposed to the design and so on. So I don't know that that's been . Councillor Jurisevic: So I've got a question about the funding agreement. There was mentioned something in the report that made me ask that question, Brett. Yeah, that's fine. The fact that the established reefs have been damaged and the rest of the to ask that. So if we're going to fund it, we've got to look at what form the more permanent structures take and where they can be located. The second question is, does the funding agreement require a third party to be looked at? I didn't think I saw anything specific around... I know we talked about a third party being involved and funding being sourced, the potential for funding to be sourced from a third party. Is there any... Yeah, TNC. Speaker 5: The obligation for that is with the Nature Conservancy, as was articulated in the original report. And in here. And there is a clause... Councillor Jurisevic: I was... Joe?

05:17:00 I didn't see it, but I may have had a look at the top. I don't know whether there was a clause specifically related to it. Speaker 5: There is one clause that says there will be... It may be under the obligations of the Nature Conservancy. Councillor Pardon: It's all there somewhere. Councillor Jurisevic: I said my... I must have missed it as I read it. The question... Oh, it's something... Sorry. I don't know. Speaker 5: Clause 8.10. Councillor Jurisevic: What does it read? Speaker 5: TNC will endeavour to seek further funding to support the project through a variety of funders, including philanthropic foundation, corporate and government sources. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Just wanted to make sure that that was incorporated. Speaker 5: And just further to that, the implementation of the objectives outlined in this agreement is not contingent on that additional funding. Councillor Jurisevic: No. We understood that at the time. Speaker 5: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Walker. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. I'm going to speak to the motion. Of course, all we're doing here is ratifying really a previous council decision because the previous decision was to agree in principle to partner with the Nature Conservancy and

05:18:00 to develop this partnership agreement that's now before us today. I think what's often overlooked here, this is not just about oyster reefs. In fact, this gives us incredible access to a huge amount of expertise via the Nature Conservancy. And just quickly, I'd like to read from the terms and obligations. Along with the oyster reef project, both parties agree to provide strategic conservation support for planning, implementation, peer review and evaluation associated with appropriate elements of the Noosa River Plan and other management plans. To provide assistance and advice with the coordination of ecological and social research related to the health of the river and coastal marine system. To provide critical evaluation and advice on potential reform of current and future management activities. To provide and TNC agreeing to provide Noosa Council access to subject matter experts in the fields of no less than conservation planning, fisheries, agriculture, restoration

05:19:00 and community engagement to provide strategic advice, expertise and advice to Noosa Council. To provide assistance to Noosa Council with strategic conservation planning, creation of river, estuary and coastal management plans. To provide assistance to Council with strategic conservation planning, creation and management We're getting a lot for our money. We're getting a big bang for our buck here, and it's a whole lot more than just putting some oyster roofs in the river. This is about a partnership arrangement with the most credible, not-for-profit environment group on the planet, and I think we're very lucky to have them take an interest here, and I do want to acknowledge David Thomas, resident, who to some extent brought TNC to, or brought the Noosa River to the attention of TNC.

05:20:00 And the outcome of that is that we have already utilised TNC's expertise on a number of documents in a number of areas, and that arrangement will continue over the next 10 years. And hopefully our relationship with TNC can continue well into the future. Councillor Parr. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I'd just like to endorse those comments, and some people think that, you know, it's a waste of money, $1.2 million over the three years. But I certainly don't. As the Mayor already pointed out, bang for the buck, it's far more, we get far more value than just putting some reefs back, oyster reefs in the Noosa River. The knowledge that these people over historical times and all the projects they've done worldwide will serve us in good stead, I believe. And with regards to funding, we're Nature Conservatives Chase Funding.

05:21:00 If you have a look at what we've done when we've stepped out there and backed things, we talk about Rufous street and the millions we've received. You want to talk about community playgrounds and $2.8 million. You want to talk about the J in the old days and $3.7 million. Once you get into this stuff, I think we've pulled about $9 or $10 million, don't quite miss thereabouts, in the last two years, you know, right across the board in grants, whether it's been for bridges, whether it's been for Rufous street, playgrounds, et cetera, et cetera. So I know it's not us. Council who's chasing the money, but certainly philanthropic and other organisations that the Nature Conservatives might be able to tap into. I don't know, but I'd have to think that they might be able to add on going forward with regards to project funding. I know it's a three year alliance, but I think over time it'll be up to future councils.

05:22:00 But I think this alliance might go longer than that. Given once you start. These particular projects. I mean, this is the Noosa River system and the lake system. We all know it's huge, runs right up out of our borders north. And some of the stuff we might learn as we go forward will add to future projects. And we just talked about indigenous people and enshrining in constitutions. Well, certainly some of them will be valuable. Well, some of these projects to involve them, I believe, will be valuable along the way as well. So I am very comfortable going forward. I think 1.2 million over three years. You could say it's a lot of money. And I guess it is if you haven't got a dollar. But the value that they will bring.

05:23:00 And we don't have many people fronting up. There's an expectation all the time with money. These people are putting their hard earned on the table. We have a lot of ideas out there. But there's no financial commitment. That makes people a bit more nervous. So this is a real opportunity for us. And I couldn't be happier, really, with it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Powell. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I have some questions about the funding of the Noosa River. There's a B. There's a C. So first question. The proposal. Speaker 5: Remember, I'm not a lawyer. Councillor Jackson: I don't expect you to do it. First question is, the proposal in January was for a partnership and a partnership agreement. But it is, in fact, stated here the agreement is not a partnership. It's become an alliance. And the 1.2 million is a grant that we're giving to TMC.

05:24:00 So what's changed? Speaker 2: I can probably answer that if you want. Councillor Jackson: Sure. Speaker 2: So the partnership implies, if you have a partnership agreement, when you have two partners, you're each responsible for what the other partner does. This quarantines council risk. So if you have a full open partnership, then you're responsible for what the partner does and vice versa. So having it as an alliance agreement deals with the funding. And we get the best of that without taking on the liability of the partnership agreement. And that was the advice from our lawyers. Councillor Jackson: OK. And I did note that written up in the agreement in that way. So I didn't recognize that that was it. Yes. Yeah. OK. That's good. More questions? Speaker 5: Brett is a lawyer. Councillor Jackson: Good. Well, I didn't see that. That wasn't explained. Anyway. I've read about the governance structure, but I am quite confused in reading it about the lines of authority and relationships between the executive level forum, the technical advisory committee, and the project manager. Are you able to explain that more clearly? Where are the lines of authority?

05:25:00 Who is actually the boss? Who does the project manager go to when he makes a decision? Speaker 5: So the project manager will be employed by the Nature Conservancy and report directly to the Nature Conservancy. The executive level forum at the moment includes two nominees as a minimum. And then there will be a range of officers. And the two nominees are myself and Chris Gillies is the senior marine biologist at the Nature Conservancy. He's the executive level. He's the executive level forum. Councils ultimately... You know, there's reporting requirements. There's six monthly report requirements, annual report requirements. All of those things will come ultimately to Council. Then there is a proposal to establish a technical advisory group. And that needs to go through our process. So we need to scope up exactly the capabilities and expertise that would be required on that technical advisory group and run a process around that, which the Nature Conservancy

05:26:00 Councillor Jackson: So the project manager will be employed by TNC and report to somebody in TNC. That's right, report to Chris Gillies. Chris Gillies. Yes. And he is actually also going to be one with yourself on the executive level forum. That's right. But what role or what authority does the executive level forum have in relationship to the project manager and the TAC? Speaker 5: So the executive level forum will oversee the whole program jointly as part of the alliance. As I mentioned, the project manager is employed by TNC. So we'll report directly to Chris Gillies, not report to the executive level forum. We'll report directly to Chris Gillies. Yeah. And the manager, guided by the executive level forum, will, at an operational level,

05:27:00 engage and administer or coordinate, I guess, the TAG. TAC? Yeah, TAC. Yeah, TAC. Councillor Jackson: So, okay. And they're advisory. Yes. Not authority. Yes. They don't have an authority. They're advisory. That's right. They're advisory. Okay. All right. That explains that. I do have a few others. Sorry. Turn the page. Okay. I think it says here that there will be a project implementation plan produced by TNC. Yep. Endorsed by technical advisory group and delivered by TNC to Noosa Council for presentation approval by Council. So that's this Council? That's this Council. Here. Yes. What about annual budgets? So far, even though the proposal said there'd be a ... That was a draft budget in January in the proposal. But what's in there again this time is a very high level budget.

05:28:00 So will there be a detailed budget and will that come to Council? Speaker 5: The intention with that project implementation plan will be that the budget is unpacked further as part of that implementation plan. So from that perspective, yes. And the annual reports you'll see in the deliverables also require that there's financial reporting against the budget, both from a status perspective at a six-monthly point and then with financial statements at the annual report process. Right. Okay. Speaker 2: Can I just pick up on that? Yes. Yes. So Kim, in section 8.6, which is on page eight of the agreement, I assume that that is the ... I want to better phrase cash flow in terms of the payments that are going to be made at a set time provided the criteria . That's right. So that probably picks up on that. I think that's the one you're questioning, but in terms of ... Was it the instalment payment? Speaker 5: That instalment payment. Yes. And specifically 8.6.2, milestone payment is linked to Council to that achievement of

05:29:00 the project implementation plan and for that being submitted to Council. To Council. Councillor Jackson: So will it come to Council every time we pay? No. No. No. Speaker 5: So the project implementation plan will come to Council. Yes. And I anticipate doing regular reporting to Council. Yes. The annual reports will come to Council, and look, the payments are in effect linked to those milestones and annuals, so in effect, yes, but coming to Council to get agreement around the budget is not the intention or the payments, no. Councillor Jackson: No. So just the annual report, which will report on budget, expenditure, not budget. Okay. Yeah. Can I just also ... Oh, okay. Relating to that, the agreement states that TNC must spend the Thomas Foundation 1.2 million

330 minutes in

05:30:00

05:30:00 donation on the oyster roof project, that's what it says, and deliverables. How is Council going to monitor that? Will TNC have to provide receipts or something showing how they are spending that 1.2 million that they have? Speaker 5: Well, the six-monthly status reports and annual statement reports will provide financial statements. Councillor Jackson: For the whole project. That's right. Including their 1.2 and our 1.2. That's right. For the whole project. Yeah. So by doing that, and ... Okay. All right. So that'll be there. Will the expenditure ... Will there be an acquittal process, and will it, therefore, track how expenditure is actually done? As it's called a grant? Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, at the moment, the process for payment and milestone payment is linked to this funding

05:31:00 agreement and the deliverables and what's outlined in Schedule A. So the achievement of each of those deliverables and measurable outcomes needs to be demonstrated for the grant payment, milestone grant payment, to be given to TNC. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: That's good. In the first proposal, there was a reference that, in this instance, specific procurement suppliers' equipment materials will be managed by the Nature Conservancy, with Council's procurement principles reflecting in a partnership agreement through which the procurement will be provided. Now, I haven't found any procurement principles mentioned in this new agreement, even though it was referred to in the proposal. Speaker 5: This ... As you mentioned, this payment is via a grant, and guided by the clauses of

05:32:00 the alliance and funding agreement. Ultimately, the money is granted to TNC, and then it goes to TNC, and then it goes to TNC, and they will be procuring and engaging resources, equipment, and all materials needed for the project in accordance with their procurement processes. Councillor Jackson: Right. So it won't be ... Even though originally it was intended to be Council's procurement principles ... Speaker 5: That's right. Councillor Jackson: That is ... You've lost control of that element. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, by granting them the document ... Yeah. ... we've tried to build in as much ... I guess safeguards, and requirements, and deliverables, and measurable outcomes in the alliance ... Right. ... that reflects Council's processes and policies. But yes, it is a grant to them, and they will be doing procuring of all resources and materials.

05:33:00 Okay. Councillor Jackson: One other question I actually have is about study tours. There's going to be study tours, and ... Yeah. ... flights and incidentals will be covered separately by Noosa Council, whereas accommodation and travel might be covered by the grant. What are these study tours? Speaker 5: You might recall in the original proposal that the TNC did put this as an offer on the table. You will note in the deliverables, it very clearly says, if requested by Noosa Council. Yes. I didn't notice. Because that would need to be subject to a separate process, I would suggest, if there was going to be study tours. Some of the work that they are bringing, and expertise they are bringing and offering, is a result of global work they've done, work they're doing in Victoria, work they're doing

05:34:00 off the New South Wales coast. So they have suggested that understanding those case studies. Okay. First hand is of huge benefit, and that's on the table if Council wished to take that up. But it would be subject to ... Councillor Jackson: So what process would take place if they did wish to take that up? Speaker 5: I think that would need to be a consideration of Council's part of the regular reporting, that there's an opportunity for ... Okay. ... to do some on-site case investigation. Right. And that we would consider it through that process. Okay. And this comes up. Potentially. If it was an international ... Speaker 2: Come down and have a look at what's happening at some place just over the New South Wales border, as a study tour or a day trip, that we wouldn't come to Council to get that approval, but if it's going to overseas, absolutely.

05:35:00 Yeah. Okay. I'd never agree to anything like that without that going through Council. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Yeah. Good. All right. Thank you for that question. So what's the case? Councillor Jurisevic: What case basis? It's subject to the ... And it's only 20 questions. ... terms and conditions of what the proposal is. Yeah. Like everything, it's coming to Council. Councillor Jackson: Well, one has to ask, Joel. Yeah. I don't think the Councils wish to speak to the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just ... Go on. Just one question first is, and it's probably more of a suggestion. In page 25 down the bottom, they talk about the implementation plan, having a monetary valuation report. I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but ideally, that would align to the environment strategy criteria. We haven't overtly referenced it. Yes. So whether that's a need for change in there, or whether it's just something that we have in the back of our mind that when we do that implementation plan, we should have a clear line of sight between what they're monitoring, evaluating, and what we've said we're going to monitor and evaluate. Speaker 5: Yeah. Sure. Yeah. That would be developed together. So it would be our intention to ensure that it aligns to all of our head of power strategies.

05:36:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask ... Sorry, Brian. Can I ask a question? Just another question. There was, on page 21, saying minimum three media statements throughout duration of the project. That seems very light on. It's a minimum? Minimum. Yeah. No. But even three ... That seems very light on for a project. It's a minimum. Wouldn't there be opportunity for so much more? Speaker 5: I think there would be opportunity. Yeah. A minimum of 10 media. Yeah. We could probably make that ... I undertake to do one every time I go on a study tour. We could make that per annum. We could make ... Yeah. We could actually make that annual. Yes. Because communicating is what's going on. Annually. Yeah. It's very important for Florida. Councillor Pardon: Yep. Speaker 5: I agree. Would that fall within the change the CEO is just made to be? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Minimum of words per annum. Speaker 2: Unless anyone ... Unless I'm hearing things the contrary, I'm happy to deal with that

05:37:00 as a minimum. Okay. Yeah. There is a minimum. Sure. Sure. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Actually, relating to that one reminds me of another one, and that is it refers to records of public stakeholder consultation, including one-on-one meetings, open forums, and media. That's to do with community engagement. How is that going to be communicated? To council? Yeah. Or just generally? Or public? Yeah. Speaker 5: So the ... You'll recall that the sort of whole premise for this partnership, one of the guiding, I guess, principles was the high level of engagement around the next phases, and that was a specific objective in the proposal and the guidance. And that has been enshrined in here. So a detailed communication plan, I would think, would form part of the project implementation plan. Also, I think it does actually even refer to that, about the engagement process and communication.

05:38:00 Yeah. So it is the intent that it's to be plenty of opportunity for community engagement, stakeholder engagement, volunteer opportunities, talks, public engagement, and so on. Public presentations. Yeah. Great. That's the intention, absolutely. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillor speak? Oh, I may say something. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Look, I agree with what Councillor Wellington said, that the decision was made by council and the principal in January, and I didn't vote for it at the time. I had doubts about the original Oyster Youth Trial only running for one year, when it was intended. It was intended to run for three. But I respect that decision in principle, and so today I've focused specifically on the agreement, which is what's on the agenda today. And having asked my questions, they've been satisfactorily answered.

05:39:00 I've learned the answers to those. So I'm quite happy to support the motion, because the motion is actually not about, are we doing it? But rather, are we making sure that our agreement is in place? Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Jo. I wanted to ask a question, just in relation to the point that Councillor Jackson alluded to there, that the trial is ongoing, as I believe. It hasn't stopped after one year. Speaker 5: No. The trial is ongoing. Councillor Jurisevic: The trial will continue to go for three years. Speaker 5: The existing, Jan may have to help me here, the existing reefs that were put in, I think there was 12 or 13 locations. There is only four remaining. Mm-hmm. Due to damage, propeller and anchor damage. Yep. And those four reefs are continuing to be monitored. Councillor Jurisevic: Weren't they also looking to relocate those reefs that had been removed, at least in some way, shape or form? No. No. No. No. So the four are continuing. That's. So that will continue on. And so the trial continues.

05:40:00 It hasn't been completed after one year. No. Speaker 5: It hasn't. Councillor Jurisevic: But it. Which is what was in some way implied by the comment that came out. Speaker 5: Phase 1 is still, four rates of the Phase 1 process are still in. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify Councillor Jurisevic's question, the original intent was that the three years would be completed before moving on to a further stage. Council has accepted the principle that we'll go ahead after one year even though the trial wasn't completed. But, so you know, that was my concern. But that isn't, Councillor Jurisevic was sort of misinterpreting perhaps that I was suggesting that the fact that it continues for two more years makes a difference. Mayor Wellington: This doesn't fit the question, this would be a statement. True, it does. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Right, Brian. Yeah, I will talk briefly.

05:41:00 This is a landmark agreement for conservation in Noosa. Just as the ring-tailed euro was a substantive boost to koala conservation in a manner that takes conservation not just in Noosa but in Queensland to a totally different level, so does this. This is a significant foray into conservation of the koala of our river, the oysters. Oh. We need to move around. And as part of our climate change adaptation mitigation, the, and to me it's significant, the role that oysters play in the ecosystem services and health of our river and driving climate reduction in terms of fish have been demonstrated through the early trials and others around the world. But this agreement is about saying,

05:42:00 let's look at the best ways to maximise the conservation of biodiversity in our Shire. Historically, our community has supported the acquisition of land to maximise protection, whereas you can't buy rivers. So what you can do to rivers is create partnerships with people to manage and to achieve the same sort of biodiversity and conservation outcomes that we've been achieving on the land underneath the surface of the water. And I think, to me, it makes a very innovative agreement. It makes it one that does say that we're willing to go and do things a little bit different that maybe not all people in the community will see eye to eye with, but that reflects the love of the river held by this community. And I recall when I, at one stage, debating saying, well, I don't know, I didn't like conservation based on a single species like koalas, that Councillor Wellington pointed out that a survey I did

05:43:00 when I was a resident rate payer, quite clearly showed that koala was number one and the river was number three, very close behind, in terms of those natural assets that this community seek most fondly to protect. So this is a good step, and I hope that it is the start of a lasting alliance. But it's not just with the nature conservation agencies. We've already said, as we've seen in the early community consultation aspects, it will, I hope, drive a whole new camaraderie amongst all those community groups that have been active on the river to look at new ways to manage it and to rehabilitate it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mr Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it's all been said. I think enough has been said. I've said I've been supportive of this from the start. I think it's a great, the trial has, I think, already indicated positive results,

05:44:00 along with knowledge gained by the nature conservation agency and other sites they have around the world. The world's best practice being executed in our river with great science that can be shared across a myriad of sites. Great trials to be conducted here, and, of course, opportunities for far greater scientific research and undertakings for the future, I think, this all is well appreciated. I think it's all for a very prosperous future as far as management of our river goes and the reintroduction, or the continued growth of species within our river, the biodiversity therein. So, that's the question. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I actually would like to ask a question that just crossed my mind. Earlier this morning, so long ago, we were talking about climate change, and Grant Henner mentioned the benefits of climate change, and the impact of warming waters. So, it's interesting,

345 minutes in

05:45:00

05:45:00 has there been any discussion or feedback about the implications of climate change for this kind of project of trying to increase oysters in the river and the food chain? Speaker 5: Look, not specifically with the Nature Conservancy. However, that you've said and you will recall in the original report that they have some key focus areas that underpin all the work they do and obviously responding to and understanding the implications of climate change sits right at the heart of that. So, you know, without pre-empting a specific conversation about that, I would think that that would be part of their research and consideration and would be considered quite significantly around these sorts of initiatives.

05:46:00 They've definitely put in place shellfish restoration across the world in different parts of the globe. They have, we have had specific conversations about the role of oyster reefs in potentially protecting river banks from erosion, so that there are multiple benefits potentially from shellfish restoration. So, there's been some conversation about some of the impacts of climate change but not specifically a conversation, but, you know, that can be on the agenda. And I'm assuming that's something Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the technical advisory group would advise on. Speaker 5: For sure. Yeah. Excellent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a supplement because I think what Councillor Jackson was referring to was the comments made around about ocean acidification, which was probably the first major impact of climate change is the increased CO2 being absorbed in the oceans and therefore impacting on calciferous organisms in the benthic layer. It would be interesting to have that as an indicator here.

05:47:00 Obviously, in the river, we're not just dealing with oceans. We're dealing with a tide that comes in, we have fresh water coming down and we are dealing in the lucid river with a system that's naturally water acidic in nature. So it's actually sub-acid water. So it's unlikely to be a significant factor in terms of the formation of the reef. But it would be an interesting thing to keep an eye on in terms of success or otherwise in comparing oyster reefs at different pH levels. Councillor Wilkie: OK. Yes, this does, this project does go to the heart of concern about sub-acid water and calcine. It's all in there. Speaker 2: We're all, Councillor Wilkie: we're all, we're all in that regard. And the reason why I'm doing this is because we know of the, the oyster reef's capacity to improve water quality and marine biodiversity. And science-backed studies have shown that a hectare of rebuilt oyster reef will filter and cleanse 2.7 billion litres of water a year, remove 166 kilograms

05:48:00 of nutrient pollution and also produce 375 kilograms approximately of new fish through the habitat that it provides. And that's why we're doing it because we believe as custodians we can improve the health and clarity of the Noosa River. That's why we're doing it. And here we have the Nature Conservancy which, as the Mayor said, is regarded as one of the most well-respected environmental organisations around the world. They've got projects in over 70 countries. They employ over 600 scientists. And they have been sufficiently convinced by the science-backed phase one trials of oyster reefs in the Noosa River conducted by the University of the Sunshine Coast to invest 1.2 million of their money that's been gifted to them by the Thomas Foundation in an alliance with the Council for more to restore the Noosa oyster reefs and all the benefits that that will bring for this community. This makes the oyster reefs in Noosa River part of the Nature Conservancy's

05:49:00 Great Southern Seascapes Program which is a involves a network of oyster reefs around the globe and around Australia. And I'm very excited to be part of it Councillor Glasgow: and support them. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just quickly. Councillor Glasgow: Look, it's all been said around the table. This is way more than just it's way more than just an expertise not just far more than an oyster reef I agree as well. You know, we are, like I said before, we're making huge leaps forwards and future proving ourselves in generations to come. You know, we all agree that the river system is the lifeblood of our community and it's very much warmed up for me. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion nice and favour. Okay, so the motion's carried. Mr Chair. Councillor Jackson: Yes. I must

05:50:00 and Mr Mayor, I will need to take my leave now because next time you hear from me you will be at a teleconference. So, I actually have to go and I would like to state that I'm satisfied with the next three items recommendations. So, I will leave this with you guys and look forward to Thursday night, my Thursday morning. Councillor Wilkie: Before you go, there's an item of business we'd like to participate in. It's Frank's birthday tomorrow. So, Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Mayor Wellington: Happy birthday dear Frank. Happy birthday dear Frank. Happy birthday to you. Councillor Jurisevic: Hup, Councillor Wilkie: hooray. Hup, hooray. Hup, Speaker 2: hooray. Thank you, staff and council. Speaker 8: Thank you,

05:51:00 councillors. Councillor Pardon: Okay, seventy? Councillor Wilkie: Well done, seventy. Going strong. The next item is the appointment of external member Mayor Wellington: We were blessed with a fantastic array of choice to replace Cameron Jaggers on the Audit Committee and Tim Cronin I know is going to be a terrific addition. The recommendation which is now the motion does thank Cameron Jaggers but I'd just like to reiterate that Cameron was an active and highly participative member of the Audit Committee who gave vast value with regard to his time and his extreme knowledge in these areas. His work with KPMG etc has demonstrated that he is a very capable gentleman and he brought enormous value to the Audit Committee.

05:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to reiterate that in my short time on the Audit and Risk Committee I've found Cameron to be unbelievably knowledgeable, challenging in all the right ways of his assessment of Council's processes and the like and always willing to give advice on how we could better our processes. A number of those have been implemented over the time so I'd like to do that. And look I look forward to meeting Tim after the CEO's phone call to advise that we had found a new appointment. I was very impressed to hear the credentials of the appointee and of all those that had applied it. That was quite a strong feel. So I think we've got a very strong appointment and reading through his CV, qualification and experience I think Tim will make a fine addition to our Audit and Risk Committee.

05:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: I have a question for the CEO. Often there's a lot of focus on the decisions made by this body here, the councillors, but the Audit and Risk Committee plays an important role in the governance of the organisation. Can you just expand a bit about the importance of the work of the Audit and Risk Committee, how it contributes to a healthy organisation? Speaker 2: Sure. Look it's not sexy work, don't get me wrong, the Audit Committee. But it is essential. And any organisation, whether it's a council or a large corporation, having an effective Audit Committee really does lift the tone in terms of governance. We've been very blessed since we set up the Audit Committee in 2015. Obviously Audit and Risk Committee. So it looks not only at what I call compliance issues, annual financial statements and things like that, but it also looks at how the council can manage risk much more effectively.

05:54:00 So we've progressed significantly since that time. With our two external members, with Chair Scott Williams and with Cameron Jaggers, who we've just spoken about, have really brought some expertise and rigour to our senior management to keep us on our toes to make sure that we look at what are the real risks this organisation faces, how do we manage those, what are the systems and processes we have in place, what governance arrangements we have in place. They've done some really good work. And as I said, I think we've been blessed. I've actually sat and visited other Audit Committees. From other councils. Our two members are a class above what we've seen elsewhere. And I'm pretty sure Tim Cronin will take us to that same level. He's very well regarded based on my research. And also this is a bit of succession planning here. Like any Audit Committee, it's always good to have some fresh eyes every now and then.

05:55:00 So it's been five years for Cameron. And he's coming off to the Audit Committee this year. It's intended as part of our succession plan that Scott Williams will retire next year. His term will finish in 2020. I actually recommended that we appoint Tim with a view for him taking over as Chair as well. I think he would be a good Chair. And then we'd recruit for another Audit Committee member next year to replace the Committee member if you like. Councillor Jurisevic: Question. Sorry, question. With regard to recruitment of another Committee person, will we have to go out and go through the whole process? Or will we be able to utilise? We'll have to go out again because we'll be about 12 months' time. We couldn't have these people again and see if they're still interested? Speaker 2: There will be some people on here where we had a very strong field. I was very surprised how strong a field it was. And I will be approaching some of those to reapply next year. Okay. Thank you. There were probably four or five I could have quite comfortably recommended to Council. Excellent. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Any other Councillors wish to speak for motion?

05:56:00 Councillor Pardon: I do value the committee, absolutely. I mean, you need that oversight. It's part of the whole governance of council. Just with Mr Scott Williams, this bloke, very respectful of this man, and just read or saw something recently, I think he got some award, but I know it was about $80,000 that this man donated out of his own pocket for students, battlers at the University of Sunshine on the Coast. They have a sort of a funding thing that people can chip in, and he put in a lot, and I understand he's done a lot. So, I know that's a side issue, but it's a mark of the man.

05:57:00 Mayor Wellington: I need to say that as well as his great skill and expertise, I'd just like to acknowledge that Cameron Jaggers, in most instances, would drive all the way from Sunnybank to here just to attend our audits meeting and drive back again. Now, that's what I call a bit of courage. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, put the motion down in the ballot. Okay, motion's carried. Thank you. Next slide. Next item is the financial performance report, the June 2019 interim position, which is roughly, that's 12 months of reporting. Correct. Yeah. Okay, councillors, questions for Trent. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Trent, I know that the report shows a commendable capital expenditure, just 9.1% below your budget, which meets our desired targets, but a recent media release suggested the completion was placed at 96%. Can you please explain? Yeah, sure, sure. Speaker 7: I can respond to that through the Chair. Yeah, sure. I can respond to that through the Chair. You will see there's further detail in, I believe, page 23 of the report.

05:58:00 There's further detail in, I believe, page 23 of the report. Capital expenditure is comprised of two items. Capital works, essentially assets, things we can kick. Roads, bridges, stormwater, we've achieved 96% completion financially on our capital works and constructed assets. The other assets that we include in capital is what us accountants like to call intangibles. So software, planning scheme, condition assessment on our assets. The completion rate was slightly lower, so it brings us back to the 91, 92% overall with Speaker 2: the hard infrastructure was 96%. Speaker 7: Correct. And that's what, for QIO's purposes, when they assess Council's financial sustainability, they just use the assets. And what's the 70%?

05:59:00 Councillor Jurisevic: 90%. Thank you. I'm just doing it for the benefit of those that may not be aware. I also noted in that element of the report that the other elements of capital, the ICT, planning scheme and fleet replacement, only achieved 67% completion. Can you explain why we didn't achieve that? Can you explain why we didn't achieve a higher rate of completion on those elements? Speaker 7: Through the Chair, a couple of key items there that have sort of driven that. Below average expenditure, it's purely timing. The first one, first and foremost, is the planning scheme in terms of delays with our initial review and approval through the State. The second one is in relation to ICT. So we commenced a large project about our property system this year, recruitment and resourcing. Through the software provider, pushed that out by a few months. Councillor Jurisevic: So what will be undertaken to ensure that those elements are fully expended going forward?

360 minutes in

06:00:00

06:00:00 Speaker 7: The money will be carried over into the 19-20 year proposed to do so as part of the carryovers that will come to Council next round of Council meetings. And in relation to the ICT project, we've now resourced that, fully resourced, with staff resourcing, secured the commitment of contractors. So we've now resourced that, fully resourced, with staff resourcing, secured the commitment Councillor Wilkie: We've projected a $1.4 million surplus at the start of the year. At the moment, we've got an interim operating surplus for the end of the financial year of $8.3 million. There's still some adjustments to be made. That's, I guess, more money our capital has to allow to finish projects. What are you projecting the final operational surplus to be? Speaker 7: Difficult to say at this stage, Councillor. The large variance there, and it's obviously quite a large variance from our $1.4 million surplus, is made up of a few key items there. One is there's an accounting standards change for rates, which is well over $1 million, which we're still waiting on confirmation from QAO on. So that may or may not feed through into the final. If it doesn't happen this year, it'll happen next year.

06:01:00 We're underspent by, I believe it was $1.4 million. That's obviously in relation to where we hold that cash for restricted for future years, environment levy, capital acquisitions and land. That figure is basically finalised. We're not expecting any major change to that. For depreciation, which is another major element there, there's $1 million there. We're relatively comfortable that the QAO won't be changing those figures. But at this point in time, we're also... So we're still working through those last invoices. There could be, and they're up to $1 million worth of invoices that could come through over the next three to four weeks. So that could bring it back by up to $2 million.

06:02:00 Speaker 2: I think there's an invoice of $14,000 for training in there somewhere. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, you're ahead of me, Mr. CEO. You're ahead of me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was waiting for you to say that. That's good. I was going to approach this generally, but then I realised... Parks and Gardeners Arborist costs 90% of $946,000. So what we're saying is we nearly spend $1 million a year assessing and chopping down trees. Councillor Jurisevic: What are you saying? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just flabbergasted. No, I'm not. I was going to make a joke saying, well, I presume the $96,000 they save, that goes into that. But that is a significant cost. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, you're suggesting we're better off cutting them all down so we don't have to worry about it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I'm just saying it's a significant cost. Like, when you think about the alarm about how much a playground costs, I'd be more alarmed about how much each year we're spending on having to remove trees.

06:03:00 Mayor Wellington: We receive a tree request from a resident every how many minutes? Speaker 2: Oh, I can't remember. It's... It's huge. Mayor Wellington: It's like, yeah, every 20 minutes or so we receive a request, and all of them have to be investigated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I understand. I'm not... I'm just saying that it's just when I looked at the budget and the actual spend, it's a major bit of work that... Yep. Councillor Pardon: Well, we planted them everywhere. You know that. Mayor Wellington: And we'll be spending a bit more of this financially because we're doing the proactive approach. Did he get it up the first time in three years, did he? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Trying to get it up. Yeah, we don't know. See them right away. Yeah, we don't know. I probably had to bleep that one out, didn't I? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. All right, councilor. Councilor Jurisevic has the floor. Mr. CEO, seeing as you've gone there, I was going to save you till last. Just $14,000 underspend on staff training, Mr. CEO, just 5% under. 4%. Oh, I ran it up to 5%.

06:04:00 Who's the mathematician around here? And you tell me there's another invoice of $14,000 coming, so you're fully expending on staff training? So I understand. Speaker 2: I spoke to our people in culture management. My understanding is that there's other invoices still coming in through, but training has been undertaken. Councillor Jurisevic: Any hope of stealing your budget next year? Well done. Well done. It finally happened. How many years have I been pressing that one? Trent, waste management under procurement services. Waste management contract services, $501,000 below annual budget. We've lost a contractor. How can we be under budget? One more thing. The rates are set in the contract. The budget would reflect that. How do we end up under in a contract service? Speaker 7: Through the chair. When we do our budget, we put our budget together and build from base. We make assumptions on not just carrying the same amount from last year to this year for budget. We also assume that at some point we'll go through our annual renegotiation with our

06:05:00 rise and fall in our contracts. And some elements of our contract for our collection, our disposal, and our reuse and recycling of material on the site is based on volume. Councillor Jurisevic: I was going to ask you the assumption on volume that the driver's asking. Speaker 7: That's right. So what we have here is a combination of volume, rise and fall in our renegotiation, and also timing of our last invoices for June. I know offhand at least there's some collection. And mulching. And final invoices for our landfill operation yet to come through. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Fleet costs for fuel and tyres $141k below annual budget. Are we not driving our cars? We're all taking the bicycles. Why are we so... It'll be fuel price. Or are we just being better drivers and more fuel efficient? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, you approve freedom. Speaker 7: Combination of fuel price.

06:06:00 That would be mine. As well as... Fuel price. As well as... Timing for how many tyres? And securing a good procurement deal for our tyres. Okay. Screwing down operators. Councillor Jurisevic: Maintenance of council buildings at amenities $143k below annual budget due to the timing schedule. Maintenance? When are we going to make up the 17% of works due? Is that going to be carried over and complement the next year's maintenance on buildings? And how are we going to play catch up on getting 17% behind? Speaker 7: Good question. Thank you, Chair. Maintenance for buildings is a combination of reactive and proactive maintenance. We're building a budget for the reactive elements, some of the unknowns, such as finding asbestos when they do the maintenance. In this instance, we know that our council buildings facilities manager has been very busy building, replacing roofs in this building.

06:07:00 And just a question I'm asking you, is there still more work to do, or is it just becoming a budget? Speaker 6: All the proactive work, as far as we're aware, is up to date. Speaker 7: And this is the reactive element of the budget that hasn't been used up, so it's less reactive Speaker 2: than planned. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Good. The last question. At the end of the columns, the table committee equity is somewhere short of the budget prediction of around $28 million. What are the reasons for the variations? Speaker 7: I'll make sure I'm on the same screen, so I can respond to the call a little bit. Councillor Jurisevic: So there's some ups and some downs, but that seems to be $28 million under where we thought we'd be. Speaker 7: Chair, Councillor, you'll find that the primary drivers for that will be property plant equipment. So we make an assumption as part of the budget how much of the capital works will get capitalised at year end, what the depreciation will be, as well as whether there's any revaluation impacts on the assets.

06:08:00 So annually, financially, we engage the contractor, they revalue the assets. This year, we deferred that piece of work to kick off our asset data improvement project with the asset management team. So what you're seeing there is it flows through to equity, and the assets don't go up, and then equity goes to go up as a result. Short term, it'll adjust next year. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Just page 25. The $125 million. $126,000 from interest revenue for June, and your yield's 2.8. Mate, I'd like to know what bank you're in. But given going forward, the interest rates have dropped through the floor, as we know, across the land. So you think they'll have a little bit impact on your return. It's all right.

06:09:00 If you've got more money to invest to cover the lower interest rate. But the question is, do you think it'll have a little bit impact on you? Speaker 2: It's more of a risk for the coming financial year, Frank. It's more of a risk for the financial year we're going into. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, but I suppose I was talking about now and the future, I guess. Yeah. Speaker 7: Through the chair. Councillor Pardon: We could lock in, see, from this year. There will be an impact. Sorry, we could be locked in, Mr. Chair. Speaker 7: We've been lucky this financial year that a lot of our term deposits were set in early. So we set in 12-month term deposits coming out of the last July's rate run. So this time last year, interest rates were at 2.8, 2.9%, so we set in term deposits at a much higher rate. And we've benefited from that quite substantially over this year. Obviously, certain institutions, such as QTC, give us a good return, and we'll continue to benefit from that over the next year. But we'll definitely see a decline next year in that difference.

06:10:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll move it. Second. Seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jackson: Can you move it, Simon? Councillor Wilkie: I moved it. Thank you. And Chair, the seconded it. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Looks like another very healthy result, very responsive financial result for the Council again. We're heading in that direction. Well done to you and the staff for the guidance. Thank you. This year, well done to councillors all over Australia. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reiterate those right now. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillor was just speaking. Great. Councillor Pardon: Oh, only to thank Trent and staff for the good work. In the report, given year on year, our capital works not falling away. In fact, it looks like it continues to grow. As we go forward. So I guess going forward, when we're talking about placemaking and other stuff that we're continually stacking on, and councillors who bring bright ideas in here are causing headaches

06:11:00 as well. So I suppose politically, we've got to be mindful of what we're asking for going forward. And it seems to me, I can see going forward, again, results. I think the resources over the year could be a bit of an issue. I know in our capital works, we're pretty flat out to say the least, or our workers are, engineers, project managers. And then when we, and I know I've spoke about this before, but they don't get any relief at all. In fact, as I say, we keep finding more emergent works as well as what we know of. And yeah, and then we get sickness, various problems, I'll say, individuals, et cetera.

06:12:00 So it's going to be, I suppose, fancy saying it's going to be another testing year, considering what last year was. And I guess going forward, there's going to be no respite. So yeah, but thank you, staff. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Trane. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I move that the motion be moved to confidential session. Councillor Wilkie: Second. Second. We have a legal issue now. Yeah. Yeah. He's second. I second. Frank Pardon. Frank Pardon. Yeah, Frank Pardon. Sorry, seconded. Thank you. Thank you. Can you . .

375 minutes in

06:15:00

06:22:00 Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 2: I'll just re-open the front door so you can see it. Speaker 5: As a first person. Yeah. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: That makes it an excellent, because we know what it's all about. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: We're 19 apart. We all work together. Yeah. Yes. You know, that's a good thing. Speaker 5: It was on there. Speaker 4: It was also the bedrock that we handed over to us. Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 5: It's just saying that I have an additional integrity. Yeah. Definitely. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right to go. We have a motion, recommendation before us. Moved Council of Pardon, seconded Council of Jurisevic. Who's to speak? Oh, with no speaking. I just wanted to make a confidential assessment.

06:23:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I didn't speak. Okay. That all as a favour. Councillor Wilkie: Against? Motion's carried. That's the end of the meeting. Thank you everyone for your patience. Speaker 2: The meeting closed at 4.26. I'm just writing that down. And I think that is a record. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Kim. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Councillor Wilkie: I'm sure we could find another amendment to make.

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

What was said

Latest