Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, it's 6pm everyone. Welcome to the ordinary meeting of the Noosa Council. I'll call the meeting to order. Attendance-wise, we have all of our councillors, with the exception of Councillor Frank Pardon, who is unfortunately away, and Councillor Jackson is attending by conference phone. Before we go on, councillors, Greg Smith from Moscow, who's in the audience this evening, has requested that he be able to take a photograph during the meeting. Does anyone have any objections to that? No. I didn't do my hair, Greg, sorry. You've got the best angle there anyway. Hang on. Okay, so we proceed with the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 18th of July. Moved Councillor Glasgow, seconded Councillor Wilkie.
00:01:00 All those in favour? Thank you, that's carried. There are no mayoral minutes. I believe we have a petition, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a petition from the Kin Kin Community Group regarding the Kin Kin Butter Factory Park. The Kin Kin Community Group Incorporation make a submission on behalf of the community to name the park opposite the Arts Hall Butter Factory Park in recognition of the site's... ...history. I ask that this petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. It does relate to a request that they have submitted to the organisation. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Do we have a seconder for that? Yep, seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. Do you wish to speak any further? No, thank you. All those in favour? Thank you, that's carried. Thank you, Ingrid.
00:02:00 Yes. Okay, we move on to Notified Motors. The first one is the Notified Motion that was carried over from a previous meeting from Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Mr. Chair, I've spoken with the CEO about this motion because it was originally notified in the June meeting. And in the June meeting, it was deferred for the purpose of the CEO preparing some recommendations and reports. As there is a series of reports from the CEO on this ordinary meeting agenda, I'm, in this case, believe it is not necessary to again move this notice of motion because it is going to be, the matter will be handled through those various motions that are on the table at the moment. So, yeah, so I won't be repeating this particular notice of motion again. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: There's a note on the screen at the moment in relation to this matter that says,
00:03:00 Councillor Jackson advised that as there were a series of reports on this ordinary meeting agenda from the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the matters contained within the proposed notice of motion, it was not necessary to move the notice of motion which had been deferred from the June Council ordinary meeting. So we'll move on to the next item. Point of order, Mr Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, Councillor Jurisevic. Just to refer to the CEO. Yes, Councillor Jurisevic. Is that the appropriate way of dealing with this, or does the motion actually have to be dealt with as it was presented in June? Speaker 6: No, this is the best and most practical and consistent with our standing orders, the way to deal with this, because the subject matter is to be liked later in the agenda. It's not a requirement to move that. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Just seeking clarification, Mr Chair. Mayor Wellington: Okay, there's a second notice of motion, and this is, of course, new to this round of meetings, or any round of meetings, from Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson, would you like to put the motion? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I would, and I guess it's best that I read it out for those who are not present in the room.
00:04:00 So my notice of motion for this meeting is that in relationship to the alliance and funding agreement between Noosa Council and the Nature Conservancy, in which a grant of 1.2 million was awarded by Noosa Council to TNC at the ordinary meeting of the 18th of July, Council agreed to request the CEO to require TNC to a adhere to the Council's procurement principles, b provide full acquittal for each grant instalment paid by Noosa Council, including receipts of all expenditures at six monthly intervals from the date the grant is awarded, and c when providing Council with the agreed annual budgets, six monthly financial statements, and annual financial statements, disclose full details of income and itemised expenditure. Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'm looking for a seconder for that motion.
00:05:00 Okay, I will second the motion for the sake of discussion, though I have some qualms about it. So you are welcome to now speak to it. Thank you, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chair. I shall speak to this. At the meeting, in July, the proposed Council TNC alliance agreement was tabled, and it was agreed by Council. At that meeting, I asked a series of questions, including about whether Council procurement principles would be adhered to, whether there would be acquittal of TNC expenditure of the 1.2 million Council grant, and whether there would be detailed budgets and financial statements provided. I did receive answers to these matters along the lines of, well, it's not a partnership now, it's an alliance, so the procurement principles don't necessarily apply to another organisation,
00:06:00 and that acquittal would not be required because deliverables would be defined. The Council would simply see financial statements with no comment. It is my view that the answers about this were not adequate. And so I have put a notified motion to address what I believe are some key gaps. I believe it is Council's fiduciary duty to ensure accountability for expenditure of ratepayers' money. And even if the agreement has been signed, which I believe it has because I saw it on Facebook with a nice photo of Brett, I believe that procurement principles, grant acquittal, and transparent and detailed budgets and financial statements are important matters of accountability for the use of ratepayers' money. And so I believe this can still be negotiated by the CEO, vis-à-vis TNC, regardless of the fact that this perhaps was not negotiated earlier as part of the agreement.
00:07:00 And I will be calling for a division for this motion. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Yes, a question to Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Probably for the CEO. When the Council receives grants from other bodies like the State or the Federal Government it is required to acquit the grant. But in carrying out projects are we required to abide by State or Federal Government's procurement principles? Speaker 6: So just to clarify, your question is about when the Council receives a grant, not providing a grant, so whether we're required, for example, maybe Federal Aids and Campels. So if the Commonwealth gave us a grant, your question is are we required to abide by the Commonwealth Procurement Principles? No, we comply with our own. That's not a requirement that's imposed upon the Council as a recipient of a grant. We have our own process, our own order, our own procurement provisions. We're not obliged to comply with the State or Commonwealth Procurement Policy.
00:08:00 Councillor Wilkie: So just for the benefit of people who are listening at home, to clarify, could you talk about the difference between acquittal of a grant and procurement as a process? For example, if I understand correctly, a body can receive money, a grant, and they'll be required to acquit that. But in procuring services to carry out the purpose of the grant, that's a different process. Speaker 6: Yeah, correct. Basically, we provide a lot of grants to community organisations, whatever it might be. They then go off and buy whatever they're doing. With that grant, or whether it's a service or a thing, and they use their own procurement policies or their arrangements they have. When they do their acquittal to us, they need to be able to define that they have spent the money for the purpose for which it was given. The third element in there often is that the recipient organisation is also subject to order,
00:09:00 so they have to go through their own audit requirements to show that they have spent the money in accordance with that requirement. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So just to clarify, so, bodies that receive grants from, whether it's a state government or a local government, they're not required to abide by the state government's or the local government's procurement principles, just the procurement principles relevant to that particular body? Speaker 6: Yeah, that would be the general approach. I couldn't obviously answer for every single grant that's ever been given by any local government or other level of government. The general principle would be that when you provide the grant, there's an acquittal process, you understand that the third party's having audits and so on. But, yeah, normally it's not the requirement that you have to abide by someone else's procurement policy. Councillor Wilkie: Does the Council have any power to legally require TNC to abide
00:10:00 by the local government's procurement principles? Speaker 6: Look, it would be possible, from a technical perspective, if we have that, you know, a legally binding agreement with a third party, like TNC, obviously it's not in the contract that we have already signed with TNC that went through Council in the last round, but technically you could negotiate that as part of an agreement, it would be possible to have that as a binding arrangement, but both parties would need to agree to that. Councillor Wilkie: So, the final question is, does Council have any legal power to retrospectively impose these changes on TNC? Speaker 6: The short answer is, again, it's a contract, so there are two parties to a contract. One party can't unilaterally change a contract without the consent of the other party, so the Council could force a third party to change that contract without their approval. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, am I wrong?
00:11:00 That wasn't finally at all. No, it's not finally at all. It was penultimately. This is a 25-page agreement, and there was a five-page process. Are there acquittal requirements for this grant? It might be. It might be. Speaker 6: Is there any detail? Speaker 2: Sure. Through the Chair. The funding agreement links the payment of grant instalments to achievement of a range of milestones, as outlined in Schedule A to the funding agreement, which are quite specific around what needs to be achieved, by when, and a set of outcomes. And each grant payment is linked to demonstrated achievement. Each of those milestones. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We might have to, Councillor Stockwell, while you consider your decision. Yes. My question is to the CEO again, and CEO, you're one of the most experienced CEOs for
00:12:00 local government around the place in Queensland. You've seen the agreement, and obviously signed off on it. So could you talk to any concerns you may have in regard to the Council discharging its fiduciary duty in the due diligence to win this grant? Speaker 6: I'll probably dispute the wise, it's more applicable to being old, no look the detail if you want to answer that would be better by Kim who negotiated the agreement, she was probably more across what was in there in terms of requirements, the project deliverables, when things are going to be due by and that level of detail, so if you want to probably explain that that would be better but Kim can explain that. That's one of the more experienced planners. Speaker 2: Flattery will get you nowhere. Through the Chair, you will recall that the proposal came to Council for this project some months ago, I should know these dates. January. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, in January, were Council endorsed in principle to go forward with this proposal and negotiate, develop a partnership funding agreement.
00:13:00 From January to July, we've been in the process of negotiation and developing a funding agreement. There's been a range of iterations. We've had a legal firm representing us, as have TNC, so it's been through numerous legal reviews and months of negotiation to get to this point. Where we both organisations and their legal representatives were satisfied that the agreement was robust and covered off each organisation's obligations and compliance around achieving the objectives of this project.
00:14:00 So the process has been very rigorous and robust to get to this point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just a subsequent one there. We mentioned that there was a six month period between the in principle and the final report coming to Council recommending. In your mind, was there anything stopping individual Councillors with issues or concerns or suggestions coming for that six month period? Discuss it with you. Speaker 6: Yeah, look, no, normally the Councillors wouldn't be involved in that process until the report was provided to the Council as part of our normal reporting processes. So for a Councillor to have an opportunity to have input, it would have been through that process, not outside of that process. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I want to clarify a point that was raised in the original discussion there. Has this agreement, in fact, been signed and finalised? Speaker 6: Yes, in accordance with the Council decision back in, what's that, July, I've signed the agreement on behalf of Council in the same format that it was adopted.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 You might recall that the Council decision authorised me to make any minor changes. None were made. It was done as is, where is, if you like, from where the... That was the next question, thank you. The provision was adopted by Council in July. Mayor Wellington: So just a quick, if you don't mind, Mr CEO, was the contract actually signed before you received this notice of motion? Speaker 6: Yeah, I signed the contract on the, from memory, 25th of July, the week after the Council decision. But it would have been before, that's the notice of motion. Councillor Jurisevic: And a question I'm guessing for the CEO, would this arrangement, an arrangement of this sort, that we've undertaken here with this organisation, differ from or are there examples of similar arrangements of this nature the Council has gone through before?
00:16:00 A contract of this nature? Speaker 6: I kind of think we have other funding agreements. Tourism Noosa might be a good example. So to some extent, this is probably more detailed than the agreement we have with Tourism Noosa in terms of that scale. We have, and the reason I know this number is because it's actually on the agenda later on, we gave 147 community grants out as well. We don't have that level of detail, but nor would you expect it because the quantum in those is not significant at all. So probably the only ones I can think of off the top of my head would be the funding for Tourism Noosa, where we have a funding agreement. It wouldn't have the same level of detail in that funding agreement because it's more of a relationship type approach as opposed to a specific project based, which is what this is, which requires those specific deliverables by certain times and so on. Councillor Jurisevic: So in the agreement with Tourism Noosa, do we require full acquittal? And or are we happy to accept the budget and the expenditure statement that Tourism Noosa makes with regard to their end of financial year statement?
00:17:00 Speaker 6: Yeah, it's a second one. We require them to provide detailed budgets and so on, not at an individual expense level. But it's a different type of arrangement too. I don't want to say that's quite wrong. It's just that it's a funding agreement over a longer period of time. This is about a specific project. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. I'll speak to it, Mr Chair. Sure. It's an extensive 25 page agreement between the Nature Conservancy and Noosa Council was scrutinised and unanimously approved by all councillors last month. Oh, last month. And it's already signed. And even if Noosa Council had any legal power to retrospectively impose changes, the extensive 25 page agreement signed off by Council's legal team is quite extensive and detailed. Just as Noosa Council is not required to adhere to federal government or state government procurement principles, other organisations with grant funding arrangements with Noosa Council are not required to adhere to local government procurement principles.
00:18:00 Section 13.5 of the agreement already states that for the term of the agreement, TNC will provide annual reports no later than 30 days after the end of the financial year. Page 21 of the agreement is part of the five page delivery schedule timeline already stated. It states that annual project reports and financial reports will address, at a minimum, activities undertaken during the financial year, status and progress against deliverables, budget progress, income and expenditure, report against monitoring and evaluation program and measurable outcomes and outline of proposed upcoming works activities for the future period. Section 13.6 already states TNC will provide six monthly reports to Noosa Council on the progress and status and delivery of phase two and phase three of the shellfish agreement. This includes the five page restoration project including expenditure against grant monies provided by Noosa Council.
00:19:00 Page 21 of the five page delivery schedule already outlines the six monthly status and progress report, which must address, at a minimum, progress against deliverables and monitoring and evaluation report. Six monthly financial statements including a statement of project income funding and expenditure. So, I respectfully suggest that the motion, although perhaps well intentioned, is laid by about a month. It's based, I don't believe it's based on a, that we can impose this understanding of procurement principles on TNC. And it's repetitive in the sense that there are already requirements for six monthly annual reporting contained in the 25 page agreement that's been signed off by Council's legal team and scrutinised by professional staff. And as I said before, finally a new statement. I think it would be a poor practice to commence now, so for that reason, those reasons, I can't support the notified motion.
00:20:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. From what I heard of the Councillor when she moved the motion speaking to it, one of the primary concerns was again regarded about fiduciary duty. From the explanation provided to me and the process gone through, I am quite comfortable that I was exercising appropriate fiduciary duty in the process that has occurred. That we are not at risk of making any slip in terms of the governance and the protocols around the delivery of the partnership agreement or the alliance agreement. And therefore, I'm happy to stay with the motion and the approach that was approved last quarter. Thank you. Councillor Gerritsvig. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll concur with the comments of my two fellow councillors who have spoken already.
00:21:00 I believe that the requirements in this notified motion are somewhat onerous in compared to what we undertake in standard practice. My understanding is that, as for the other councillors, that we undertook sufficient rigour I'm satisfied that that was all undertaken through due process and agreed to last month. One last comment. I think it would be a poor council that one month after agreeing to this and having signed an agreement would then go out and try to pose some additional conditions to an agreement that was already signed and agreed to. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow. I will just speak briefly, as we all have. I just think it's poor decision-making when we all agree to come on board with such an agreement, then we come back and we try
00:22:00 and rejig things on the fly, as we've done at the moment. I just really can't support it in that motion, this motion. Sorry for those reasons. I think we have a process that works well and we must stick by it. Mayor Wellington: I'll speak against the motion. Now, I seconded the notice of motion so that it could have a fair airing. Councillor Glasgow. I did point out when I did so that I had some qualms about it. One of the qualms that I have is that, as the legal agreement is already signed, the motion suggests that the CEO require the Nature Conservancy to take various actions. My understanding is that the CEO can't require TNC to do anything at all, so I have a problem with the word require in any case. But I tend to agree with Councillor Wilkie that this debate is a month too late. My understanding is that Councillor Jackson, via conference call, was present at the ordinary meeting of July 18 and that was when Council resolved to approve the Alliance and Funding Agreement with the Nature Conservancy and that agreement was provided at that meeting as an attachment
00:23:00 and we all had an opportunity to view it then. And if she had concerns about it, that would have been a more appropriate time to raise those concerns. Now that the agreement is signed, I agree with my colleagues that it's a good time to raise those concerns. Now, I think that the horse has left the stable and really we can't be going back and asking TNC to carry out further actions, in particular that they adhere to a policy that is an internal policy of the Noosa Council. It would be highly unusual for Noosa Council to insist that a tender adhere to our own internal policies. That is most unusual. So I would be voting against this notice of motion. Councillor Jackson, you wish to close? Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson, yes, thank you. I do. Look, there's a few things I'll respond to. One is Councillor Wilkie's questions about a government being able to impose requirements
00:24:00 on suppliers or tenders or partners or alliance partners. In fact, there was a long period where both the Federal Government and the State Governments did not step up, and that's In Australia used to require all tenders or suppliers to actually have certification at Australian standards level. That used to be a requirement imposed on any tenderer or supplier. So it is not actually unusual for an organization who's going to be giving money to another organization to require adherence to certain principles. And in this case, the original proposal, which we as councillors received in January, stated that TNC would be adhering to council procurement principles. This was then changed and did not appear in the final agreement that was placed before us.
00:25:00 And I did question that at the time in July, and on consideration felt that this should be raised and could still be moved forward. We negotiated, even though obviously it isn't in the agreement. Another thing I just want to clarify, and I think the CEO was clear on this. Tourism Noosa, this is a very different sort of relationship. Tourism Noosa is not a grant recipient, whereas TNC very clearly in this agreement has defined not only that there is an alliance, but that the 1.2 million is a grant. And in fact, we would need to compare this to how we treat others. We would need to compare this to how we treat other grants that council gives to other organizations. And in all cases, there is a requirement for detailed acquittal, which is about the money. It's not just about the deliverables and saying we've achieved our milestones. It's about the money, and knowing how that money has been spent, who it's been given
00:26:00 to, and whether it's been done appropriately. So, you know, I feel that my concerns here, I am not unhappy with the fact that TNC is in agreement with many of the requirements in the agreement. There are obviously requirements for some reporting, six-monthly. There are obviously requirements for reporting on the deliverables, but I don't think the finances are stringently overviewed by council, and this is why I do have a concern about this. Just have a quick look here, what else people said. Yeah, I guess that's really what I want to say. So, my feeling is that it would be appropriate, and not unappropriate, in light of the importance of managing expenditure of ratepayers' money, it would be appropriate for the CEO to negotiate
00:27:00 these things with TNC and perhaps find a solution. And I might mention that I asked this question very clearly at the July meeting, and the CEO here has said that he didn't make any changes or negotiate any changes to the agreement. Well, that was his choice. There was an opportunity there to perhaps explore some of these things previously. And as I said, I'll call for a division on this motion, and I'll be voting in favour of it. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Okay, I'll put the motion. All those in favour? If you can say aye. Myself? Councillor Jackson? Aye. So, that's Councillor Jackson in favour. All those against? Councillors Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Glasgow and Wellington. The motion is lost. We move on now to consideration of committee recommendations, and we begin with the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. And the first one is a material change of use for multiple housing at 217 and 219 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville.
00:28:00 Item number two is material change of use for a car park at 115 Eumundi Noosa, Noosa Road, Noosaville. Item number three was referred on to the General Committee. Item number four is the Environment and Sustainable Development Department update for the fourth quarter. The recommendation is that all those recommendations be adopted. So moved. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Glasgow. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Can we have a noise from you, please? Councillor Jackson: Oh, sorry. I'm in favour. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. We move on to the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations. And item number one is the Disaster Management Memorandum of Understanding between Noosa and Gympie Councils. Item number two are the Guidelines, the Guiding Principles for Sealing of Gravel Roads. Item number three is the Collection and Purchase of Scrap Metal and Lead Acid Batteries. Item number four is the Peregian Beach Digital Hub Full Year Report to June 30th.
00:29:00 Councillor Jackson: Yes. Mr Chair, I have an alternate motion that I wish to put in relationship to this. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. So we'll deal with the Peregian Beach Digital Hub separately. I think your motion is on the screen here, Councillor. Thank you. Great. Thanks very much. Speaker 6: Can I suggest that you read out, or whether the Chair reads it out, paragraph B, which contains the amendment? Councillor Jackson: I can read that out. Okay. So what's different from what's on the agenda is paragraph B. And it's a minor change, but make sure that you read that out. I motion approve continuation of the council facilitated model for the operation of the hub for a further two year period from January 2020 to December 2021 with six months of the reporting to council with further continuation of that model to be decided by council on the basis of performance reports and a business plan for achieving the agreed objectives of the Peregian hub model, including forecast budgetary estimates.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'm seeking a seconder for that motion. Seconded, Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Wilkie: For the sake of argument, just to clarify your question, if someone seconds a motion, they can't move an amendment to it? That's correct. A mover and a seconder cannot move an amendment. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not concerned about an amendment. Councillor Wilkie: No, just for the benefit of people listening. Mayor Wellington: Would you care to speak to it, please, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I would, but I might ask you, is it Kim or is Anthony there also? Kim. Mayor Wellington: Anthony. Anthony is here, as is Chris Bowden, in fact. Councillor Jackson: Oh, right. Or Kim. Or Kim. Mayor Wellington: Or Kim. Councillor Jackson: I can ask a couple of questions, perhaps, before I speak. Mayor Wellington: Chris and Anthony, do you want to just come up to the table for a minute? Sorry, they're making their way to the desk at the moment, Councillor Jackson.
00:31:00 Okay, great. All right, you've got three to choose from. Fire away. Councillor Jackson: Okay, well, I think I'll let you guys decide who answers my question. So, the first one is around, originally, the council, before my time, said that the Peregian Digital Hub would actually be making surpluses, and cover the investment of the building as well as the operations. Now, so far, this is not developing, and can you talk about the deficits in this last year, and the deficit expected for the 2019-2011? Yeah. So, I think, I think this is going to depend on the budget that we will be making. Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. Hi, Ingrid. Hi. Hi, you, I sent some responses to your questions, and I'll just refer to- Thank you, Anthony. Councillor Jackson: You're welcome. Speaker 1: I'll just refer to a table others haven't seen, but the key stats are, and we've talked through these before.
00:32:00 I guess that, in this financial year, we've exceeded budget by a significant number. We had a budget revenue of $12 billion. So if I just talk about the revenue and controllable costs initially, and we budgeted to have a deficit of revenue less direct costs or controllable. So in other words, excluding depreciation and internal charges, we had a we budgeted a deficit of 90,000. We came in at a deficit of about 38 or 37,897. And we're budgeted next year. With an aggressive revenue growth of 20% and 57% above our budget for last year. So our deficit is forecast to be for 1920 to be 12,000. So obviously, we are moving towards that break even point. And I obviously fully understand the history, Ingrid, and we've certainly covered that. And that's been a challenge for all of us.
00:33:00 But I guess for myself and Chris, particularly, it's been very pleasing the results. I'm personally very confident that there probably couldn't have been another model to deliver that kind of results. And a person like Chris is pretty special in that role. And the other meetings we've had on this certainly backs up. So yeah, take the point, Ingrid. And I guess we do, we certainly feel that we're doing the best with the resources we have and the environment we have. And we're pretty proud of the results. So far, and, and our growth, as I just repeat in 1920 budget is forecasted to be 12,000 deficit, just Anthony, I think I heard you say, but please confirm that that does not include certain things. When you look at that deficit, what was it you said that did not include things? Yes, correct. So it doesn't include the indirect costs or corporate costs, and those being depreciation, amortization, depreciation, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amortization, amort
00:34:00 Councillor Jackson: and internal charges. Right, okay. And I also had been concerned that there had been no business plan provided. And I did request that of you. And look, I thank you, by the way, for the things you have answered me about previously in writing. I was a bit surprised. And as you know, I'm not even physically there to receive the... Councillor Jackson, I'm wanting to... Yes, just make sure there's a question. You're not talking to me, you're thinking about it. Okay, sure. So I received a business plan, and I believe all councils received a copy of the business plan one hour ago before the meeting. And I've discovered that in the business plan, there's a very optimistic view that the Peregian Beach Hub will be making a surplus from after this next year. And I'm interested to know how that is being...
00:35:00 So optimistically estimated. Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. That, again, is just for the controllables or the direct costs. So if you look on that table, the 12,000 I referred to for this current budget year of 19-20 is in there as the deficit. And yes, it is forecast then to... This is, remember, excluding the indirect, the depreciation and the internal. So yes, the aggressive forecast, because what we wanted to do is keep to what we said, which was about 18 months ago, December 2017. These are the numbers that we forecast them. And I guess that, you know, it's pretty ambitious, but we're still working really hard to hit those surpluses before depreciation and overheads of the following year. So that will be 2021 is a surplus of 52,000.
00:36:00 Councillor Jackson: So where would such an increase of revenue or decrease in expenditure come from? How could this happen? Speaker 1: Yes, through you, Chair. For next year, there's another 50,000. And most of that will be in sponsorships, adding a few other grants, and probably about a 10%, 15% increase in our co-work or lease. The other consideration, Councillor Jackson, is the extension as well that will come online in about 18 months. So, you know, there's some revision and some... We're looking at options now as part of the Rupert Street project. So these numbers are basically our best forecast, and I guess it gives us comfort that, to date, we've, in the last 18 months, hit what we actually said we would do with a lot of unknowns.
00:37:00 There's not many councils, as we know, have done this. So we feel like we're on track, and those forecasts are just our latest reflection of where we think we're going to get to. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thanks. I guess my... My last question would be in relationship to... You just mentioned that there's an expectation that it's around 2021 that the community house will be built, the new community house will be built, and that has implications for Peregian Hub. And I'm wondering, does that mean that there'll be quite a lot of capital costs, but will there be any costs to the Peregian Hub in relationship to... Yes. ...this change? Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. I guess my understanding, part of the Rupert Street project, which obviously is including the refit next door.
00:38:00 So there's a separate budget, so probably two answers or two parts to the answer. One is there's no forecasted revenue or costs within the current hub for any transition. Really, that transition and change will come through the Rupert Street project. And there's a separate budget for that. There's a fit-out budget. So that's really the... I guess the combination of the federal and our funding. And so, really, that's under the Rupert Street project. But probably to answer your question, there's no forecasted changes at this point from the current model. Councillor Jackson: Right. Okay. Thanks for that. So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak... Mayor Wellington: Yes, certainly. Councillor Jackson: ...to this motion. Okay. Well, look, I have studied carefully the Peregian Hub update, as well as, of course, the newsletters provided by Chris. Hello. Some noise is happening out there. And also, I do appreciate that Anthony has been very forthcoming.
00:39:00 When I asked a few questions about the financials, I've received good answers from, which I believe came from Anthony Trent, as well as Chris. So I appreciate all that feedback. I'd also like to say that I totally agree that Chris has been doing a phenomenal job of achieving something that really didn't start out with any business plan when the building was started to be built. And, you know, like, this is, like, amazing amount of work that's been completed and new initiatives implemented. So I certainly would compliment Chris for the impressive amount of work that's been done. I think some of the desired objectives may have been met. Some of them may not be attainable. But I don't think that's actually necessarily Chris's fault. I do feel that there's a few things that I am uncomfortable about with a full three-year commitment, which, by the way, becomes three and a half years, because we're in August
00:40:00 now. And we're talking January to December, the three-year commitment. And this is because I see this project still in an experimental phase. And it's a difficult, I mean, I appreciate that. I appreciate the optimistic and cheerful projections of surpluses coming into the future. But, you know, we don't know for sure that'll happen at all. Also, as Anthony says, there's still the next stage of the hub to come online in 2021, 2020, 2021. And that may, without us really, it hasn't been forecast, but there may be influences on the budget in relationship to that. And that's yet to be determined. That's the whole stage. The whole stage gets fully scoped. I also see a further issue with a three-year commitment, which really is a three-and-a-half-year commitment. And that is that there will be a council election in March, and there will be a new council elected.
00:41:00 And I don't really think it's fair to commit practically the whole term of that new council to a three-year commitment. I think it would be more appropriate to make it a two-year commitment so that, you know, the new council can review the business planning, the actual performance, and the expenditure and finances at that time. I think a two-year commitment is plenty of time to have that checked, and as well as a sufficient time to give some certainty. And, of course, I want to be reasonable, and I haven't gone back to a one-year commitment, which was perhaps my very first thought. But I think a two-year commitment is a reasonable time. It's halfway through the term. It gives two-and-a-half years to the hub to operate from now with certainty. And as this excellent work continues, it will be well-proven at that time to make a further
00:42:00 decision to commit further. So that's why I'm putting an amendment that says a two-year period rather than a three. And that's why I'm putting an amendment that says a two-year period rather than a three. And I'm articulating the need for seeing that there be a business plan in place, including forecast estimates. And it's, to me, a bit unfortunate that the business plan was provided only one hour before this meeting. I would have thought that, as the council, in this case, has almost like the role of a board, that a business plan would have been very much part of an input to our decision-making about this matter. So, yeah, that's what I'm feeling. I don't know. I will again ask for a division in relationship to my motion. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Do you have a question, Councillor Glasgow? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. This is for you, Chris. Further to our one-year anniversary, I think, last week or the week before, you mentioned an X amount of capital investment for a couple of young e-commerce, dot-com businesses up
00:43:00 and going, and actually like a gross GDP that you've turned over. Can you just please refresh me on those, if you remember? Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. So, the update I gave was that we are working with a number of hub member companies that are on the verge of closing some significant investments. Yes. There was a figure on that, though. Yeah. Although, I don't know. I don't think it's for public consumption. But, you know, I think, in many ways, is an exciting validation of the economic development impact that this is starting to have. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I have a question, and either Kim or Anthony probably can address this. We heard that Councillor Jackson felt that a business plan was only provided an hour
00:44:00 or so before the meeting, which was further information. But, from my recollection, what Anthony said is that the guts of that business plan is what was workshopped over several workshops, agreed to, and, of course, is what we have forecast in the budget when we went down this model. So, I can recall, and I think you said about 18 months ago, I can remember many sessions where the business model was both presented and debated by Councillors. Am I correct? Order. Order, Mister. Speaker 2: There's the question. Councillor Jurisevic: There's the question. Speaker 2: Through you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. Council's had many, many discussions about this. We've had many discussions about the business model and the approach to the digital hub over a number of months, which have informed the operating model that we're operating under now. And that information comes forward as part of the budget also.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 The business plan that Councillor Jackson refers to that has been distributed today, it's an operating business plan. Like all of our business areas, we have branch plans, operational plans that help guide each of the service areas. Okay. They're not, they sit under our corporate plan and our operational plan, which Council sees and endorses. And then there are operational business plans. The business plan that was circulated this afternoon fits within that. Okay. So, it doesn't, you know, traditionally be reported to Council. However, you will know, if you've had a chance to look at it, a large proportion of it is reflected in the Council report. So, many elements from the business plan sit both in the business plan and in the operational business plan, both within the report and the attachments. Councillor Wilkie: And just to clarify, Councillor Stockwell's question, how long has the business plan existed for? Speaker 2: Well, we've been operating under the business model effectively for 12 months. It's a dynamic document.
00:46:00 So, our director keeps the document up to date. There's, you know, and regularly does reporting. We do six-monthly reporting and the document, as many of our operational business plans, are regularly updated. So, you know, Chris probably updates that document, but at least monthly, if not monthly. Not more often. Mayor Wellington: Question for you, Kim, if you don't mind. The motion before us is recommending a further two-year period for the continuation of the model. Could you please explain your rationale about choosing three years rather than two? Speaker 2: Yes, certainly, through the Chair. We, as officers, definitely put a lot of thought into the timeframe. Given the issues that Councillor Jackson, I guess, has talked about, that we are effectively, and we've referred to this before, in start-up mode. So, things are changing rapidly with the help. But there was definitely method and consideration around our three-year recommendation, as opposed
00:47:00 to two. And the report outlines a range of reasons as to why we're recommending that. And I'll just sort of summarise a couple of them. The model trajectory looks very similar. It's very positive. And the report outlines, you know, a range of both financial projections, as well as the attachment around the business growth and economic development that's happening under the current model. We feel it's very important to provide a level of certainty and prudent for all involved and all who have invested. And it's not just Council that's investing in this. There are a number of tenants who are investing a lot in this, and co-workers. So, we feel that it's important to provide a level of certainty. But I guess the most significant consideration is that, you know, early 2021, we are anticipating stage two of the hub to come online. And if we were to do a two-year extension, at the 18-month mark, which is mid-2021, we
00:48:00 would be reporting to Council, as we are now, six months before the operating model, to recommend a review of the operating model. That finds us mid-2021. We'll be right in the middle of trying to bed down stage two. We'll have just completed it, the transition to it, the integration. All of those things were considered seriously. And we felt reviewing the model and trying to bed down stage two would provide a level of disruption and uncertainty that really wouldn't be possible. So, given those things, we've recommended three years. We've continued reporting six-monthly and annually. And we would report at the two-and-a-half-year mark on the review of the model and recommendation going forward.
00:49:00 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Dirizewit. Yes, Mr Chair. It's probably a question for the CEO. With regard to a motion approving a model for a three-year extension. I think that the model was failing at any point in that three years. Whilst we could not rescind the motion, would we be able to move an alternate motion to then cease that model of operation? A new motion, you mean. A new motion. Speaker 6: I think what would happen if that model wasn't working, the staff would bring back to the Council and say, this model's not working, we need to look at alternatives. So, there would be a further report coming back to Council within that period if the model was not effective. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Obviously, that's in effect what I was, the answer I was seeking. Question for the, either the Director or the Economic Manager or the Peregian Hub Operator. Now, my understanding is, and this is probably for the benefit of those that haven't had a chance to have a look at the financials inside.
00:50:00 The original estimate of, in the budget, the original budget operating situation, I understand, was $90,607 in deficit. And even though the report was originally incorrect, the actual turnover for the first year to, was a deficit of only, sorry, was a turnaround of that of $52,710 to only have a recorded deficit of $40,000 in the first year. Is that correct? Through you, Chair. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think just clarifying that, I think, yeah, $52,710, what we're referring to is the table on page 34 of the report. And there's a figure there under year-to-date variance, that's the column, and it's operating surplus or operating deficit. So yes, the figure that's in the report is $44,290, and that should read $52,710.
00:51:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Just for the benefit of those that didn't go through the process that we went through, we're not understanding that. We're trying to determine a model here. Is it not correct that we looked at a number of other entities that are trying to conduct business in entities such as our own hub, such as one in Ipswich and another in another council area that I can't think of the name of off the top of my head? If that's the case, what is the current status of those entities out there? Councillor Jackson: Point of order. I think this is irrelevant. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll allow it, because I think it'll be a fairly quick answer, Councillor Jackson. Through you, Chair. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think in our previous discussions, I guess that we highlighted the fact that we've spoken to Ipswich and Fire Station 101 and watched their journey over the last few years.
00:52:00 And the latest I understand is that's certainly back in-house and very little awareness on that one. But I think what we are aware of is that, you know, there's a number of other entities out there. One of the original tenant or applicants to run the hub, Little Tokyo 2, is in receivership or administration. So it does highlight the challenges. And hence, you know, obviously the model that we've ended up at and proposing to move forward with, we're confident that we've got the, I guess, all the components and the framework right. But yeah, Little Tokyo 2 certainly are in administration. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to speak against the motion. I appreciate Councillor Jackson's concern that we maintain a close watch on the digital hub and spending related to it. However, this isn't a short term project. This is a long term project. This project started with the previous Noosa Council.
00:53:00 I'm not clear, I'm certainly not satisfied from the argument given that the upcoming March elections are necessarily germane to how long we allow the hub to operate, particularly given that it's already spanned two councils and I do want to acknowledge the forward thinking and the support of my predecessor, Mayor Noel Playford, in that regard. He was very much a force behind this project. It is now been almost five years, in fact, since the project came to light and council decided to head down this path. But more importantly, in questioning Kim Rawlings about the reason for a three year model, the thing that really struck home to me was providing certainty to the tenants. And I think that is really critical to our decision making here. We've got 18 businesses in that hub at the moment employing 55 people, apart from all the many
00:54:00 wonderful things that it's doing, which are more than paid for by the deficit that it's experienced, given the amount of people it's reaching. And I could go through all that in terms of the partnerships, organisations, the creative and residence program, the after school classes, the workshops for adults, the mentoring program, the internships, etc, etc, etc. This is reaching so many people. This is economic development at its finest in that regard. But most importantly, it won't survive unless it's done. It won't survive unless it's done. It won't survive unless it's done. It won't survive unless it's done. It won't survive And I believe that they do require security, that this council isn't suddenly going to pull the rug from under them. And three years seems to me a fair sort of time span. Acknowledging that we are getting reports back every six months, every year. And we are also considering the costs associated with this project annually when it comes to the budget. So there's plenty of scrutiny going on. And three years provides the tenants the necessary comfort they need to feel that we are endorsing and supporting the project and we are behind what they are doing at the hub.
00:55:00 Councillor Glasgow: I'm going to speak and I'm going to speak early, which is very rare for me, but I feel this is actually paramount for me to do. Because putting aside all these more red tapes you're putting up here, Mayor Wellington has put it very, very plain and simple. We're blue skying in here. We've always blue skied. And, you know, this is our business. We want it. We want it to flourish and to create more jobs and more prosperity in the future. And putting this idiotic two years up in front of us is kind of. Be careful. Be careful. Point of order. Mayor Wellington: Yes. Point taken, Councillor Jackson. Retract that. Putting these two years. Just retract. Retract what I said. Councillor Glasgow: Thank you very much, Councillor. Retract what I said. Sorry, Councillor Jackson. But putting these two years up in front of us doesn't give the current businesses any security where they can be at all. We want this to go forward. We want this to be as best and as flamboyant and beautiful as the way we can.
00:56:00 I think we're going back from from three years to two years just makes it just a little bit more harder, which is what we don't want. So and we've just spoken about how Chris said, you know, there's multi millions of dollars possibly in capital investment here with future entrepreneurs and so forth. They're now shy. We need this to flourish and to support it, not to make it any harder. I can't support it. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I'm not going to support the amended motion or the motion that stands before us. Councillor Jackson did allude to the provision of surpluses. I believe that the business model does start to head in that direction. And I asked that question during the last meeting as to what the, you know, whether there was a prospect of this in the future. This has always been a speculative project with regard to return. Some of the original models that were put forward were even more speculative and less chance of delivering that.
00:57:00 And I think council turned around and pulled up those models at the time and said, hang on, this isn't heading in the direction that we ultimately want. We need a better model than that. And the model that we've chosen is the one that we thought was the most likely to succeed and the most likely to deliver on outcomes. You can clearly see, and the reason I asked the question with regard to other entities out there and other entities that may have even brought in their delivery service model to this hub. Is they haven't worked. This is a challenging field. It's a new field. It's, you know, it's new, exciting, and it's, and it's going. And we seem to have a model here that has been accepted and is growing and developing in a very short span of time. The turnaround from the original budget is to be applauded. And I welcome, welcome those figures. I think they are outstanding for a first year of operation when we're expecting something in the vicinity of $100,000 deficit on operating performance. The main parameter here, though, is that we do need to provide certainty for those entities that are there that have taken on board and jumped on board with this model and are willing to support council in this facility.
00:58:00 They think there's something in this model and they think there's something going forward in it for them to stay with us and to go forward and to help this entity expand and grow. They give of their own. They expand their knowledge and activities to it. They're willing to support this digital industry within our region. And I think that's to be commended. The need for changing the three year model to a two year model, it's clearly not required. If this starts to fall down, we can at any stage turn around and pull the pin. But giving certainty with three year model and acknowledging the work that's been done to this point and proceeding ahead with a minimum three year model to give it to give it its chance to give it its legs to give to watch the second stage development grow and to watch new entities. And more entities come in and become a part of this digital revolution that is happening here in Peregian Beach is something I think we need to support and support wholeheartedly.
00:59:00 Thank you. Thank you, councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. I think section A of this motion says a lot. We are congratulating the founding director of the Digital Hub for achieving the outstanding results in the first year. It's only 12 months. And he has had a positive impact. Down there in the hub. I don't know if the manager could have done anything over and above what he already has done to give a better result down there. He has exceeded the budget expectations, the budget that we collectively set as councillors. They have exceeded that, exceeded our expectations. The budget always projected a deficit. Deficits in the first few years. And we're looking to be getting to surface far quicker than I remember.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 So that's to be congratulated for that. I can't support the notified motion because it's not a motion because the two years is not enough certainty for for the tenants. Down there. It's about signalling to the market and the people who have invested down there what we have our confidence in the operation. I think if staff have recommended three years and the manager is recommending three years, I'm supporting them in that because they've done everything to earn that that respect and that trust and that respect for their professional advice. Also, part B of the motion infers that there is no business. It suggests that, you know, there needs to be a business plan. Well, there is a business plan. So I, from that aspect, part B gives the an incorrect impression or incorrect inference.
01:01:00 And for that reason, I can't support it. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell, two words that are key. Confidence, certainty, it's economic development. Today, the headline, Wall Street markets plunge 3% after bond market sends U.S. real estate to the U.S. market. Recession warning. Confidence, certainty or lack of it and uncertainty is what's driving my poor little retirement fund down. And that's what it is about. This is an economic initiative where you have to build both. You have to send out to the market really strong, positive signs that we're performing really well. We're performing to our expectations are achieved or greater in terms of what we forecast. And we intend to stick it for another three years. And such, I can't support the motion. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson, you get a close. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question of the Pre-Gent Management first.
01:02:00 And again, whoever would like to answer this. The current anchor tenants who are the permanent tenants, what is the length of time on their leases? Speaker 1: Three years, Chair, and Chris can correct me if my memories are vague on this. I believe both were signed for a three-year term and probably a plus one renewal. I'd have to potentially take that on notice to do it to be absolutely 100%. But three year plus one year is certainly my recollection of both of those contracts. And then one year in, it's over. Councillor Jackson: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes, July. So, okay, thank you. One year in. Just over one year. Councillor Jackson: Thank you for that. Okay. Well, look, I'll just close briefly, perhaps focusing on that answer. And that is, for those of you who have experience being landlord, the certainty is actually through the leases.
01:03:00 And in fact, the motion we are all putting, whether it's a through, well, the motion I've put, which is a two-year further continuation of the business model, which is a two-year further continuation of the business model, it does not imply the leases. In fact, it is the leases that give the tenant certainty. There is nothing stopping the leases from being, extending beyond the commitment to one business model or another. And it sounds like at the moment that if they do have an additional two years to one with an option for another year, that does give them the three-year likelihood. And there is an option they're sitting on, which means there's a little bit of uncertainty for them anyway in their leases. So I think the idea that somehow a decision should be made about leases rather than about business planning is a bit of a red herring here.
01:04:00 I think also that there was an implication by Ms. Councillor Wilkie that Part B, where I suggest that the leases should be made, is a bit of a red herring here. I think also that Part C, where I suggest there be business plans taken into consideration, including forecast budgetary estimates, that implies there is no business plan. Well, that statement, first of all, has no implications for the current situation, because it's about the future, and it's about what happens at the end of the two-year period. But secondly, in fact, the business plan, after I asked for it earlier this week has only just been sent to us today, And quite frankly, regardless of workshops and briefings, I had no knowledge there was a business plan and it was not seen as an appropriate input to council decision making. I'm making the point in this motion that in fact a business plan is fundamental to decision making about the business model.
01:05:00 Because a business plan also includes not only actions to be taken to achieve the objectives of the Peregian Hub, but also the forecast budgetary estimates, which currently I might add are exceptionally optimistic and rather fungible. So I do not think there are justifications for going for three years. I think two years is a satisfactory period of time. It provides an appropriate amount of... certainty. In fact, it is two and a half years because it's only August now and these two years start in January. As pointed out by Kim, any further continuation would come to council half a year earlier anyway for consideration. And there would be therefore plenty of time to make that decision.
01:06:00 Meanwhile, the leases of our tenants would continue. And that continues to give them certainty. Thanks. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Jackson: Myself. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jackson. Those against? Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jackson: I have called a division. Mayor Wellington: Yes, that's why I'm calling out the noes. They're being written up as I speak. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Wellington. I'm now looking for someone else to move a motion to deal with this matter. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to move the motion as presented by the staff in the original report. I'll second that. Mayor Wellington: Seconded, Councillor Glasgow. Care to talk to it, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: I think for all the reasons that have been mentioned previously, I support the initiatives of the staff and I, again, acknowledge the significant contribution by Chris Bowden. I think the model that we have chosen and the person that we have placed in this position is one of the main reasons that we're in the position that we're in and I'd like to acknowledge
01:07:00 that and give that strength of position for the director of the digital hub to continue in that position, continue in that form and continue the great work that he is doing down there, countless and tireless hours to achieve the result that he has achieved this year. I'm sure that if this model continues and the activities continue in the way they are and the development of the stage two of this hub and the new community that we're in, I think we'll see the community building down there, that this will be a model to be followed by other digital hubs in the future. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. For those who may be listening at home and may not know much about the digital hub, the first year performance of the hub has exceeded budget financials and indications after only 12 months are that the heavy focus on talent and skills development and business mentoring is laying the groundwork for and already delivering a positive economic impact. Chris Bowden, the digital hub director has worked smart and hard, apart from two major anchor tenants, the global email service provider Atmail and Contract and 32 co-working members,
01:08:00 in 12 months the hub has seen two new companies through their connections, they're established at the hub. The hub has hosted multiple machine learning workshops, seven digital skills workshops for over 110 adults, 3D workshops on 3D design and printing, 12 skills workshops for young inventors taught by young inventors, there's been an after school inventor and robotics club and programs for girls in robotics and engineering, I understand it was a drone workshop for girls, and the active mentoring of 10 high school inventors, there are 12 senior kids learning entrepreneurial skills and earning dollars from paid workshops, the hub is providing entrepreneurial support to 27 companies, 40% not based at the hub, it has hosted 21 monthly events for IT groups with over 500 individuals. There's been a massive increase in the number of international attendees and thousands of new connections facilitated in this new IT community. Apart from being ahead of budget, by all measures it is helping skill up today's younger generation
01:09:00 to create their own employment opportunities in the future, and this is the social capital that people talk about, you can't see it in dollar figures now on a balance sheet but it's valuable nevertheless. I don't know what else the manager and his support network could have delivered in 12 months to assure council that this facility is heading in the right direction. Mayor Wellington: Thank you councillor. I'm going to be very brief. When I attended the one year celebration a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking with a number of the tenants including one of the anchor tenants, and they all professed to me how incredible the digital hub is at Fridgen, not just for the steering that is being provided by its director Chris Bowden, but more importantly because it had a low local government behind it that wanted to see it succeed, and in that regard they said the difference between our model and the other models, and some of them had worked at other
01:10:00 places, was that every other place had to prove itself by making a profit, and the thing that distinguished the Fridgen Digital Hub was we cared more about the community, and if I may use your word Anthony, the digital ecosystem, than we did about making a profit, and that's why it had a completely different feel to it. In terms of a working environment, because they weren't having to prove their worth by providing a profit back to council. Now obviously we'd like it to make a profit, obviously we'd like it to break even, however we have noted from that long list that councillor Wilkie just provided, how much work is being done there which is not simply profit driven, and which cannot be easily quantified in terms of dollar value. I really want to endorse three years here. Because a three year model, and we're talking about a three year model, does provide comfort and confirmation to those tenants in the hub that this council is serious about seeing
01:11:00 it succeed. This has nothing to do with leases, it has us saying we expect this model to work into the future because in the first year it's already been proven to work. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thank councillor Wilkie for so clearly enunciating the outcomes. In one year, which are quite remarkable. I also think it's really important to understand that the hub is more than just the tenants. The hub is more than just the people who are co-working. When I used to do an economic development role in government, we had an outcome that we tried to achieve which I think really has meaning for economic development in government. And that was the role of government is to create the conditions of success. And that's what needs for the three years. We need to create the conditions of success. We need to get all the interrelationships in the ecosystem, just like in nature, and that's what's happening. And we need to give those people who are in that stage of going from a start up to the
01:12:00 next stage or to give them that support, which will create the potential for large economic gain for this community and give the opportunity for children like my kids and those a little bit younger. So that when they grow up. They can have. A quick, savvy job in Noosa, not having to travel and that's part of what we're doing. We're trying to re-engineer a little bit our economy so that there is a wide variety of choice in employment and that doesn't happen overnight. And the other reason why we need certainty is that the hub attracts people to Noosa. So there is an investment attraction element of the hub. So at our one year celebration. I was really pleased to talk to the wife of a person from the one of the deserts in America somewhere and they wanted to bring their robots over here, and I think that'd be great. As long as the robots don't take over, I'm fine with it.
01:13:00 But that's what we, that's what the certainty and the confidence is. It's about having a model that we can go out and market, not just to our own community, but to the world and say, you come here and we'll create the conditions where your business or your idea will be successful. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic, you wish to close? Yes, please. Councillor Jackson: No, I'm sorry. I do wish to speak. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Just in the nick of time. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Well, I'm over here. Yeah. So I guess, look, I want to say that I think the aspirations, and many of you are speaking about the aspirations of the Pre-Region Hub are a really good thing. And also, in no way has my suggestion been successful. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson, you have to speak to the motion before us, not your previous failed motion, I'm afraid. Councillor Jackson: I am speaking about this motion. So now I've lost my train of thought.
01:14:00 In no way am I suggesting that there was any issue with the performance of the hub. I'd like to say that I am highly impressed by what Chris has achieved. And I think it's a really nice and good thing that we are supplying a lot of support to high school kids. And that's a positive outcome. I'm also highly impressed by the new networks that Chris is developing, where previously there was not a lot of relationship between the various IT people across the country. Across the Shire, and across the Sunshine Coast. This work that Chris is doing is developing a lot of synergy, and I think that is all to be applauded. So look, I'm supportive of what's happening. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's any evidence this is actually going to contribute
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 to the economy. And we will see. And perhaps we shouldn't be making that such a strong, important outcome. If we, it may not actually happen, I mean, maybe we should just be happy that something's happening. I actually think that three and a half years commitment, which is what we're talking about, to the model still does cut across the ability of any newly elected council to reassess the situation. And I don't think that that is needed, a three and a half year commitment is needed to that extent. And that the same situation wouldn't happen just in a two year time. So for that reason, for the reason that I think that more evidence is needed of effectiveness, that the leases can be as long as they are anyway, I think that it will be not appropriate to go for three and a half years, which is what we're committing to here.
01:16:00 And I will therefore vote against this motion, even though I very much like Part A. And I think that it will be not appropriate to go for three and a half years, which is complimenting Chris. And I would like a division, please. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Care to close, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Clearly, some of the elements of the previous argument weren't heard. Heaven forbid that the model doesn't succeed. And at any stage through this process in the next three years of this extension, council can and has the power to turn around and say, this model isn't working. We can pull the pin on it. We can pull the pin on it and look at a different model. I don't want to see that happen. I don't think anybody wants to see that happen. But we do have that power if that scenario occurs. There was a question asked, where is the growth likely to come from through this process? Well, somewhere down to our south, not too far, there's a new cable coming to be connected
01:17:00 to the Sunshine Coast. And I'm sure that's going to attract a lot of interest. And I'm sure that's going to attract a lot of interest. Mayor Wellington: Councillor, you do know you're not supposed to introduce new material in a... Councillor Jurisevic: Fair point. I'll take that on board. But I believe the question was raised through the argument with regard to where is the economic diversity going to come from. And that's a good point, you know. The point of this is that we're diversing our economy. We're looking at new and other models. And I believe that this will attract new business. We've been often told through the last 12 months that council's not supportive of business. I don't know how we could be more supportive of business. We've even given birth to two, for Christ's sake. I think that's outstanding. And I hope we can be a midwife for many more businesses to come. Talking through the model, leases are just a component of the model.
01:18:00 There are many, many more facets to this model. And I applaud where this model has taken us. Chris and I spoke at length about the opportunities, and Councillor Wilkie alluded to them and so did Councillor Jackson, to bring school kids on board. This is a growing and developing field. This is not necessarily taught well at school. And the opportunities to provide those learnings and that growth phase for students to develop and grow in this digital sphere is huge. And those kids have an opportunity here with our digital hub and the way that this model is being presented. And hopefully that will continue to get them to grow, develop, and come back and stay and be a part of this for years to come. We won't be searching for tenants. I'm hoping they'll be beating a part of this. I'm hoping they'll pass to our door. So apart from the other element that Councillor Wilkie alluded to was the social capital. Schools, students, and the social capital is something that isn't a tangible that can be measured.
01:19:00 But it's clear from that, as the Mayor alluded to, it's clear that that is evident, so evident, within one year of operation at the hub. And I'm sure that will be something that will continue to grow and develop and produce financial results. And I'm sure that we'll see some results for us in the very, very near future. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Time to put the motion. All those in favour? And we have Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Glasgow, and Wellington. Those against? Myself. Thank you, Councillor Jackson. The motion is carried. We go back to the Item 5, which was forwarded on to the General Committee. Thanks, Anthony. Thanks, Chris. Yeah, thanks, guys. Thank you. Item 6 was forwarded to the General Committee, will be dealt with later. Item 7, similarly. Item 8, also, will be dealt with later this evening. Item 9 is the Capital Programme Delivery Status, June 2019.
01:20:00 Item 10 is the Infrastructure Services Department update for the fourth quarter. Item 11 is the Noosa Holiday Parks update for the 30th of June. Item 12 is the Corporate Services Department update for the fourth quarter. Item 13 is the Noosa Holiday Park update for the 30th of June. Item 14 is the Noosa Aquatic Centre full year report for the 30th of June. Item 14 is the Noosa Leisure Centre full year report for the 30th of June. Item 15 is the Jay and Bicentennial Community Centre full year report. Councillor Wilkie? Oh, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Look, I need to declare a conflict of interest here. I am the Secretary of the Noosa Gymnastics Club. And I choose to leave the room. All this matter is... You need to explain the reason for your conflict. I'm the Secretary of the Noosa Gymnastics Club. Which is? Which is the club. And the principal tenant in the Bicentennial... Well, one of the tenants in the Bicentennial Community Hall. And their operations are subject in this report. So I would like to leave the meeting while that item is dealt with.
01:21:00 I'll move that. Mayor Wellington: No, we don't need to. Oh, you're moving the motion. You have to wait. Councillor Wilkie: I thought you were moving the meeting. Mayor Wellington: I'll move it. Councillor Glasgow moved. Councillor Jurisdict's seconded. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Glasgow? No, that's all been said. Anyone wish to speak to this? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Jackson: Aye. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor Jackson. The motion is carried. Can we invite Councillor Wilkie back, please? We return to the services and organisation recommendations and the next item is item 16 which is the Noosa community support full year report for the 30th of June. Item 17 is the community services department update for the fourth quarter. Item 18, executive services department update for the fourth quarter. Item 19, operational plan progress report for the fourth quarter.
01:22:00 The recommendation is that those recommendations that were not otherwise adopted be so done. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure exhausted reading out just all those recommendations, Mr Chair. But I... Oh, so moved. Mayor Wellington: Moved, Councillor Jurisdict. Seconded, Councillor Glasgow. Anyone wish to speak to it? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Jackson: Aye. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. And that's carried. We now go on to the general committee recommendations. Item number one is the Noosa Council submission to Queensland Government's Queensland EcoTourism Trails Program, Cooloola Great Great Walk. Item number two is the review of council meeting live streaming and video operations. Councillor Jackson: Yes, Mr Chair. I have an alternate motion I wish to put. Mayor Wellington: Do you have a motion to put? Yes, I think we have it on the screen. Councillor Jackson: Can we read it first, Kylie? Mayor Wellington: Yes. Councillor Jackson: Okay, so perhaps... Mayor Wellington: Yes. Councillor Jackson: Shall I speak? I'll read to the... Read. Mayor Wellington: It looks like you've added... You've changed E and added F.
01:23:00 You've changed. Would you care to read those out, please, Councillor? Councillor Jackson: That's right. So, in place of D, as it stands at the moment, I've instead, in this motion, put, agree to video record Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Organisation Committee meetings and make such recordings available for public viewing, and F, request the CEO to investigate live streaming Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Organisation Committee meetings. Mayor Wellington: Any other seconder for this one? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it for the sake of argument. Mayor Wellington: Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. You wish to speak to it, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I would. I've received a lot of positive feedback, and I'm sure I'm not alone, about the live streaming and video recording of council meetings, both from residents and from red payers, who are not necessarily always resident. And I think it's important to note that we have a lot of positive feedback, and I'm sure
01:24:00 I'm delighted to see, also, the number of views that council meetings are receiving. It's over 4,400 views of council meetings to date on Noosa Council TV, YouTube. So, it's good to know, also, that council staff find it useful, probably for information, and also, I mean, they don't any longer have to waste their time sitting in the meeting room, waiting to be the next one to speak. They can just watch. They can just keep an eye on it at their desk, and come up when it's time for them to speak. So, both for information and for timing. I thank councillors, or at the general meeting, where I was not able to attend, that councillors have supported my suggestion of bookmarking each item on the videos. This will make an enormous difference for our residents and red payers, our Shire people, because they can now go to Noosa Council TV.
01:25:00 On YouTube, and simply click on the agenda items they're interested in, without having to spend hours looking for it on the video. I very much appreciate, the CEO also recommended my motion that councils publicize the availability of live streaming and meeting videos. Some of you would be aware that I do this myself, on my own Facebook page, because I think people should be aware that things are on the agenda, and coming up, and that they can watch. So, I'm happy to do that. And I believe this is something council itself should be doing, to keep Noosa Shire people informed. The Queensland Information Commissioner calls this, push communication. It's all about getting information out to people, and not just hoping that they'll come and look for it, without being told it's there. I have been disappointed that the CEO, in his report, did not recommend videoing the planning and organization committee, and the services and organization committee.
01:26:00 And for those who are not aware of what that is, those are the first two committees, which only contain half the councillors, the mayor and three other councillors. And those committees then forward things on, either to the ordinary committee, or to general committee for debate. And I consider all committee meetings worthy of videoing, for viewing by residents and rate payers. Of course, everyone's welcome to attend these meetings, as they are open to the public, but it's difficult during the pandemic. It's difficult during work hours, and difficult during, because of other commitments, for people to come to such meetings. But if they're on the online, people can have a look at them when they have the moment to do it. At those portfolio committees, many incisive questions are asked, explored, and answered. And those items, which are not referred to general committee for debate, usually end up being voted on at ordinary meetings, just like they have been voted on in the past.
01:27:00 So they never get an airing at the ordinary meeting, or the videos that are videoing at the ordinary meeting. But these things that are discussed at the planning and environment committee, and the services and organization committee, are still important decisions. Council should be moving in the direction of being more and more open and transparent, vis-a-vis the community. Council now, in fact, is the only committee that is open and transparent vis-a-vis the All of these meetings held at different locations around the Shire, because we do hold meetings, ordinary meetings, at times in different locations, and the first one that was videoed was in Cooran. It would be a simple matter to set up the same travelling equipment in the Council Committee Room, so we could still hold our planning environments, services and organisation in the Committee Room, and even though this would not allow live streaming, the videos could then be uploaded to the Council TV for later viewing by Shire residents.
01:28:00 And of course another option is moving the smaller Committee Meetings into the Council Chamber, where the live streaming equipment is already set up. And this is the reason why I've put two parts into the motion, part one being that we simply video record planning environment, community and services and organisation Committee Meetings, which would allow us to do that. Part two would allow us to use the existing room, and F being that the CEO investigate live streaming, which could be done in a number of ways, including just simply moving rooms. I believe that transparency and openness with residents and ratepayers is a high priority, and that the technical solutions for how this is done is a very secondary matter. And so I encourage councillors to do that. I also encourage councillors to agree to also video record our smaller Committee Meetings that are very important in Council decision making, and I request a division, please.
01:29:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Wilkie: Question. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: There was a comment made about decisions made at the portfolio meetings attended by half the Council. Do these portfolios make any sense to you? Do these portfolio Committee Meetings have any delegated power to make decisions? Speaker 6: No, they don't have any delegated power from Council. It is possible for a Council to provide a delegation to a standing Committee. We have three standing Committees. Our Council has not made any delegation to any of those Committees to make a decision. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I believe that's a point that needs to be corrected in the, what was said by Councillor Jackson. She did mention these Committees making decisions, and that's a point that needs to be corrected. They're not decision making forums, as I understand it.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Mayor Wellington: Is that a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Are they decision making forums, Mr. Speaker? Speaker 6: Well, the only decision they can make in that sense is what recommendation to make to Council. So, the decision they make is what recommendation will come forward from that Committee to the Council. But the actual decision is made by Council, and it's not made under delegation by that standing Committee. Councillor Jurisevic: So, I guess for the sake of those watching, Mr. CEO, what reasons did you have for not supporting the argument of live streaming these two Committee meetings? Speaker 6: Yes, Councillors might recall that this was also considered last December, I think it was, when we first considered the whole question of what we live stream or how we deal with that. And at the time, I said that there were arguments that we didn't want to do. There were arguments for and against about whether or not we should live stream the Services
01:31:00 and Organisation Committee or the Planning and Environment Committee. And that's still the same now. There are arguments for and against it. This is one of those arguments that I think is on balance. That the nature of those two First Committees is that it's not all Councillors having a debate. The public interest really revolves around when all Councillors together having a debate or when they're making a decision. And what those two scenarios cover is the Council having a debate. The Council meeting, the Wurundjeri meeting, like tonight, or a special meeting, which is a full Council meeting. Both of those is where the Council makes the decision. The other one is the General Committee where all Councillors are part of that Committee and there is, as you know, long and sometimes robust debate about what recommendation to make to the Council. So there's a level of informality. The way in which our process works for those first two Committees is that there is a level of informality and a consensus approach applies. So if there's no agreement at those first two Committees, if there's going to be a debate, then that has to be dealt with by the General Committee and that's where that occurs.
01:32:00 So as I said, there are arguments for and against it, but on balance, that's why I've continued with what we determined last December, that the key area that there is interest in is the General Committee and the Council meetings, both the Wurundjeri meeting and the special meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to the motion. Thank you. Given the elements of ENF being added here, I'll hopefully be supporting the motion as it stands. I had reservations, an element of reservation about live streaming. In general, I think it's a good thing and I think there's a lot of merit in what has now become our live stream and our availability of reporting of the meetings that we have with regard to videos being available to the public. But one, there were a couple of concerns I did have and they were around certain elements of how the videos may be utilised.
01:33:00 And since Monday, one of those elements that I had fear of has come to light and that causes me to think twice about the value of live streaming. Well, not the value of live streaming, but what the negatives of live streaming. Let's just put it that way. Because with everything, there is a positive, but there are also elements that can be a negative. And one of those elements I said raised its head for me this week and it caused me to think twice. The informality of the Planning Environment Committee and Services Organisation Committee is one of those. It's not a decision-making forum, is another one. The third one is that not all councillors are present. So I see that as a reason for not supporting the live streaming of those. And again, they aren't decision-making forums, but recommendations are there. And the recommendations of those do appear in the other two when the information is presented to the other two committees for consideration. So I'm going to be voting against the motion as it stands.
01:34:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Whoopi. This is one topic that I can see both sides of the argument. I think in general, there is a ground swell for governments to be more open and transparent. And I think that the government needs to be more open and transparent. And I think that in this day and age, I think it's inevitable that governments should move that way. We are already heading down this path towards that. Noosa Council's had a great track record of having their meetings open to the public. Having adapted to live streaming the General Committee meeting, the ordinary meetings and the special council meetings. Over the past few months, I was, I have noted how more relaxed councillors and staff have
01:35:00 become, the more we become accustomed to the practice of having a camera record the meeting. I think it's a healthy change. It makes, certainly makes me more mindful of what it looks like. And I think it's, it helps with the way meetings are conducted. And I'm not necessarily convinced that if we were to record or live stream the Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Environment Organisation Committee meetings, perhaps in this room here, so there doesn't need to be another camera set up in the portfolio room. I think it's important to understand whether that informality would be lost or whether it would be retained. And that viewers would come to understand that this is where councillors and staff have
01:36:00 discussions in a more informal atmosphere. Being mindful that everything is still being recorded. I have had, I understand the logic of. I understand the logic of. Retaining live, restricting live streaming only to the General Committee where contentious debate does occur and the ordinary and special council meetings, which are the only forums where decisions of the local government can be made. I would like to move an amendment that pertains to part E. It says, agree to video record because that stays the same. Agree to video record in the Council Chamber Planning and Environment Committee and Services
01:37:00 and Organisation Committee meetings and make such recordings available for public viewing. I want to add to that wording. Agree to video record. Agree to video record. And also strike out item F, no sorry, I'll amend item F to say request the CEO to investigate live streaming in the Council Chamber, Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Organisers. Councillor Jurisevic: May I suggest that those words be added at the end of that? I would have suggested in the Council Chamber at the end of the, would have achieved the same result.
01:38:00 Mayor Wellington: Just for Councillor Jackson's benefit, if you could read those out please. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, certainly. So part E is amended to read, agree to video record in the Council Chamber, Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Organisation Committee meetings and make such recordings available for public viewing. And item F is request the CEO to investigate live streaming of the Planning and Environment Committee and Services and Organisation Committee meetings in the Council Chamber. Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'm looking for a seconder for that. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't, I can't second, can I? I can't because I've seconded the original. Councillor Wilkie: Our Councillor Glasgow has left the room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second for the purpose of the debate. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Stockholme.
01:39:00 Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question of the Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jackson: Can you please help me understand why specifically the Council Chamber? Mayor Wellington: I think he can talk to that in his. I can, I'll make it clear. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to answer it Mr Mayor. Yes, because it wouldn't require additional camera equipment. We have the sound system and the camera equipment already established and has been proven to be effective over the last few months. So it wouldn't require much work on behalf of staff to investigate that change. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Councillor Wilkie? I do. Councillor Wilkie: I did, I'm doing this because I believe that long term governments, responsible governments will head this way.
01:40:00 Noosa Council is an exemplary government in this regard. I just, I feel that live streaming, councillors, personally, councillors are adapting to live streaming. It has been a positive change in the organisation. We, so far, so far, there are risks associated with it. People are free to use lift footage from the live stream and contort it and use it in whichever way they see fit. But I feel it has not been a negative. And with the, although I do appreciate the logic behind recording, recording only the general committee meeting where contentious debate takes place and the ordinary and special meetings, which are the only forums where the council can make decisions on behalf of the local government,
01:41:00 that there is informal discussion that takes place at the planning and environment and services and organisation committee meetings, which may be of interest to applicants. Or groups and individuals with matters that come before the council. And they may be referred directly to the ordinary meeting. And often if they're referred directly to the ordinary meeting, there's not much debate if there's a direct referral. But there is occasionally and often some discussion around those items at the portfolio level, which the applicant may be interested in, which the individuals and community groups may be interested in. That's the reason why I'm proposing this. I think long term, I think maybe 10, 20 years down the track,
01:42:00 more and more councils will be doing this and it's a future focused decision. And it's about long after we're gone and unable to attend council meetings, even though we may retain an interest in council, would this be a beneficial service with knowing what we know about how councils operate and what discussions take place in which forums? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Yeah, I can't support the amendment. The argument so far has been based on pursuing one approach to good governance through increasing transparency. But it is only one approach to good governance. And we have to look at the quality of decisions being made and the other roles of those committees. So in terms of the Planning and Environment Committee, not only are they informal, but they also provide a professional development opportunity for our staff.
01:43:00 Professional development opportunity in terms of we quite often have quite junior staff coming there for the first time to have that experience of understanding how councillors view their reports. I don't think it's fair. That we bring junior staff along if it's on the public record in terms of live video streaming. I think it's much more important that we do have those first non-decision making committees as a space where people can say things that might be a mistake. Councillor Jackson: Excuse me, I'm speaking. Is this speaking to the amendment? Is this speaking to the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No one's raised a point of order. Mayor Wellington: I wish that the council remain. Okay, she's raised a point of order. Sit down Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jackson, what's your point of order please? Councillor Jackson: It doesn't appear to be speaking to the amendment which is the changes that have been made to the substantive motion. It appears to be speaking to the substantive motion. Mayor Wellington: I think he can speak to both at once because they are interrelated I would suggest Councillor Jackson.
01:44:00 Councillor Jackson: No, at the moment we are speaking to an amendment. The motion itself will be put after the amendment. Mayor Wellington: But the amendment is about videoing of these portfolio committee meetings and therefore he can talk generally about the notion of videoing of the portfolio committee meetings or not. So I'll allow it to continue. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, and I can request the Chairman that if someone's going to move a point of order please not to interrupt but to use the words point of order. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I did use the words point of order, you just didn't hear them. Mayor Wellington: Anyway, we shall carry on. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. All right. The key to me is those committees that have started off as portfolios, they are open to the public, they provide both councils and staff an informal opportunity to discuss issues and if there's anything that's mildly controversial or whether we think there's a broader public interest, they come to a general committee which is then televised.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 I think that's the appropriate mechanism. I do think we have to balance up transparency versus other aspects of good governance and in my mind that it is preferable for me to have all staff who write their reports confident in coming and discussing with councillors at the portfolio meetings their reports and therefore I won't be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Jurisbe. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I won't be supporting the amendment again for reasons alluded to earlier with regard to the motion that was there and Councillor Stockwell raises some very interesting points in that regard. One of my concerns is that as a result of the informality of the meetings that are held, we do get responses from staff.
01:46:00 My major concern is that agreeing to videotape these more informal meetings, may in fact see us not getting answers and responses at the meeting at the time and more of those questions being taken away on notice for more formal responses because staff will not necessarily be comfortable in answering those informal questions and the level of banter that occurs in a more formalised meeting chamber. and a more formalised meeting process through recording of these meetings. No one is suggesting or has suggested through this that council isn't open to live streaming or that it isn't a valued part of openness and transparency. We have seen, we have embraced it. I believe that councillors, as Councillor Wilkie has alluded to, that we've taken to it reasonably well and reasonably quickly,
01:47:00 but that's the councillors at the more formal processes. I'm usually with directors and that on board. As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, there's often a first time or an introduction for junior staff and all the rest of it. So again, for the reasons that I've alluded to, I might be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'd like to speak also. Well, first of all, I'd like to welcome Councillor Wilkie's support of the concept of video recording the subsidiary committees, a very important step. And while I'm not, I guess my initial motion left things open so that there were options of using whichever room was appropriate or whatever equipment was appropriate. I'm willing to support Councillor Wilkie's motion, which I guess reduces the equipment changes really quickly.
01:48:00 I'd like to say that, you know, people are talking a bit about governance and transparency and implying that good governance occurs by doing things without being fully transparent or not videoing. I can't agree with that. I think that... Point of order, point of order has been called. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, Councillor Jackson. There was assertions made about what was said. That inferred that I made a statement that said, now, it's not just that it was incorrect, that I find it offensive, that the assertion was made that full transparency, that good governance could not be without transparency. I think that is an incorrect assertion and one that I find offensive. Mayor Wellington: I don't believe Councillor Jackson was referring to someone in particular, but I would just caution you on that, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'd raise the same point of order.
01:49:00 I don't believe the point raised by Councillor Jackson was raised by any of the other Councillors. In their discussion. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I shall simply read what I wrote down as Councillor Stockwell speaking, that transparency needs to be considered versus other elements of good governance. So that is the statement I have written down here. I actually do believe that transparency is all about good governance and that I would question... There were some points made about the fact that committees do not... make decisions. I think we're getting into semantics here. Of course, local government decisions, council decisions are only made at ordinary meetings. Those are called resolutions. They're no longer motions, they become resolutions once they're agreed. All the committees make a form of decision and those decisions are to recommend motions to either the General Committee or to ordinary meeting.
01:50:00 Those are still a form of decisions. But that's getting into semantics. And it sort of doesn't matter because it's about transparency that this motion is all about. It's not whether decisions are made or not. It's actually more interesting what discussions take place. And I think it's important to remember that Councillors are all elected representatives. And they are representative of the Shire electorate and of the residents. And therefore should be fully accountable. There should be nothing to hide. And it should not be a problem that a smaller committee doesn't have all the Councillors or doesn't make the final decisions. It's really about saying, look, we're fully open to our community. You can see what we're talking about. We're informal this time because this is a different type of committee. That's fine. I have no evidence that in our new format... Of videoing general committees and ordinary meetings that our staff have some difficulty answering questions.
01:51:00 Clearly they take on notice things they have no answer to. But there have been plenty of answers given. There's no concerns. I see no problem with extending this further. And I'm happy to support Councillor Wilkie's amendment, which is satisfactory. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to this? To close, Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Wilkie: No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think all the arguments have been put. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'm going to put the amendment. All those in favour? Aye. All those against? The motion is deadlocked, I'm afraid. And I will use my casting vote and I will be consistent. And I will continue to vote against it so the amendment is lost. We're back to the amendment. We're back to the original motion. Councillor Jackson has spoken, Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Wilkie have spoken
01:52:00 to it. Councillor Stockwell, Glasgow. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I spoke to the substantive motion before. No, no, no. I know I didn't. I know. The same arguments apply is what I was implying. Councillor Wilkie: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Yes, certainly. Can my, is there any way my speech to, my speaking to the motion can be seen as a long-winded introduction to the amendment? No. Okay. Good try. Mayor Wellington: To move the amendment. Look, I have some concerns about this and it's a, it is a line ball call, I have to say. I agree that transparency is a good thing but also so is informality and once we move cameras to our small portfolio committee meetings a significant amount of informality will inevitably
01:53:00 be lost whether they're in this room or another room or wherever they are. So and I say that because having lost the amendment doesn't mean that if this motion gets up they can't still occur here in the chambers. There's also a degree of confusion perhaps for viewers as well. There's a degree of confusion as to why it is some meetings are extremely informal and others are more formal when we're all supposed to be abiding by standing orders throughout. Nevertheless, I agree that transparency is important in the decision-making processes and that's why these portfolio committee meetings have always been open to the public. Anyone can come and watch them and it's the reason why in fact that we refer anything contentious, weighty or of significant public interest to the general committee meeting so that it can be addressed. I think Councillor Jackson added up all the total number of views, and that is slightly misleading.
01:54:00 Certainly there was a reasonable number of views in the early stages of live streaming, but that has tended to taper off so that we're getting views of 39, 107, 123, 77, etc. Obviously it all depends what's on the agenda at any given time. A significant number of those views we know already are staff, particularly at General Committee, who are sitting at their desks keeping half an eye on what's going on in this chamber. So, you know, the weighty issues that this council deal with are there for posterity, online, captured, on video. There are some people who are choosing to watch them, not a large number I would have to say, but significantly it is important. It's important that they have that capability. The portfolio meetings, we deal with those items at the ordinary meeting, that's where the decision is made. And, as I say, for every councillor on this council, I am acutely aware that if they feel that an issue has significant public interest,
01:55:00 they inevitably forward it on to the General Committee, and that's where it gets dealt with. I think this council has been very responsible in that regard. And I would find it a bit of a shame if we lost the informality, particularly in terms of the public interest. In terms of the impost that it makes on staff. Like Councillor Jurisevic, and I'm actually going to go to it, I am very concerned, although the video recordings of meetings are on the public record, that people pick and choose elements of those meetings and cherry pick quotes, etc, and use them for other purposes. I think that's a bit of a shame. We can't do anything to prevent that. It's part of the price we pay for transparency. But I think the, kind of, frank and fearless and relaxed nature of our portfolio committee meetings actually lead to better decision making, and I think we should retain that.
01:56:00 So, councillor Jackson, would you care to close? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will. Look, I've already said most of what needs to be said before. I think this is about being open and transparent vis-à-vis our community. I think that we are representatives. We're not there in our own right to have a nice time. And I think we should be as fully transparent, as open, and as accountable as we can possibly be. So I think that my suggestion that we video the planning organisation, sorry, planning environment and services and organisation committees is a very important thing. I think it's a very important decision to make. I'd like to point out that there has not been, that I'm aware of, a lot of misuse by anybody of the fact that they're able to view committee meetings,
01:57:00 the general committee and the ordinary committee. In fact, they can come and attend and watch anyway, and so that information is open to the public anyway. These committees that currently are not videoed are under the Local Government Act, having to be open to the public. Council has no choice on that one. Why not step forward and lead the way and put them on video for the whole of the community? It doesn't matter that others may not be doing it yet. I think, as Councillor Wilkie said, this is the direction things will be going anyway. And why not have Noosa Council lead the way as a transparent council? So I put to you, Councillors, that this would be an excellent solution and I will ask for a division, of course, on this matter and I'm voting in favour of this motion.
01:58:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor? Myself. Jackson, Wilkie, Glasgow. Those against? Councillor Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. Once again, it comes to my casting vote and I will be consistent and vote against the motion. So the motion is lost. We are still looking for a mover for this matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'll move the committee recommendation. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Second. Seconded, Councillor Glasgow. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only briefly, as I think we have hit a good balance between achieving the necessary outcomes and the necessary transparency that substantive issues are now open to people both within the Chamber and anywhere in the world. But I do quite strongly believe that better decisions will be made if the informal round of services and organisation and planning environment committee are retained and not put, as I said, junior staff under the pressure
01:59:00 of being in the public spotlight to a greater extent. Councillor Wilkie: Question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Mr CEO, can you tell us what bookmarking involves and whether staff have started bookmarking or investigated bookmarking and what it will involve in terms of staff time? Speaker 6: Yes, so recommendation B is that we introduce bookmarking. What's involved is not a cost as such, it's just time for our staff who take the minutes of the meeting. So for each of the meetings, so a typical meeting will take about 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much, how many agenda items there are, how long the meeting went for and so on. For example, the night's meeting might take a bit longer than 30 minutes. But what the staff have already done is to do that and then we did the general committee one on Monday to see how that worked. Of their own initiative, which is fantastic, I want to pay tribute to both Kylie and Cathy, they've already started to do the back catalogue, back to February when we started to record our general committee
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 and council meetings. And all but two of those have already been done. Okay, thank you. And I switch to speak. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak. I think live streaming the council general committee ordinary and special council meetings obviously are a very good idea. They've been a valuable addition, a valuable service for the community. The meetings are open to the public, but those who can't attend will find it a valuable service. It is where all the contentious debate takes place and where council makes the final decisions on behalf of the local government. Fully support bookmarking. I think that's also a valuable service of use for residents who don't want to necessarily trawl through hours and hours of footage. Of course, we can communicate more extensively and frequently on the meeting services that we offer here, the meetings that are open to the public when they are, and also the live streaming services and recording services
02:01:00 that are available online. And also, first of all, the last item E. Look, I'll accept that for the time being. We will continue to live stream those meetings, but it's a discussion perhaps for a future council whether we extend the live streaming to the other portfolios. So I'll be in support of the motion. Councillor Gisborne. Councillor Jackson: Hi. Oh, sorry, sorry. Councillor Jackson, go for it. Yes, I would actually like to ask a question. I'll make a request of the chair. Mr. Chair, as you'd be aware, the best practice recommendations of the state government for standing orders, which is the meeting procedures, is that where a motion has several different components which really can stand alone,
02:02:00 that it is possible and it'd be recommended they can be taken and voted on. Separately. In this case, I'm strongly supportive of many of the elements of this recommendation and not so happy with one of them. So I would request that we go along, move forward as a council in this case with state best recommended best practice and allow for voting to take place on A, B, C, D, E separately. Or if you'd like, the one I want to vote differently on is East. If you wanted to cluster any of those, I'm okay with that. But, you know, that we do this best practice approach. And that way I can support strongly the things that I appreciate here. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor, for the request. It's a shame you didn't ask that earlier in the piece, but we have a motion.
02:03:00 Councillor Jackson: Mr. Tony, I did. As you know, I sent you an email. Mayor Wellington: Yes, and I responded saying that you could choose a number of routes, one of which was to move an amendment. But what I'm saying here is that we have a motion that has been put and has been spoken to already by two people. I can't now rewind the situation and pretend that they've only been speaking to part of the motion. I'm sorry. Councillor Jackson: I don't think that the intent of the best practice is that the motion be spoken to six different times. The intent is simply the vote is taken separately on each item. Mayor Wellington: My understanding is if you dealt with each item, you would deal with each item separately and thus you would be speaking to each item separately. And we already have people who have spoken to the substantive motion, which is A, B, C, D and E. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic.
02:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding would be the same, that we would have moved and seconded each of the elements A, B, C, D and E separately if that was to be the case. Mayor Wellington: Yes, they would all have to be moved and seconded separately in order for them to be voted on separately. Voted and spoken on separately. Yes, because you know you vote on a motion not a part of a motion. I'm sorry. There's nothing in the Standing Orders, Councillor Jackson, that allows us to vote on part of a motion. If you had said this at the beginning of this matter, then we could have dealt with it in the way you proposed. But we're halfway through discussing the motion, which is a substantive motion, which has a number of parts to it and those parts have all been spoken to. Councillor Jackson: May I ask the CEO to set this question, please? Sure. Mayor Wellington: Let Councillor Jackson answer this. Yep. Go ahead, Amy. Councillor Jackson: Yes. Hi, Brad. I would like to ask you this same question. There's been some indication that people are envisioning that somehow each item would have to be, each single clause would have to be put separately,
02:05:00 proposed separately and spoken separately. Having read the best practice from the State, my understanding is simply the vote would be taken separately on each item. Speaker 6: Okay. So, the first thing is that while there are all the best practice guidelines the State are of interest, they're not what determines our decision making at the moment. It's the current standing orders, which coincidentally are going to be repealed and taken over by Newset tonight. But the meeting that's currently underway has been determined within our, I'll call them our old or existing standing orders. And under those, it would be possible for the Chairperson to agree to take matters or take resolutions in different parts, but that should be dealt with at the beginning of that discussion, so that the, then people are aware of what they're talking to. Is it talking to A or B or all of it together?
02:06:00 So, that would be my advice to Council is that while it would have been possible to do that, it should have been done at the time that was moved to say, well, we'll deal with A and then we'll talk to A, deal with B or talk to B and so on. Mayor Wellington: I'll just point out too, that the standing orders currently state that when a motion has been moved and seconded, it shall become subject to the control of the local government and shall not be withdrawn by the mover and seconder without the consent of the local government. The standing orders don't allow for us to necessarily break up a motion when we're halfway through the process of dealing with it. Once it's been tabled, it's on the table. Speaker 6: Sorry, can I just clarify the answer? I'll go before to Councillor Jackson. The answer may be quite different under our new standing orders, but as we sit today in terms of what's the motion that's before us, that has been dealt with under our existing standing orders, not our new ones. Councillor Jackson: Okay, I'll respect that. Thank you, Brett.
02:07:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic, you had something to say or? Councillor Jurisevic: I think you've got answered in that question, actually. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson, you haven't actually spoken to the motion. Councillor Jackson: Oh, yeah. Look, I will speak to the motion. Yes, I'm basically very supportive of the recommendation to continue live streaming the General Committee Ordinary and Special Council meetings. I think this has been a great success and is a great step by Noosa Council to be more open. I think the bookmarking initiative is excellent and makes a huge difference for all the people who, in our community, will make it more attractive to view interesting agenda items. And I appreciate the CEO and Cathy and Kylie already working on this. I appreciate the recommendation to publicise the availability
02:08:00 of live streaming of the meetings that are being recorded. And of course, I'm happy to note the video recordings are not the final record. I will support this motion because E does not say that we won't be video recording in the future. It simply says not at this stage. And I'll accept that as a part of the motion. So I'll support the motion. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jackson: I'll call for a division for interest. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Look, I support the motion. There has been numerous times when, you know, Council has been called in to suggest that we are not open and transparent and that we don't embrace change. And here is a clear example where change has been presented and change has been embraced. Whilst it took some element to get it to go through due process,
02:09:00 I accept that, you know, we're here now and that live streaming of our decision-making meetings is part and parcel of what we're going to embrace. I do have some reservations about the format with the YouTube channel. I think there are limitations in the availability of data with regard to who is viewing. And I think that is an important element with regard to this going forward as to who is actually viewing and where they are from. Whilst the statistics here represent, you know, 4,000, as Councillor Jackson alluded to earlier, over 4,000 views, that's since February and across 18 meetings from memory. That averages out at 230-odd a meeting. But it's clear what does come up is that when a contentious issue, and this is really the element that is of interest to me, a contentious issue does come up that the viewing does increase. And when contentious issues are out there, the viewing is quite quite limited in regard to the people
02:10:00 that are actually taking interest in what we're doing. One of the reasons I didn't support going down to the lower level of committee meetings because the number of items on those meetings and the length of time that it takes to assess those, people would be sitting through a number of, you know, elements of a meeting that really wouldn't be of a lot of interest to them in the long run, even though we could, as we have done here, bookmark those items for viewing. I think what is clear here is that's not necessary. When the contentious issue has been referred to the higher level committee, be it the general or the ordinary committee, or a special meeting is held, the level of interest in that meeting does, and clearly is reflected in the figures, attract a great number of viewers. And I think that's what people will genuinely be looking for. So I'm, as I said, I'm prepared to support this, even though I have some reservations about the YouTube channel. But I see this, as I said, I see this as council, as always,
02:11:00 welcoming and embracing transparency and openness in our, in all our meeting procedures. Formal meeting procedures. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Glasgow, are you all right? You look very pale. I know you've got tonsillitis and you're suffering. What, are you all right? Seriously. Councillor Glasgow: I didn't know you were crook, are you okay? Yeah, tonsillitis. Okay. What have you all done? I can't leave. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, let us know if things get bad. Mayor Wellington: You can leave if things are bad. Councillor Stockwell, would you care to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will close. And I suppose the big point of this particular motion is that we've had a go at live streaming. It's worked well. And we're refining it. And I think that's, and the public has now had the significant discussions and debates by all councillors recorded, not only to watch live stream, but also to go back and to check up on something or not.
02:12:00 Some of those numbers are me, because I get tagged in posts and they say, Councillor Stockwell, do you see what he said? And I thought, I don't think I said that. And I went back and I thought, no, I said X. And they're just saying that I meant Y. So that's good too. It gives us a bit of a backstop to say, well, are we being represented fairly in the public? And can we rely on that full record of a meeting to actually say, well, no, that's just a person's opinion that differs from my own. So I think it's good. And I think we should continue. And I like benchmarking because it will save a whole lot of time. Speaker 6: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Bookmarking. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Not benchmarking. We do a bit of benchmarking. Okay, I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Aye. That's unanimous. Thank you very much, everyone. We now move on to the next item, which is review of standing orders for council meetings. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll probably move a slight different to the committee recommendation,
02:13:00 but I have a few questions first to get my head around what should or shouldn't or could or couldn't be within the new standing orders. So it's to the CEO. Mayor Wellington: Can I suggest you, if you're going to stick with this motion, but I suggest you move it now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Move it first. Mayor Wellington: Otherwise, anyone can move the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll move the motion. This is what you want to move. Let's do it. Yeah. And whether there's more to it than that, but I'll start with that. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'll support it as a seconder. Mayor Wellington: Seconded, Councillor Wilkie. I think you should, for Councillor Jackson, have you received the email with Councillor Stockwell's motion? Councillor Jackson: I have. And I believe people have also received an email with some additional amendments of mine. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's in there. Councillor Glasgow: All right. Can I request I leave? I'm not making good decisions in this forum. I haven't even got my appetite. If you haven't got your appetite, you might be really sick. Absolutely. I just tried to eat a potato and I just was like, lads, can I go? Yes. Of course. Of course. I've got a real bad stenosis of tonsillitis.
02:14:00 I'm sorry, everyone. And I'm looking at that screen going, is that all right? Yep. It certainly is. Mayor Wellington: All right. Councillor Glasgow: Grab that and have your fine, guys. Quality decision making. And this amendment looks complicated. Councillor Jurisevic: Had I known you were running well, I would have kept a closer eye on you. Councillor Glasgow: I'm not eating. I just tried to eat a potato. Councillor Jurisevic: You're not eating. You are very sick. Councillor Glasgow: I haven't got my appetite. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it. Thanks, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, Councillor Stockwell. The questions around ... The items in the amendment that have changed is around giving some more guidance to deputations. And the questions I've got of the CEO is around ... There's similarly ... In section 39 it talks about what councilors can do. And we've referred to the Counsellor Code of Conduct. And in the Counsellor Code of Conduct, it talks about will not bully, harass, intimidate or act in a way that the public would reasonably perceive to be drunk. The question is because we have an in globo statement in the Standing Orders about complying with
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 the Code of Conduct is it appropriate then, or is it possible to take out parts which are more relevant to the Standing Orders or not and just identify them such as that? Speaker 6: The starting point is that the code of conduct for councillors from December last year, we'll go back a step, even before that our council had a code of conduct and each council could have their own. Many councils didn't have one and we had ours. In the end of the second half of last year the State Government introduced a mandatory common code for all local governments in Queensland which is the code of conduct for councillors. What that means is that same code applies word for word at every council and individual councils can't change or modify it. It's a statewide code.
02:16:00 So anything that would look to add to or change or impact on that would not be permissible in terms of trying to call up something out of the standing orders of that code, only part or not all of it. So the way that the draft standing orders are dealing with it is it calls up the code and refers to the code in its totality. You can't muck around with that wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Another question? Yeah, because as I said my preference was in the answer, because I've had the conversation, my preference was to be fairly explicit. Now the comments I read out before were out of that code of conduct but there's also what we see up there. That's basically a description of the key parts of anti-discrimination law in Queensland and Australia. They would similarly be things that would bind. So basically what's happening is the councillors being triggered by the code of conduct. Is that right? That's correct. Speaker 6: One of the things I was just looking now, one of the things in the code of conduct, if you probably recall from your training, or I certainly hope you do, was that there are three standards of behaviour which are set out in the code.
02:17:00 One is about responsibilities, the second is about respect and the third one is about reputation. The principle in terms of respect talks about treat people in a reasonable, just, respectful, and non-discriminatory way. So that reference to non-discriminatory would pick up various legislation which deals with anti-discrimination and the sorts of things you've already talked about. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so then the final, I suppose, question is that the people coming to make deputations aren't going to be banned by the Council Code of Conduct, so contrary to Section 39, it would be appropriate in those two locations to just give those guidelines. Is that correct? Speaker 6: Yes, that's correct. So the Council Code of Conduct obviously applies to councillors. It doesn't apply to other people who come to meetings. So if you're looking to apply that to someone who is in a deputation, that would be an appropriate place to put those words, if that's what you were seeking to do.
02:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so just speaking briefly, I think we do have a responsibility to maintain a highly ethical and respectful environment within our meetings. I think it's appropriate for standing orders to make. I think it's appropriate for standing orders to make that clear as possible about what's the expectation. I, for one, certainly want to be called if I am deemed to have breached any of the Council Code of Conduct, and that's why my preference was to be a little bit more specific with the guidance from the CEO saying we have to adopt it in globo. But these, I also think that deputations, some people from the general public probably may need a bit of guidance. I think it's also... I think it's also something we can have a look at, the section on public question time, it's going to call up a guideline and it might be that we put similar statements in the guidelines for question time as well.
02:19:00 So, as I said, I just want to make sure that, as has always been the case in this term, that we do have the triggers in our standing orders, that if anyone feels that they have been discriminated against or bullied or accepted in a meeting, intimidated or harassed, that that is called up as a point of order. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? Yes, certainly, Councillor Wilkie. One for the CEO, the motion refers to a public question time for ordinary meetings. Have you done any investigation into public question time and how it's conducted in other local government areas? No. Could you tell us what your investigations have revealed about that? Speaker 6: Sure. Part of the research for this was to have a look at how it's managed well in other places. I'm lucky enough to be connected into a number of CEOs in other states where this is probably more common, but it does occur in other councils in Queensland. So, I've already got about 10 to 15 examples of those sort of guidelines which are used elsewhere.
02:20:00 Some of the things that, the advice I've given from other council CEOs is that you need to think about how public question time could be used when you actually have an item on that agenda that's being considered. And development applications are probably the best example, because often the council has to have that balance between the interests of an applicant and the interests of neighbours or objectors. And if you're only hearing one side of the story, it can sometimes cause an issue. So, there are different ways that's dealt with, and I'll have to have a look and see how that's been best dealt with in other states. And eventually, as the recommendations say. There's development guidelines which will come back to council for adoption. At that point, we'll be able to commence the process. Councillor Wilkie: And what has the feedback indicated that public question time is very useful for? What value does it add to the meeting? Speaker 6: I actually touched upon this in my report.
02:21:00 Where it's best used and where it's been most effective is where, in fact, Western Australia is a good example where it's a statutory requirement. I spoke to one of the CEOs over there. It's often where there's been a request to council about a particular issue. The response hasn't been adequate. It's really like a follow-up to make sure it's then escalated through that process. The flip side of that is what it's not used for is to lodge a first-time request. You know, I've got a problem on my street. Can someone fix it? It's more that if that pothole was there, not being dealt with, there hasn't been adequate follow-up, need to escalate it, come along and ask the question about why not. What's the process that's failed there? So it's useful for that type of escalation of an issue as opposed to an initial customer request for one of the . Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Only Councillor Stockwell has spoken to the motion so far. Does someone else wish to speak? Councillor Wilkie: Please. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Oh. Councillor Jackson. Sorry. Councillor Jackson: Did Councillor Stockwell speak?
02:22:00 Didn't he just ask questions? Can I check that please? No. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wilkie was asking questions. Councillor Stockwell has spoken to the motion. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Did you want to go? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I did. Yeah. I will speak. And as you know, I had a couple of amendments, so I'll put those. Look, I'm very happy with the new standing orders. I also appreciate- Mayor Wellington: Just a second, please. Sorry to interrupt you, Councillor. Are you putting an amendment now or are you speaking to the substantive motion? Councillor Jackson: I'm first speaking. It doesn't matter. I could put the amendment. Maybe I'll put the amendment. That might be quicker. Okay. I've got an amendment. I've got two, but I'll do them one at a time because they're different. I believe they've been circulated. So there's the first amendment, and I guess Carly will put it up, which is the one relating to the chairperson vote or that the names of councillors will be recorded in the minutes. You've got that up?
02:23:00 Mayor Wellington: Yes. So 29.4 is deleted. 29.5 is deleted. 29.6 now reads, the chairperson shall declare the result of a vote or division on the motion. As soon as it has been determined, the names of councillors voting in the affirmative and in the negative shall be recorded in the minutes of meeting notes of council meetings. And section D now reads, request the chief executive officer to record the names of councillors and how they voted on all decisions at council meetings commencing in September 2019. Councillor Jackson: Yes, that's it. Mayor Wellington: Thanks. Is that in accord with yours? Beautiful. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can I just take a moment to absorb what's being here on the board? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could we, could the Councillor Jackson, the CEO, if he's had prior knowledge, because it's the first I've seen it, explain what the implications of deleting 4 and 5 and adding change 6 and D?
02:24:00 Mayor Wellington: I'm happy to answer that question. Are you okay, Councillor Jackson, if the CEO answers that question? Of course. Yes, I am. Councillor Jackson: And could I please stress that Carly circulated this as soon as she had it available? Speaker 6: The impact or the outcome of this proposal is that the names of councillors would be recorded at all council meetings, including committee meetings. So it would be ordinary meetings, special meetings and standing committee meetings. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I must have. Sorry, that's not my understanding. My understanding was that in our, that we already were proposing that in your standing order change. What is different from this with regard to what we have with regard to recording all names in the standing orders in the, sorry, in the new substantive orders? Speaker 6: So the difference between what's in the amendment number one and what's proposed in the staff recommendation is that the staff recommendation focused on the,
02:25:00 council's ordinary meetings and the special meetings, and amendment number one effectively expands that to include all committee meetings. Councillor Jackson: May I add to that, please? Yes, certainly, Councillor. Fully? Yep. One difference is, and Councillor Jurisevic, I was able to watch the general committee and I saw you ask the question, why is it that it's in the motion, but it doesn't seem to be in the standing orders? Yeah, that's right. This actually puts it into the standing order. Yeah, that's right. After watching General Committee, I learned that perhaps Sunshine Coast Council had originally moved a motion simply to make this change, and initially they didn't have it in their standing orders, which is why that's what our council inherited in 2014.
02:26:00 But I've gone back to have a look at the current standing orders of Sunshine Coast Council, Gympie Council, Redland Council, and even Byron Council. And they have this wording directly in their standing orders, so I'm actually, instead of not putting it in the standing orders, I'm suggesting it be put in the standing orders, and that's what 29.6, the change there is. The names of councillors voting in the affirmative and in the negative shall be recorded, and I've written in minutes on meeting notes. So as Brett has pointed out, his original motion just refers to... The ordinary meetings and the special meetings, but knowing that we also do meeting notes for General Committee, I've extended this further and made it more general, so it also covers meeting notes. Mayor Wellington: Okay, so are you clear now on what's happening here? Councillor Jurisevic: No, not whatsoever, because what Councillor Jackson raised is the quick reason that I haven't gone back and revisited that,
02:27:00 but the reason I asked the question in the previous... The reason I asked the question in the previous meeting was to get clarity on where, why it wasn't there, and I thought the answer given was that what we had dealt with that, so I'm confused as to why the answer we were given at the ordinary meeting seems to be different to what I'm getting today. Speaker 6: Okay, carry on. So you can have it in either place. You can have it as part of a resolution, that's what we'll do, or you can put it into the standing orders. It's six of one and a half a dozen of the other. I'm probably inclined to put it into the standing orders once I've reflected on it, and the reason is that you then have in the one place everything to do with the process in the standing orders. Councillor Jurisevic: That's why I asked the question. Speaker 6: But they both achieve the same outcome. There is no difference. You have the same result. The difference here is about what is being recorded, whether it was only the minutes of the decision-making forum, which is the ordinary meeting and the special meeting, or the amendment being proposed to go...
02:28:00 A little bit further. Councillor Jurisevic: All right, I need to ask a further question then. How does this amendment, what meetings does this amendment therefore apply to? Because it says vote on all decisions at council meetings and special meetings, the only forums where decisions are raised or decisions are made are ordinary meetings and special meetings. Speaker 6: Can I have a go at answering that? And then Councillor Jackson is the mover of the amendment. I'll just check that this is her intention. Since I spoke last time and I've had a look at 29.6, what I think is being intended is that it is those meetings where we have minutes, which is the ordinary meeting and the special meeting, and the committee meeting where we have meeting notes, which is the general committee.
02:29:00 I said before I thought it was for all committees. As I read that now, I don't think it is intended for all committees. It is only for the committee. Council meetings, which is the ordinary meeting and the special meeting, and also the meeting notes, which we keep of the general committee. I just should probably check whether that's the intention of the mover of the amendment. Mayor Wellington: Should the Part D, I'm just trying to refine it here, Councillor Jackson. Should Part D say voted on all decisions and recommendations at council meetings? Councillor Jackson: I think Councillor Jurisdict's issue is... I'm happy to have that wording in there. I actually think that... We're back to the semantic, because you make a decision to make a recommendation or you make a decision to make a resolution. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Mr Chair. I would argue that that's the reason we're here. We sought out the semantics, because the semantics are something that certain councillors do focus on. And in this case, words do have power. The decisions and decision-making forums are ordinary and council special meetings.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Mayor Wellington: I think you're arguing something that has already been resolved. I have another question. Councillor... Just a second, please. Councillor Jackson has agreed to alter Part D to say all decisions and recommendations. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. Further question for the CEO. Mayor Wellington: Is that correct, Councillor Jackson? Yes, of course. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, further question for the CEO. 29.4 and 29.5, I thought by the change that we made for all councillor votes to be recorded, affirmative or negative. But rather than having to call for a division, eliminated the need for a division. Why is 29.4 there referring to a division when we've made that change in the standing orders going forward? Referring to a division. Speaker 6: You'll have to ask that question again. I don't think I caught on to it. Councillor Jurisevic: The element of recording how each councillor votes is what a division could previously be made for.
02:31:00 Now that... Yeah. So, each time a vote is taken that all votes are recorded, a division is redundant. Why would we even have the word regarding a division? Speaker 6: The short answer is that the original proposal was that the names of all councillors only be recorded at ordinary meetings and special meetings. Councillor Jurisevic: If the decision is made. Speaker 6: But the ability to have a person call a division or have their name recorded could still occur, Mayor Wellington: Okay. That's why divisions is left in there. But it's now been deleted. Correct, but your amendment deletes it, correct, because it's... My amendment takes it out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Your amendment means it's redundant, yes. Can I ask a procedural question? Yeah. In the wording of this amendment, are we happy that that's, by saying that the motion be amended, that it's a motion that has been
02:32:00 moved now, that we don't have to have all the wording above in the amendment, if that's fine? I'll do an amendment motion. Yeah, yeah. It'll all be there soon. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson has moved an amendment. We are now looking for a seconder for that amendment. I can't, because I've seconded it. A seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Oh, I can't, no, because I moved it. There, there's that. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, for the sake of argument, I'll second the amendment. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Seconded, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jackson, you have the floor. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you. Look, I think perhaps it's looking... It looks more complicated than it is because of all that deleting. Basically, I became aware, even before the General Committee, when I read over the draft standing orders, that even though the motion was to record names of
02:33:00 councillors and high-ranking councillors and high-ranking councillors and high-ranking councillors and how they voted, that that did not get reflected in the standing orders. And so, and, you know, I heard this discussed at General Committee as well, and I thought, well, let's simplify it. So I'm actually not trying to make things more complicated. I'm trying to keep it simple. And let's just make the motion, which will now end up being, you know, what used to be 29.6 and put in there that councillors voting to the affirmative or in the negative shall be recorded in the next meetings of notes of council meetings. And the purpose of this, and that is what, thank you to the CEO, is already intended in the motion, the purpose is that our residents then know how our councillors are voting and we are representative of our people and have an obligation to be fully accountable. And this supports that position. It's not meant to be complicated. All I'm trying to say is that people's names will be recorded,
02:34:00 how they're voted for will be recorded in minutes, if there are minutes, or in meeting notes, if there are meeting notes. So it doesn't really change anything dramatically. The big difference is there won't be a need to call for a division, because like many councils in Queensland and elsewhere, that recording will happen automatically. And I think that's a reasonable thing to do for the purpose of transparency and for consistency. Councillor Jurisevic: I have another question for the CEO. Yep, question. In the event that a motion is carried unanimously, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in recording every individual's vote, and the word unanimously could record, could successfully acknowledge that all councillors have voted unanimously to support or not support a particular motion. Do we currently have an opportunity to utilise the word unanimously to save on that?
02:35:00 And could the word unanimously be introduced into, as a ways and means of acknowledging that all were in support of a motion, rather than recording individual names? Speaker 6: I haven't actually turned my mind to that. The way that would be the logical way would just list out all the names, because it has the same effect. We have all for and against. I don't know that a lot would turn on that, but my starting point would be to list all the names out. Because it was in the meeting at the time. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I, another question, can I just clarify, as I've seconded this amendment, I can't make an amendment to this amendment. No, you cannot. I'll have to vote on this amendment. Okay, cool. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? I'll just point out that I'm not sure exactly how functional it is to record how everyone votes at committee level when they're only making recommendations. I'm not sure exactly how functional it is to record how everyone votes at committee level when they're only making recommendations.
02:36:00 It's not that uncommon for someone to vote in favour of something at the committee level and change their position at the ordinary meeting. So there's going to be inevitably some confusion when people look at how councillors vote through this process and I guess we can either accept that that confusion is going to exist or try and work around it. Really what matters is what happens at ordinary and special meetings. That's where the decisions of council get made. Up until then, it is still an iterative process. No decisions have been made until we get to an ordinary meeting or a special meeting. So I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the notion of noting how people vote when they haven't actually reached their final determination yet, and it's only part of an ongoing process. So I'm not sure that I'm entirely happy with the idea of having to note who
02:37:00 votes what at even the general committee level, although I recognise that the recommended standing orders do allow us to call for divisions at a general committee. I still find that uncomfortable because, you know, people looking at the minutes or the, what are we referring to them as, the meeting notes from committees could well be assuming that a final decision has been signposted at those meetings as a result of the names recorded and that is not the case. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, ultimately what matters is the majority of the decision of council, not how individual councillors vote. We all at the end of any vote, no matter whether you vote for or against, have to abide by the decision of the council and support that decision. That is our role. We have to respect the majority view and the majority view happens at the decision making end, not the process
02:38:00 end, which is the committee's. So I don't think I'll be able to vote in favour of this. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'll speak to the amendment. I won't be supporting the amendment either. I think what this does is, whilst it may not seem like a lot of work, recording every council's name at the end of every single vote, without being able to say the word unanimously, will be an onerous task on those, particularly where there's multiple items in meetings and recommendations in those committee meetings going forward. And I think we can do this better and more streamlined for the sake of staff if we're going to go down this path. I also concur with the Mayor's point with regard to the committee meetings. And I think we even get an element of support by Oscar with regard to the note taking, record keeping on those meetings.
02:39:00 Most of those, whether they are agreed or forwarded to, you know, whichever committee they're forwarded to, whether it be the ordinary meeting or the general committee, that's the recommendation of that meeting. There's no decision made there. It is essentially a referral format onto a decision-making process. So I'm not going to support the amendment as it stands. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll take this one. I have no problem with it. If we're going to get the step of just recording names, just putting in initials is quite easy, or you could have a hot link on the word unanimous and it'd bring up all their names anyway. So it's not extra staff time. I actually think it might take a bit of the politicking around the calling of divisions. It tends to take longer. And this way, it's just part of the course. Happy to be at the
02:40:00 general committee as well. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: I have a different perspective on it. I support, obviously, names being recorded in the decision-making forums of the... The ordinary meetings, the special meetings, and even at the general committee, because that's where all the debate takes place. But I'm not so hot on it being all names being recorded in the portfolios, but councillors can call divisions there if they wish. I'm not fully satisfied. I'm not fully happy with this particular amendment, so I would have to support it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, Councillor Stockwell question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, did we resolve that the two initial committees, wouldn't be caught because we don't keep meeting notes? Speaker 6: Yeah, when I first looked at that, I thought it was going to be all committees, but I reread it. My reading of that is that it's only for the ordinary meeting, special meeting, and the general committee. Councillor Wilkie: So qualification, this amendment captures that. So it's names recorded only at the
02:41:00 general, ordinary, and special. Is that what this is saying? Speaker 6: That's the way I'm reading that it's been intended, yes. Councillor Wilkie: So it's not by saying, decisions and recommendations recorded at council meetings, doesn't that capture portfolio meetings? Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I understand too. Councillor Wilkie: That's my reading. You may ask the . Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jackson, can I ask you a question? Councillor Jackson: Yes, it does actually align with what Brett is saying, because we have something called minutes, and those are only coming out of the ordinary and special meetings. They don't, no other meetings have minutes. We have something called meeting notes, which in the long term, I think maybe they're called live record meeting notes, and they're for the general committee. We don't publish or take minutes for the, what we're calling portfolio committees. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question, Mr. CEO?
02:42:00 At the portfolio meeting, my understanding is there's a record of the meeting, which includes the name of the councillors, who attended, who was an apology, conflicts of interest, how it was recorded, what the councillor's conflict of interest was, how it was handled, and how they voted if they stayed in the room. And also, it lists all the items discussed. That's a meeting record, not technically the minutes. Mayor Wellington: So you're asking a question, I think. Councillor Wilkie: I am, that is a question. Mayor Wellington: And the question is what is recorded at the portfolio meetings. Councillor Wilkie: Isn't there a meeting record, a record of meeting at the portfolio meetings, which this would apply to? That was my answer. Speaker 6: Yeah. Certainly at our first two committees, which we talked about before, which is the Services and Organisation Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee, we do keep a record of what occurred there. And that covers things like the name of the committee, the date that it occurred, which council members were in attendance, whether there are any other councillors who were there as observers, any apologies.
02:43:00 We record obviously the full list of the items, because that's what comes forward in this council agenda. So you see all the items. All the items that have been considered. We list out any conflicts of interest declarations and how they've been dealt with. And in those cases, if a councillor stayed in the room, we record how that councillor voted. So we can determine how they've dealt with that with their conflict of interest. But most importantly, it's the recommendations that that committee is making to the council. Or in some cases, it's referring to the general committee meeting. So it's who's moved that, the recommendation be forwarded to council and who's seconded that. So that's what we've done. And the other one is whether there's any very minor changes to the staff recommendation. We also highlight that in that record as well. I've got a question for you, Mr. CEO. Councillor Jackson: Can we just finish that question first? Oh, sure. Because I think Councillor Wilkie's asking about the reference here. This specifically says the word meeting notes, because that's what we call the stuff that
02:44:00 we're writing and publicising, publicly making available out of general committee. What council... What the CEO has just spoken about is something he's calling a record, which is yet a separate thing, which is not made publicly available. So here we're... This is why I'm saying 29.6, the change here implies the publicly available notes and minutes. It's not referring to records that are not publicly available. Councillor Jurisevic: So I'll ask the question to the CEO. Mr. CEO, is that sufficient, as Councillor Jackson is alluding to, to differentiate the meetings at which this applies? Speaker 6: When I first read that, I went immediately to that it applied to all committees. But when I've read it, re-read it, that reference to meeting notes is what we call the meeting notes of our general committee. So that's why I refined what I'd said. The minutes is certainly what is for the ordinary meeting and the special meeting.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Councillor Wilkie: So where is the reference to meeting notes? Oh, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, 29.6. I missed that too. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: The other question I have is... There's a statement made that there's no publicly available record of meeting for the portfolios. But I've got a... In the ordinary meeting agenda that I have before me, there appears to be a record of meeting for each of the portfolios. It includes which councillors attended these portfolios, which other councillors were in attendance. It mentions conflicts of interests. It mentions how conflicts of interests were handled, and it mentions where the recommendations, whether each item was referred to, whether it's to the general or to the ordinary committee. Is this not a meeting, a publicly available record of the meetings of those portfolios? Mayor Wellington: So what it means, in other words, the ordinary meeting agenda is a record of the portfolios? It contains the records of the... What are the recommendations of those committees then form the agenda for the councillors? Yes. I've got a question for you too, Mr. CEO.
02:46:00 And that is, in your excellent memory... In terms of the portfolio meetings, because they don't deal with contentious and difficult issues, they tend to be unanimous decisions. Are you aware of any decision made over the last three and a half years by this council at a portfolio meeting that wasn't a unanimous decision? Speaker 6: No, I can't recall that. And in fact, our protocols are that if it is not a unanimous decision, it needs to be referred to the general committee so all councillors can consider the matter. Mayor Wellington: So, yeah. Okay. Councillor Jackson: My apologies. My Wi-Fi dropped out and I've just been off for a couple of minutes or so and come back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're under item 25. You'll have to watch the live stream. No, we're still on the same item. Mayor Wellington: So, Ingrid, I asked the CEO a question about whether he could recall over the last three
02:47:00 and a half years of this council, whether at any... portfolio committee, that is services and organisation or planning and environment committee, where there hadn't been a unanimous decision. And he said no. And where there isn't unanimity, then items get referred on to the general committee. Councillor Jackson: Right. Well, could I just suggest, as there seems to be some concern about the wording, this is, what if we just said, in that words currently got 29.6, the chairman shall declare. Et cetera. Maybe we could say the names of councillors voting in the affirmative and then in the negative shall be reported in the... Point of order, Mr. Chair. Mayor Wellington: Sorry, you have a point of order called... Councillor Jurisevic: We can't amend the wording of something that has been moved and seconded midway through. We've got to go through the due process, as I understand it, of voting on this amendment. And then the amendment can be presented again in a different format. But as I understand it, we've got to deal with the matter that's on the table.
02:48:00 Councillor Jackson: I don't think it would. I'd like to let you listen to this, then you can decide. I'm just trying to solve the problem that we seem to be having with the wording. And I think if we said the names of councillors voting in the affirmative and the negative shall be recorded in the publicly available minutes or meeting notes of council meetings. And that way we don't have to worry about the concern people are having about the records that are not public. Mayor Wellington: Your seconder doesn't agree, I'm afraid, and I need both of you to agree, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jurisevic: And the reason I don't agree is because I think that's already inferred in the motion as it stands, or the amendment as it stands, by being minutes and making notes.
02:49:00 I think that we've already determined which meetings that is articulated to. Councillor Jackson: I thought there was a concern. Councillor Jurisevic: No, you're on track. Councillor Wilkie: I'm just trying to solve a problem. So, question to the mover of this amendment. Is this intended to apply to the portfolio meetings? Councillor Jackson: Well, not as it stands, no. Alright. Because, no. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Can it be read as applying to the portfolio meetings? Mr CEO. Councillor Jurisevic: That's a question I asked earlier. Speaker 6: Look, when I first read it at first glance, I thought that was the intention. When I thought about it a bit more and read it, I came to the opposite conclusion that it doesn't. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, okay. Thank you. And it refers to the general committee, but not the portfolio meetings, I suppose you're concerned. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask the mover and seconder, therefore, if 296 were to include the words to be recorded in the minutes of any general or ordinary or special meeting or the meeting notes of the general committee?
02:50:00 Would that be sufficiently clarifying that- Councillor Jurisevic: No, and I will raise to my feet as you should have, Councillor. No, that's exactly what Councillor Jackson tried to allude to. I think the intent is there clearly because it refers to, and we've asked the question, and the question's been asked and answered several times, we're clear on which meetings it refers to. I don't think that's the point that's being argued here. I think the intent of 296 does not need to be clarified any further. It's there in the wording as it is. The CEO's been asked the question several times and responded in exactly the same format. There is no more clarity needed to 296 to clear up this. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Everyone's spoken to it. You now have a right of reply, Councillor Jackson. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I'm sorry it seems confusing to people. I'm simply wanting to simply have in the standing orders the same intent that the CEO initially wrote in the motion, which is that councillors' votes be recorded and with their
02:51:00 names in the minutes, and I've extended it to the meeting notes because the general committee notes are made public also. The concern raised by Councillor Wellington that people might get confused, I actually haven't found people getting confused about the difference between general committee and ordinary committee. And also I think if people, like a councillor, changes- Mayor Wellington: I think you mean ordinary meeting. General committee and ordinary meeting. You said ordinary committee. Sorry, meeting. Just clarifying. Councillor Jackson: Sure. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: And also I think, again, I think we councillors need to be fully accountable to our community. And if we vote, if one of us votes one way in a general committee and then changes our vote and votes a different way in the ordinary committee, that is perfectly acceptable.
02:52:00 And that councillor is in a position to explain why they've changed their position. I think that is a transparent and fully accountable way of operating. I don't think there's anything to be hidden if a person has decided to change their mind. So I don't really think that's a reason against doing that. And certainly, I think this supports what the CEO's recommendation is in the first place. It just puts it in the standing orders physically. And remember, the standing orders go forward beyond what the CEO's recommendation is. They'll live beyond us, individually, as councillors, and just, whereas, you know how it is with a vote, it can sort of be hard to find in the archives of all our agendas and limits. So, you know, by putting it in the standing orders, the intent of the CEO, we then have it in there as a pardon party in the standing orders.
02:53:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'm going to put the motion for the amendment. All those in favour? We have councillors Stockwell, Wilkie and Jackson. Those against? Councillors Jurisevic and Wellington. The amendment becomes the motion. Only Councillor Stockwell has spoken to the motion so far. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to move an amendment. Mayor Wellington: Oh, good on you. Councillor Jurisevic: The reason why I voted against it, and that is, and I'm not sure, Mr CEO, I may need some assistance here. In the wording, what I'm trying to add into 29.6 is that, and wherever this, there will be another element of this, wherever the vote is unanimous, that unanimous can be stated without having to state the individual names of all councillors.
02:54:00 Speaker 6: Can I suggest you don't need to put that into the standing orders? I can deal with that as an administrative matter as CEO. When that last came up for conversation, Kylie's mentioned to me, she's had a look at how it's been recorded at other councils, and they tend to put in unanimous rather than listing out all the names. I can deal with that as an administrative matter as the CEO without having to do an amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr. Lee. That clarifies that. As an administrative matter, I think that deals with it successfully. I mean, I believe a unanimous implies that all councillors voted in favour. And that that is a recording of all names. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Wellington: No need for amendments. Councillor Jackson: Mr. Chair, I'd like to put my second amendment. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Now, just to clarify. Mayor Wellington: Is that the right to bear arms? Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Isn't that the fourth? The second, first? Speaker 4: That's the first amendment. That's pretty good for 8.54. Sorry, carry on. Councillor Jackson: Because of the nine-hour time difference, Kylie got to me quite late with the final version of these two amendments.
02:55:00 For the standing orders, which of course, Brett was involved in helping me with and Kylie. So this is the second one. And these were circulated to councillors before the meeting. But the timeframe ended up being a bit short. So the second amendment is simply, and I guess Kylie might pop it up. It's 31.3. And it's simply to add the words that are already in our current standing orders so that a councillor or officer to whom a question is given, The Commissioners, who have taken this question without notice, may request that the question be taken on notice for or prior to the next meeting. That is the wording we have in our standing orders. It is also similar to the wording in state best practice recognition. Mayor Wellington: You're not allowed to talk to it yet, I'm afraid. Councillor Jackson: Oh sorry, I was expecting that. Mayor Wellington: It needs a second. I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Okay. Now you can talk to it. Carry on. Councillor Jackson: Okay, sorry. Yeah, I think I probably said what I was gonna say.
02:56:00 I was simply bringing this to match the state best practice and our own practice. I think it was just a clause that was missing there and I wanted to include this. I've spoken or I've emailed back and forth with Brett about it and he felt it's something that needed to be done as an amendment. He couldn't do it as an administrative change. So I'm putting it to council just to have the same as what we have in our county. Standing orders and the best practice of the state. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic: No, but I'll ask a question of the CEO. We're talking semantics here. I mean, could this have been handled administratively as per the previous incident or do you think the wording clarifies anything? Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't think this could have been job administratively. I think it needs to be in standing orders and I have no problem at all with the wording. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. I'm going to speak to the motion. Speaker 6: Yes.
02:57:00 Mayor Wellington: I support it. There you go. Well said, Councillor Wilkin. You wish to close, Councillor Jackson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, Councillor Stockwell. I don't want to speak to it, but I'd like to put two commas in there. Notice for comma or prior to. Is that how I'm supposed to be reading that? So it can be, what is it? Prior to comma. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that how it's supposed to be? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I applaud the Grammar Natty. Mayor Wellington: Do you wish to close, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: No, I don't. Mayor Wellington: Good of all. I'll put the amendment, all those in favour. That's carried unanimously. And so that now becomes the motion also. And once again, we go back to the substantive motion with those two amendments incorporated. Councillor Stockwell's the only one that's spoken. Anyone else wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'd like to speak. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Okay? Mayor Wellington: Yep, go for it. Councillor Jackson: Look, I want to say I'm extremely happy with the outcome of this.
02:58:00 This review of standing orders, I really appreciate the work that's been done both by the CEO and by Kylie and also all the inputs of councillors and the councillor workshop where we went through this with a fine-toothed comb. I think we've ended up with a better set of standing orders and of course, they're fully in line with the changed local government legislation in relationship to Belcarra. Some of the things I think are great, you know, steps forward. In the standing orders are introducing the question time, recording in the minutes and reading notes how councillors voted on each motion, and also differentiating the different approaches we use at the different types of meetings, as we're more formal at some of the meetings and less formal in others. I also think that there are a number of instances where these standing orders more clearly define the role of the chairperson.
02:59:00 And I think that's very important. I think that's very helpful. And in general, throughout, there's much, you know, clear and consistent wording. So I think we've really enhanced the standing orders, made them more clear. I'm very supportive. I think standing orders are extremely important. These are things that govern our behavior and our procedure in these meetings and an extremely important element of governance. So, yeah, I applaud these and commend them. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll resemble those remarks. No, this is what, again, this is what can be achieved when we do our due diligence. We wait and we receive the information from the state. We take their proposal of best practice. We apply our own proposal of best practice. We put it through due diligence. And great outcomes or better outcomes can be achieved. Can't achieve better outcomes on the fly. We really need to, you know, we can't achieve better outcomes on the fly.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 We need to understand that going through due diligence is an important part of getting it to this point where we can all accept the changes and we can all work towards changes and recommendations to procedures that are in everybody's interest. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Yeah, the new standing orders contain changes. They're signalled and mandated by the state. So it's such as the model meeting procedures. So it's appropriate that those changes are made. Although an estimated 90% of all council decisions are unanimous. Recording the way councillors vote on final decisions before the full council at the ordinary and special meetings will give interested parties an idea on individual voting patterns on issues of importance to them. And ultimately, our responsibility is to make those decisions on behalf of the community. And we're accountable for that. Public question time provides yet another opportunity for community to engage with its council. Could be especially useful, as the CEO said, where residents are seeking specific updates on matters that may change.
03:01:00 Be taking longer than expected to gain facts and also to gain facts about issues for which there may be misinformation widely circulating and perhaps also to provide valuable feedback into areas where council can do better. Regarding item F, the council already allows petitions, deputations and presentations. And as stated before, there's always a case for more extensive and frequent communication. So promoting more prominently these opportunities for engagement, perhaps on the council website, would also be helpful. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. I think councillors have raised a number of the key issues that have come out of the standing order review. And just then, Councillor Jackson, also earlier, Councillor Wilkie asked a question of the CEO regarding question time. And it is one thing I think I should explain because I have changed my position on this one. When it first came up, I was opposing it. I didn't think I would agree with it. But in the interim, I've been able to actually do a straw poll of about 20 people randomly.
03:02:00 I've asked them a question. The question I asked is, if you had a serious question you want to ask your local councillor, how likely are you to use one or more of the following approaches? And quite obviously, email. 80% of those I asked, only a small survey, about 20 people. 80% said email was highly likely. Councillor, you are introducing me. I know I am because I've got a beginning. So I expect your indulgence. Skate through it. I will. Because I won't go through the worst one being the old-fashioned letter. But what was really clear was a trend. And that was when it got down to a face-to-face meeting or a question time in council, there was actually 60% of the people said maybe or likely. And I wasn't expecting that. And their response was, only after I'd done the other steps. And that's what I think what we've heard of as being what we've heard. What works in other councils. That it's not just a place to come and blow off a bit of steam. It's if you've taken the logical steps and you haven't got an answer, that this is where
03:03:00 you come to to make sure that your elected representative is aware of your question and there is some requirement for you to give an answer. And so I did move the motion, which really surprised me. But because I had the time to go out and ask people that had a different perspective than me. So I think that's important. And it will be a useful addition if those guidelines are formed in the way that I think they will be. I'm going to move the motion at last. Mayor Wellington: All those in favour? Councillor Jackson: Aye. Mayor Wellington: The motion is carried unanimously. We move back to the general committee recommendations. And the next item is item four, update on local government legislative changes and reforms. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm starting to feel quite in need of a potato. Mayor Wellington: Item number five is review of local government legislation changes and reforms. The second item is a review of issues raised in Notified Motion of 20 June. Yes I'd like that one dealt with separately please.
03:04:00 I'm calling for a mover of a motion then. I'll move it. I'll move Councillor Stockwell. Yep okay. I'll second it. Sorry. You wish to speak to Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Just give Councillor Jackson the opportunity if she wishes to second it. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I did. I do have an amendment. And that is, the motion is that the Council note the report of the Chief Executive Officer etc. and request the Chief Executive Officer to include Council's website details of all reference groups, focus groups, statement reports, round tables, advisory committees and the like that have been established by Council including details of Council appointments, to such groups. My addition to that is, and all group members. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Does anyone wish to second that?
03:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question. Wouldn't details of all reference groups, focus groups include members, Mr CEO? Is that an administrative thing that could be taken on board or do we need to formalise it in a standing order? Speaker 6: No, this is, you'll see that the wording before that talks about details of Council appointments. So that is, for example, it might be a Councillor or a staff member that has been appointed. The addition of these words make it very clear that the information on the website has to include all members of that group. So it could be third parties or other people. So it is a different issue. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To give an example, I'm a Council appointee on the Mayor of the Catherine Committee, which is quite a large group. Okay. And would that be capital that we would have to record all those people and then we'd have to seek consent of those people before we put their name on our website? Speaker 6: The answer to that is no, because what the recommendation that I've made is where it is the Council who has established that group, not another party.
03:06:00 Okay. Who has established that group. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, sorry, no. What? No, no, no. I need clarification on that. So this would only... This would only be in reference to groups that Council has established. But Councillors sit on a number of, and this is where we were going with this, on a number of groups and forums that, as Councillor representatives, would we therefore be recording the entities upon which we sit as Council representatives without recording the other members of the groups? Speaker 6: No. Okay. So this resolution is very much about where the Council has established a group. That is where... I'm trying to think of an example. Sustainable Tourism Strategy Group. Sustainable Tourism Strategy Group or something like that. So that's where the Council has established a group. So that's where the Council has established a group. This is who is the Council appointment to that group and who are the other group members.
03:07:00 Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Where then would we record external entities to which Council has appointed Councillors to? Do we currently do that? And if this doesn't cover it, where else would we cover it? Speaker 6: Well, you did that already through the resolution that appoints you to that. So if you were, for example, on the roads and transport group, there's a Council resolution that has appointed you to that group. So they're already on all the Council minutes. There'd be nothing to stop. In fact, we've already asked the staff to try and collate those. They'd have a list of what you're on there. But this is a different thing to appoint or to identify the other group members. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that's why I've raised the question. Whilst they may be recorded in minutes and that, those minutes are then archived and the like. And we have nowhere on our website that actually captures where those appointments are listed. Do we need to move another amendment to capture those appointments? Speaker 6: You don't need to move that amendment. I can do that.
03:08:00 We put a lot of information in there. We put a lot of information on our website. And we're a councillor. And I'll probably end up putting it under your, because each of you have an area on your councillor page, so to speak. So you list under there that you're a member of the Mary River catchment group or the roads and transport group or whatever it might be. Councillor Jurisevic: So that can be done as an administrative task? Thank you, Mr. CEO. Mayor Wellington: And I'm happy to second it. Councillor Jackson: Seconded, Councillor Stockwell. Sorry, point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Councillor Stein. I can't second it because I'm losing it. Mayor Wellington: Oh, quite right. Yes. Oh, bad boy. I'll have another second it. I'll second it. Seconded, Councillor Wilkie. Well done. Thank you. Good save. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So that's my amendment. Yeah. So look, thanks for clarifying that. I noticed that the general committee had a bit of confusion about what sort of groups we were talking about here. And it's definitely the council established groups. So I'm glad that's been clarified.
03:09:00 I think it's very important. Also, I'm very pleased, actually, about Councillor Jurisevic raising the point that councillor appointees to other groups could be made available. And I appreciate CEO's suggestion to be put next to the interests of the councillor. This motion really is about transparency so that the public can have a better understanding of who the people are that are participating in groups that the council has established. And I think this is an important part of transparency because those people who are on those committees in a sense are given a special opportunity to influence council. And that should be fully transparent. So that's why I recommended adding those names to the public and that we have mapped. I guess you're suggesting that we be, does it actually say, yes, it does say on the website.
03:10:00 So I think this is a very good motion. And I request a division, please. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? I've got a question for the CEO. In terms of appointments to council committees and recording of names, are there any privacy issues in relation to recording residents' names? Councillor Jurisevic: Good question. Speaker 6: Look, that's a good question. I haven't gone through every single case. But my assumption would be that it would be a council decision as to who is going to be on that council appointed committee in the first place. And that would normally be already on the public record, yeah. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Again, again, the councillor Jackson alludes to transparency and openness of council. And I, again, there doesn't seem to be any opposition to openness and transparency on
03:11:00 council. Okay. So long as it goes through due process and councillors fully understand what we're looking at, what the implications are, I think we're very open and willing to look at reforms and elements of transparency and openness in every opportunity that is presented. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? I wish to close. Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: No. I think I've explained it. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the amendment. All those in favour? Aye. The amendment's carried unanimously. Please record that. The amendment now becomes the motion. No one has spoken to the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: I'd like to make another amendment. Mayor Wellington: Okay. We're waiting. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Okay. Of course, it relates to what's been written in the CEO's report. I'd like my amendment to be a further amendment.
03:12:00 It's a further point. So where we have request the CEO, et cetera, this would be a separate one, perhaps item B, agree to commence to record formal minutes for council committees and make them publicly available from September 2019. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. CEO, we're accused of semantics a number of times tonight, but I'm going to go into semantics again now. Now we've got formal minutes for committees and make them publicly available. I mean, isn't this implied by approving this through this round of meetings? Speaker 6: Sorry. What's your question? Councillor Jurisevic: What's the choice? Aren't we agreeing by formalising the changes of the new round of standing orders? Thank you. The new standing orders. Is it a reply they'll apply from this committee? No. From this time on? No. Speaker 6: This is a different issue. This is, you might recall, we considered at some length, actually, the issue back in
03:13:00 June last year about whether or not to exempt the Services and Organisation Committee and Planning and Environment Committee and General Committee from the keeping of minutes in accordance with the provisions under the Local Government Act. What this proposes is that the council would commit or commence to keep those formal minutes of those committees from September 2019. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. To confirm the Planning and Organisation and Services and, sorry, Planning and Environment Services and Environment Committee. Is that what you're suggesting? Mayor Wellington: And the General Committee. And the General Committee as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell, have you got a question? Yes. The question was, is that a requirement of the Belcarra? I'm just triggering some memory that that exemption was going to be removed. Speaker 6: Yeah. Look, it's not in the current Belcarra that's before Parliament. That's called Belcarra 2, or colloquially called Belcarra 2, which is a range of amendments.
03:14:00 There are some discussion papers that the department's looking at about how they review the future keeping of a range of governance issues. And that's one of the issues that might be flagged in that. The department still hasn't got a view on whether they want to take that forward. And I've mentioned that in my report, that that has been flagged. But there's no certainty yet about whether that will go ahead or not go ahead, from my discussions with the department. Mayor Wellington: Do I have a seconder for the amendment? Councillor Wilkie: No. I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Mayor Wellington: Seconded to Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jackson, do you care to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do. And I just want to ask a question first of the CEO. And that is where, Brett, where in a portfolio committee or standing committee earlier, some people declare conflicts of interest or
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 perceived conflicts of interest. Where does that then appear if there are no minutes? Speaker 6: It appears in the agenda of the council meeting, which is on the public record. That has all the outcomes of that committee meeting. Councillor Jackson: The agenda of the night, in other words. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: So is that, it doesn't appear in the general committee agenda, even if it's been referred to the general committee? Yes, it does. Speaker 6: Yes, it does. Councillor Jackson: Brett, I'd have to say that, I don't know if it's been referred to the general committee, but I have found very recently an example where it did not appear in the general committee agenda. There were some councillors who declared perceived conflicts of interest at the July Services and Organisation Committee, and their conflicts of interest did not appear in the general committee agenda, even though it was referred to the general committee. Speaker 6: That was not what I said. What I said was that where the conflict has been declared at a, I think, did you say,
03:16:00 this example of the Services and Organisation Committee? Yes, we did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So where a conflict has been declared there, that will be recorded, and that will appear on the council agenda as part of the deliberations that occurred at that committee. If the item was then considered at the general committee as well, there would be a separate declaration which would have been recorded at the general committee, and that would also appear on the agenda of the council meeting as a, the outcomes of that general committee. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify. Sorry. This is something that I just want to be clear on. Services and Organisation Committee gets, if something gets referred to the general committee, and there is perceived conflicts of interest declared, does it appear in the general committee agenda? Speaker 6: No. That's not what I said. What I said was that. No. That's my question. Yeah. So what's being recorded is where the declaration was made, and that declaration was made at the Services and Organisation Committee. Services and Organisation.
03:17:00 So if you have a look at the agenda for that council meeting, the recommendations. Councillor Jackson: The ordinary meeting. Speaker 6: Yes. The ordinary meeting. Yep. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. It's in there. Speaker 6: So that's where that matter would have recorded that the declaration was made at the Services and Organisation Committee. Yes. When the matter was referred across to the general committee. And then when the matter was considered at the general committee, there would have been another declaration that occurred at that time, and that again would appear on the agenda of the council meeting. Right. And the declaration that occurred at the general committee meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: May I ask a question? To clarify that, the reason that that occurs is because the councillor then, I'm assuming that the reason that that occurs is because the councillor then has to reiterate that declaration of a conflict at that meeting. Speaker 6: That's correct. What's happening is it's where the declaration was made is what's being recorded. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. And to clarify, even though a declaration is made at an earlier meeting, it is, the expectation is that that declaration will be made again at subsequent meetings.
03:18:00 Speaker 6: That's correct. Any time a matter comes up, whether it's a committee or a council meeting, that same declaration needs to be made because the matter is under consideration. Councillor Jurisevic: And the reason for that is that that declaration at the first meeting can't flow through of its own accord. It actually has to be reiterated at every instance. That's correct. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're trying to confirm for those here. Mayor Wellington: Do you wish to speak to the amendment, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Sure, I do. As you were already discussing, the Director General of the local government has, department has foreshadowed the probability that council committees will be as required to take minutes in the future. And that's written up, been circulated to all councillors, of course, and across Queensland, and it's in the name of transparency, enhancing transparency. Of course, as the CEO has pointed out, it's a matter of transparency. And as we've pointed out, this is not yet a decision of Parliament.
03:19:00 So we await the next phase of the Belcarra changes to see whether that is included. Nevertheless, I think, you know, there's nothing stopping Noosa Council from not taking that step towards greater transparency. And for example, what we've just been talking about, if there were minutes, then those perceived conflicts of interests, which are a Belcarra concern, would be reduced. They would be immediately visible in the minutes. They wouldn't, for example, a general committee, they don't appear on the agenda. So you don't know there's been, you know, people who read the agenda don't know there's been a declaration of perceived conflict of interest. So I think that while it is true that committees do not make final council resolutions, and of course, those are always only resolved in ordinary meetings, committees do decide about what you recommend. And I think, you know, there's been a lot of discussion around that.
03:20:00 So there's no reason why that shouldn't be minutely publicly available. Also having formal minutes recorded and confirmed for all committees not only increases transparency but is a more rigorous protocol for council to follow. So I suggest we continue with this concept and that we show that we can be one of the most transparent councils and I request it to be divisioned please. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak against this particular amendment. If the purpose is transparency, we have a record of meeting which is publicly available and it currently records the name of the committee, the date of the committee, council committee members in attendance, other councils in attendance, apologies, the full list of
03:21:00 items considered, the details of any conflict of interest declarations by councillors, how they were determined, how they voted if they stayed in the room, details of movers and seconders of motions, details of all the recommendations being made to council, details of any changes made to staff recommendations, everything that you would expect to be in minutes. There was a statement that said that when people look at the ordinary meeting agenda, conflicts of interest are not recorded there from the portfolios, I refer any interested Mayor Wellington: parties to page 12. Hang on, hang on. If you're calling a point of order, are you councillor Jason? Councillor Jurisevic: I was about to call a point of order on the fact that a point of order hasn't been called and the councillor is interrupting the councillor's speech. Okay, point of order. Mayor Wellington: Yes, what's your point of order councillor Jason? Councillor Jackson: There's been a misinterpretation, my concern was the lack of documentation in the general committee agenda. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Can I just point out to councillors that a point of order doesn't mean that someone has
03:22:00 said something you don't like or has misrepresented you. That is not a point of order. A point of order can only refer to the proceedings of the meetings, it cannot refer to what someone says. So I'm a bit tired of this business of calling a point of order because someone gets misrepresented. If you're misrepresented, live with it. Councillor Wilkie, carry on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Mr Chairman, so anyone who's interested in the meeting of record or effectively which contains all the information that any minutes would, it's publicly available in the ordinary meeting agenda. For example, in reference to conflicts of interest, page 12 of tonight's ordinary meeting agenda lists my real conflicts of interest in relation to item 15. They can see that I left the meeting and when I returned to the meeting. The meeting record that is taken at the portfolio and committee meetings is in effect minutes
03:23:00 by another name. We are heading, if Belcarra is heading towards us needing to have formal minutes, that will happen. But in the meantime, Noosa Council remains one of the most transparent councils in Australia because it does have this open and transparent record of meeting which is publicly available for even the advisory committees whose sole purpose is to make recommendations to either the general committee where debate on contentious issues takes place or the ordinary meetings where the decisions become ratified as a local government decision. And of course we have minutes for special meetings, ordinary meetings and there is a meeting record, meeting notes for the general committee meeting. So I cannot support this amendment. Thank you Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: For all the reasons that Councillor Wilkie alluded to and I have been reiterating this time and time again every time this is brought up and it has been brought up several times over the period of our time on council, it is documented, okay, it is not a formal minute of the meeting
03:24:00 but the elements are recorded and available to the public as Councillor Wilkie has alluded to. The ordinary meeting agenda records it all for everyone to see before we go to that final decision-making process. Again, this is another element of trying to videotape these informal discussions and even when I have spoken with Oscar and I had an email from Oscar in this regard and I responded as I am responding here with regard to it and Oscar has said we agree with this and therefore do not advocate for the minute of subcommittee meetings. So that is it. They acknowledge they are subcommittee meetings, they acknowledge they are not a decision-making forum and the body, the public body that sits there and turns around and scrutinises us agrees there is no need to go to this, to this level so that is the reasons for my not supporting this amendment. Mayor Wellington: Thank you Councillor. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just briefly, it may be that the writing is on the wall and we are through the Belcarra
03:25:00 next phase get told we do need formal minutes but there is also the possibility that they come to a realisation that a form of recording is equally transparent so while I understand what Councillor Jackson is doing I still think I would prefer to wait for the fine print to go into legislation and respond appropriately as the time comes. Here, here, thank you. Councillor Jackson, do you wish to close? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will just say that I think there is absolutely nothing scary about preparing minutes. It seems like there is nothing scary about preparing minutes. It seems like we are pretty well there already because there are notes taken anywhere, records taken anywhere. It would be a simple matter to make those publicly available in the formal way, hold the minutes. So I request that this be done and I had called a division, I will stay. Mayor Wellington: You have. Okay, I am going to put the amendment. All those in favour?
03:26:00 Myself. Councillor Jackson. All those against? Councillors Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. The amendment is lost. We go back to the substantive motion. No one has spoken to it. Councillor Jackson: I do have another amendment, Mr Chair. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: And I think Cally has my third amendment there. And that is that we agree to make all informal councillor meetings on council matters open to the public, including councillor workshops, briefings and discussion forums, unless declared to be closed for reasons listed in section 275. The local government regulation 2012. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Do we have a seconder for this? The amendment lapses for one to the seconder. We go back to the substantive motion. No one has spoken to it. Councillor Stockwell has moved it.
03:27:00 Councillor Jackson: And I do have one more amendment, which I would like to put. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: And that is that the local government regulation 2012 will be moved. I, that council request the CEO to ensure records are kept of outcomes of informal council meetings. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Do we have a seconder for this one? Councillor Wilkie: I'll just ask a question. Sure. Are records kept of workshops? I'm like, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But I guess it's the, for example about the planning scheme. Yeah. The submission. Speaker 6: The short answer is it depends on the workshop. Yeah. So, for example, we're having a look at our drafting the new planning scheme and the workshops we've been working through there. Certainly we keep an outcome of that so the staff can go back and start to draft accordingly. And obviously the planning scheme is then adopted by the council resolution, so to speak. But if it's an informal council discussion, I'll be an example.
03:28:00 The mayor might give an update that he caught up with the minister last week and let the other councils know about that meeting. We don't keep a record of that. Mayor Wellington: So I've got a question for the CEO. The wording here is informal council meetings which presumably means briefings, workshops etc. and it refers to outcomes. As these meetings are not capable of giving direction in a formal manner to staff or providing any direction to staff because staff following these workshops might go away and continue to work on things and then bring them back to a round of meetings such as this. Are there in fact outcomes of councillor workshops and briefings? Are there outcomes that can be recorded? Speaker 6: Well I can tell you what there's not. There's not decisions because there's not authority for that body to make a decision. Certainly, and maybe to answer that question, the best thing is to use some examples.
03:29:00 So, what would be a good one? Staff wanted to develop an environment strategy. So one way to do it would be to staff go off and do their work and just present it to a council meeting and say this is what we think. A better way is to say to the councillors what's important to you, what's your feedback on the things you'd be expecting that are important to you. That's a critical there. And the staff would take some of that feedback. So that's probably why I describe it as some general feedback. That they could then start to frame up the development of a policy and bring it back to the council for formal consideration at a council meeting as part of that process. So it's not a decision making forum but it is an opportunity for staff sometimes to get feedback on some issues. Mayor Wellington: Let me refine the question a little bit. Is it not possible that a workshop can end up with multiple outcomes because there is no, you know, sort of formal agreement and everyone has a different opinion and you can end up with seven different opinions being voiced at a workshop and therefore there are no outcomes?
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Speaker 6: Mr Mayor, I'm sure I've been to a workshop where there's been eight outcomes. But, no, look, on a serious note, yeah, certainly, it's a way for the council staff to hear some different views. And get that. But it's not where we would say there is necessarily always one outcome. There might be differences of opinion. A good example might be recently where we had a look at the standing orders. Where there were different views about what that might look like. I listened to those views. Ultimately I'll then draft. Kylie actually did all the work. But, you know, draft up the standing orders based on what I've heard from some of the ideas. But ultimately then as a professional I'll make the call about what I think is going to be appropriate. Bring it to, in this case, this meeting tonight. And the council will make that decision. Councillor Wilkie: So what you're saying is there are cases where the outcomes are in fact a formal report
03:31:00 to a council meeting. That could be an outcome of the meeting. Speaker 6: Yeah, that's probably an outcome of that discussion. But it's not that there's a decision of the council that I need to do a report, for example. I would be doing that anyway. It's where I take the pulse or say I'm thinking about this. What do you think? And you have that informal feedback. I then build that into my thinking and then bring a report to council. Councillor Jackson: So may I ask a question of you? Of course. Mr. CEO. Perhaps, I mean, I'm always available to change the word if the word is wrong. A good example, and I think a good example of this being done, and I compliment the project team of the New Noosa Plan, who hold workshops with councillors and then always after the workshop, they circulate a form of record of what came out of that workshop. Of course, they're not decisions, because eventually the New Noosa Plan will come to
03:32:00 council for final decision. But there's always a record provided after a meeting. This is an example of, you know, a well-structured process. So what would we call that? We wouldn't call that outcomes. Is there a better word? No. Speaker 6: That's a good question. To some extent, the staff have taken some notes, and I'll use the planning scheme as that example, where they've taken some notes that they're going to go back and think about how they would then draft up provisions of the planning scheme. Sometimes, as you know, there's not always a uniform view around particular issues amongst the councils, and staff, again, would take some feedback, listen, but then might apply their professional judgment. So I think notes is potentially a good example of that. I don't think it's better than the word outcomes, but it is still not a decision, I think, as you understand. Councillor Jackson: No, I don't think it's a decision. I never put the word decision. I took that out. So perhaps it's sufficient to say that the CEO, we request the CEO to ensure notes are
03:33:00 kept from informal councillor meetings. Mayor Wellington: Okay. If you're happy with that wording, councillor, that's fine. Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: We need a seconder. Is there a seconder? I'm afraid the amendment also fails for want of a seconder, councillor. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. All right. Mayor Wellington: We go back to the substantive motion once more. Councillor Stockwell moves. Seconded by myself. No one has spoken to it. I'll speak. Thank you, councillor. I'll speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: Look. I'll speak to it. Mayor Wellington: What have I got here? Councillor Wilkie: I forgot what the substantive motion is. We've got more to be done to communicate more extensively and frequently on council projects. And all the details of all the groups are contained in public council reports on the
03:34:00 website. We can collate details of all of them into the one spot in case anyone is interested. And I have no problems with that. I think that offers greater reporting. Okay. For an issue of interest for people who may be interested in the work of such groups, I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a useful addition to the information provided on the council's website. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? You wish to close, councillor Stockwell? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Aye. That's passed unanimously. Thank you. We go on to item six, which is the transport strategy. It's the transport strategy. It's the transport strategy resourcing. Item seven is the Orealla Crescent Bridge Expressions of Interest. Item eight is the Cooroy Hinterland Playground Project update.
03:35:00 I wish to move a slightly different motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? The motion I wish to move is as was recommended to the committee with an additional item C that says make the Cooroy Hinterland Playground economic and financial analysis available to the public on council's website. Mayor Wellington: Did you catch that, councillor Jackson? Or have you received this already? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I have received it and I did catch it. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll second it, Mr Chair. I'll second it, councillor Wilkie. Care to speak to it, councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. I think it's really worthwhile to actually dig into this a little bit further because it was mentioned in the update report and I'll start with just some questions of Mr Shaver if possible, just to clarify some of those statements and what that means in there. You're welcome. Thank you. You've been waiting with bated breath. So in the report it suggested the annual operating budget impact equates to an estimated one-off $11 or 1% increase in the general rate.
03:36:00 Am I right in thinking that this does not commit council to increasing rates as we can find savings in other areas and generate revenue from other sources? And how does it compare, for example, to other council facilities, that sort of operating budget? Speaker 4: Through the Chair? No, that's correct. Obviously, it's part of council's budget process if we look at zero-based budgeting, so built and based. There are always opportunities to look at efficiencies in our cost base and also additional revenue streams. So yeah, that was more, as I said, an estimate of what the cost would equate to in terms of rate-payer impact. Look, in terms of your other question regarding comparing it to similar sort of services we provide at the moment, we have a, still haven't had the opportunity to do that, but we do have a graph I could put on the screen here. So you can see here, in terms of net cost per service, the $11 or equates to roughly the
03:37:00 $500,000 for the playground, and that includes, in this graph, operating maintenance costs in addition to appreciation, so asset consumption. You can see with the playground, it would be equivalent to sort of your J, your net cost of your J, and slightly below the Aquatic Centre. Those two facilities, as you know, have revenue sources. So they're the net cost to the rate-payer, excluding revenue, so the revenue nets off. And you can see the library, of course, we've got two quite substantial libraries in the Shire. We've got a high level of service, and that's obviously reflected in the net cost there for the libraries, which obviously don't have significant income streams to offset. So that graph, I think, puts it into a bit of perspective of what that cost would equate to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you mentioned that the figure of $11 or around $500,000 includes depreciation, and I think it's probably a worst-case scenario. In the AEC economic analysis, it suggests that on construction and ongoing maintenance
03:38:00 of $0.25 million per annum. So if you take depreciation off the figures in the report, does that say that if we take off depreciation? We're looking at operating costs of about $250,000 to $350,000 a year. Is that sort of the ballpark over here? Yeah, through the Chair, that's correct. And so we've already talked about, how does that compare to other facilities in terms of just pure operating costs? Speaker 4: So through the Chair, again, if we look at, say, I think there's a further slide, a pie chart. Here you can see, look at operating costs. This is just another reflection of the previous sort of graph. You can see the playground there. We look at sort of the total cost of that segment of facilities or services that we provide. The playground would have paid for about 8%.
03:39:00 So you can see there, obviously, again, the libraries, the galleries, the Equality Centre, the J, they're the sort of the bigger sort of costing costs for us in providing services. And that's obviously to be expected. And then we look at the total cost of the facilities. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this concern, there is a concern out there in the community about there's a large figure of 500K. We heard just this week that just a temporary relocate at Telstra Lines over at Bridger New is going to cost us so much. We've also seen huge increases in complaints about trees. And can you share the information about how much additional the rate payer has been contributing, just for comparison's sake, over recent years in tree management? Speaker 4: Sure. Sure. Thanks to the Chair. There is a further slide I can demonstrate here. As you can see, since 2015, we've had a quite steady increase in our operating cost for tree management, which equates to, I think, roughly about a million dollars, 120% increase
03:40:00 over those five years. But obviously, that reflects the industrial environment, the maturity of the trees, and just business as usual at the moment for Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've looked at the 250, 300, we're paying about seven to eight times in operating costs, and we haven't had to increase the rates by the amount of increase. Lastly, in the AEC report, they made the statement, over the next 10 years, with the 60% contribution from the local government grants and subsidies program, the Council's operating surplus ratio remains financially sustainable without the need for additional increases in the general rate. Beyond the modest increases already proposed by Council in the absence of the project. Do you concur with that statement? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, I do concur. We just adopted our budget, including our 10-year forecast.
03:41:00 That budget and the 10-year forecast includes the cost of the playground, capital and operating costs, and our 10-year sustainability ratio overall within target. I'll speak now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good. Thank you. So, we can't get into the details of the construction and ongoing maintenance of .25 million per annum, but result in an additional resident and visitor expenditure, with the Noosa LGA estimated at $1.2 million per year. They go on to suggest, it is estimated that 28 full-time jobs could be generated over the
03:42:00 duration of construction, with 17 full-time equivalent jobs expected as a result of ongoing operational and visitor spend equipments, with 11 full-time jobs expected to be generated Mayor Tom So, 17 additional jobs created by the building of that. These consultants use an input-output model that examine the direct and flow-on activity expected to support the regional economy. However, as well as jobs created through the construction operation of the playground associated additional resident and visitor spend, they note that there are additional social and health benefits that may occur as a result of playground. They state, these include the benefits associated with passive and active recreational activities, including both mental and physical health benefits, as well as amenity, property value and benefits for residents. The physical, psychological, social and spiritual aspects of such an iconic nature-based playground
03:43:00 provide considerable social and health benefits for the mind and body, according to economists. So, councillors, I think it's important to understand such big expenditures. What do they mean? So, I've gone and I've actually done a literature review. And so, yes, Crompton reviewed empirical evidence and found that properties adjacent to large parks can go up 20% in value. And while even at large, busy parks, they might have some reverse amenity right on the side to them, 10%, three blocks away. In an article in the Landscape and Urban Planning Journal, the value of alum gardens in the City of Toronto was discussed, and it discussed how treed urban parks provide new and improved social, environmental and economic services of measurable value to the city. And they estimated that park trees provided over $26,000 US in annual benefits, over nearly $17,000 in environmental and nearly $10,000 in aesthetic. And it delivered that park a cost-benefit ratio of 3.4 to 1.
03:44:00 So that's what we should be making a decision on, not just purely financial accounting and costs, but the cost-benefit ratio. An article in the Dreadnought.com. Journal of Leisure Research reported on non-economic valuation of Centennial Park in Sydney. Their analysis used the estimate of travel cost model to estimate that the non-market economic value of the park at between $23 and $33 million per year, with at least $2.6 million just from the factors there, non-use value. It's a larger, more central park, but I think that's quite favourable when they have maintenance and management costs of? $6 million a year. However, it's broader social blunders, as I believe, that really make the case for this playground. Heatherington and her colleagues in the current obesity reports in 2015 highlighted the importance of play and nature-based play spaces to children's health and development.
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 The reduction of child obesity continues to be a challenge worldwide, they suggest. Research indicates that playing outdoors, particularly in natural play spaces, boosts children's physical activity, potentially decreasing child obesity. They present evidence that natural play spaces also provide for more diverse forms of play for children of varying ages and competencies. They think it's crucial because play spaces designed expressly for physical activities, like soccer grounds, may not increase the physical activity of those kids who are less active, like those with obesity. In the journal Environmental Psychology, another article reported how nature-based playgrounds have restorative effects in schools. They say that vegetation volume is a weak indicator of child obesity. In the journal Epidemiology and Community Health reported on a systemic review of the mental
03:46:00 health benefits of interactions with nature in children and teenagers as well, not just young ones. Over 35 papers revealed that statistically significant positive relationships between nature and mental health outcomes, including improvements in self-esteem, stress, resilience, depression, health-related quality of life. And in a journal of development, investigated the role of natural spaces in adolescent lives. Mayor Wellington: Sir, you've chewed up too much. You're five minutes. The other councillor's willing to hear the rest of this. Councillor Jurisevic: I understand he's on his last page, and it's only half a page, so I'm willing to let him continue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I might have thought I might have gone over. Okay. They suggest, so we're only up to teenagers. They suggest spaces can provide valuable restorative, socialisation and recreation function. And it's a place where they can go and reflect and regulate their emotions. The activities may assist youth both in forming self-identity and building their self-esteem, lower stress level and increase their cognitive abilities. And finally, councillors, in the Journal of Sustainable Cities and Society, an article
03:47:00 explored the requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation for the elderly. A systematic literature review base was conducted, including an in-depth analysis of 44 peer-reviewed articles. And it was suggested across those that elderly people have a strong emotional tie with nature. And they found that across the studies, elderly people seem to have common preferences, including late scab features that are natural, aesthetic and emotional. And the study has confirmed that they have different personalities, performances and moods. And they also found that about four times as many people come out on the streets of the city as it used to be. And that is, in a total of one in five people come out on the streets of the city. as me, who are in the same locality as them, allcent to each other. And it was also looked at and considered to be appropriate.
03:48:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you Councillor. Does anyone else wish to speak to this? Yes I do. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Look I'd like to say I really like playgrounds. Over the last six years I've been taking my little granddaughter to the Pirate Park and the Friesian Beach playgrounds, both of which she just loves. When I first saw the Cooroy playground in the council budget, it was for 1.25 million for design and to begin construction. That was a couple of budgets ago. At that time, I asked the then project manager how much it would cost in total. And I was told, oh, just another 1.25 million. So I thought, okay, 2.5 million, that sounds okay. So I supported the staff.
03:49:00 I supported the project team continue along this path. Since then, the estimated cost has grown to 5.2 million plus 500 per year operation maintenance and depreciation. And those are so far only estimates. We're not even sure how much it's going to cost. It is my view that this project is not a strategic priority. Council's recent community satisfaction survey highlighted the key resident concerns as being parking, transport, the economy, traffic, roads, footpaths, responding to the community, consulting with the community, town planning, and drainage. So to my mind, there are many projects which would be a priority. I think it would be a better use of ratepayers' money. Sealing gravel roads, transport strategy, traffic management, bypass connectivity, better achievement of the annual capital works program, and not cutting back on important council service levels.
03:50:00 Implementing all those things would also have terrific economic value for Noosa, as well as jobs. I believe council's first project would be a better use of ratepayers' money. Council's second priority should be implementing the things that are needed, the must haves and not the nice to haves. With the cost blowout, I see this project as a nice to have. And meanwhile, while there has been a reference group set up consisting of Cooroy community groups, there has been no real consultation with the community about their needs and their priorities. So I will not be able to take away that. And because of the past tendency of this council to reinterpret noting a report as meaning endorsing a report, I cannot endorse and therefore I will not support this motion, which is about proceeding with a very expensive and not a priority project.
03:51:00 And I request a division, please. Mayor Wellington: Certainly. Okay. I'm going to speak in favour of the motion. The iconic Hinterland Playground has appeared in numerous consecutive corporate plans and operational plans for some years for this council. Discussion about the project, in fact, began on the previous Noosa Council, and budget allocations towards the development of it have been part of the last two council budgets. If you look back at the draft five-year capital works plan from early 2008, it was noted then the construction cost for the playground would be 2.5 million spread over two years.
03:52:00 And so that 2.5 million has been part of councils thinking for a significant period of time. And it was also understood that we would proceed with the project if we got significant grant funding and we were lucky enough to get $2.8 million in funding to pay 60% of the project costs. The rest of the costs are actually in keeping with the 2.5 million. Thank you very much. All of us were aware of the grant application for this playground that we submitted and all were aware of the cost of the project when this year's budget was adopted and all of us agreed to that budget.
03:53:00 Indeed, questions were asked about the cost at the special meeting and we all adopted the budget. It does seem rather late in the process to be suddenly deciding not to support the project. After going to the trouble of writing grant applications, getting consultant reports to support them, I went out and got support letters from members for parliament, etc. The only way not to proceed now would be to hand back $2.8 million because that appears to be the only response to refusal to support the project. After all, the grant allocation was based on a total cost that we submitted and that total cost was around the $5 million mark. And that incorporates this $2.5 million, or a bit less than that at the moment, that has long been considered part of capital. Of course, a few residents have questioned the overall cost of the project. That's perfectly appropriate for them to do so. However, some of the thinking on the playground appears to lack a real understanding of what's being proposed.
03:54:00 This is not an ordinary playground that you buy off the shelf or that you buy from a catalogue. Rather, the word iconic has been associated with it for a long time because we're aiming to produce something that is actually about placemaking for Noosa and placemaking for Cooroy. This is not simply a playground. This is a very significant placemaking opportunity for this Shire. And of course, there are going to be some direct benefits in terms of locals. One of the aspects that's been overlooked here is that the intention is to get various artworks created by local artists as part of the development. And that hasn't been incorporated, unfortunately, into the fly-through. It's a bit too complex. But there'll also be all sorts of consultants. Consultants and labourers, et cetera, working on it, which will provide benefit for the community. And I dare say ongoing maintenance costs will also likely benefit local tradespeople.
03:55:00 So, as I say, this is much more than just a local playground. It also incorporates 60 new car parking spaces, a delivery of public toilets, et cetera, for Cooroy. But it's going to be one of those playgrounds that people remember. And I still remember just a couple of playgrounds from my youth. And already... There are people looking at this saying, wow, that is a pretty fantastic-looking playground as a result of the fly-throughs that have been developed. Councillor Jackson said there hasn't been significant consultation with the community. I showed, and Councillor Wilkie and Stockwell were there, the fly-through to the dinner from the Mayor this week. And there was unanimous applause and a great deal of excitement about it. Indeed, the fly-through has been on Council's website today. And I believe it's up to something like 25,000 views. And it's been forwarded on hundreds of times. And the comments are universally supportive of this project. Any suggestion that it's going to result in a 1% rate rise, as Councillor Stockwell has pointed out, is an absolute burphy anyway, because that's not how budgets work.
03:56:00 We are in the business of providing community facilities. Core business of Council is to provide playgrounds. This is a significant playground. Yes, it's going to require maintenance, and we will absorb that. Just as we absorbed $750,000 worth of new initiatives in this year's budget, and we absorbed a 2.5% increase to staff pay in this year's budget, without a massive pay increase, because that's how budgets work. It's gives and takes. Rating increase. Gives and takes. Sorry, what was that? Rate increase, not pay increase. Rate increase, sorry. No, no, no, pay increase. Oh, sorry. When I say pay increase, I mean pay increase. I put you in front of me. We incorporate a 2.5% pay increase for all our staff in this year's budget, without a rate increase above 2%, and $750,000 of new initiatives, because when you're dealing with budgets, you look at income, you look at outgoings, and you make it work, and that's what we're really good at here, is making it work.
03:57:00 And, of course, there are going to be increased incomes to Council as a result of increases in all sorts of measures, not the least of them being rises in valuations. So, this is a significant piece of Noosa-style infrastructure. It's going to support the Noosa brand. The Noosa brand, in turn, supports businesses in the Shire. This is a major piece of placemaking that's actually going to make our Shire work better. It's going to be fantastic for the well-being of our residents, and it's going to be wonderful, in fact, for the significance of the Shire, and that's good for the Noosa brand, and that, in turn, is good for businesses in the Shire. And so, I applaud this initiative on behalf of my fellow councillors. It's been a long road to get to this point, and I'm so looking forward to delivering it. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, look, it can only ever be an anticlimax after that.
03:58:00 But I'd like to say there's a lot of enthusiasm about this project, and the people of Cooroy will remember when the planning for the Cooroy launch was. The library was underway when there were similar questions asked about the expense, and the whole project was poo-pooed about the expense, and do we really need a library of this scale and this cost? But now that the library is built, and you see it's not just a normal out-of-the-box library, just as this is not going to be a normal out-of-the-box playground, just as the boardwalk down at Noosa Heads is just not another boardwalk. There was similar concern during the planning for the boardwalk about the expense. There was a concern about the design of it, about the consultation. There were key stakeholder groups involved with that, just as there are out at Cooroy. There are key stakeholder groups who have been guiding the process. And now that they have the concept designs ready to go, they've been put through some rigour. These are ideas that are tested and are doable. That's why they're going out with them now. They'll be publicly available at the library.
03:59:00 I believe there will also be displays at the Cooroy Hall. There'll be an opportunity for greater community feedback and consultation on the project going forward. The point that other councillors have made about expenses going forward, ongoing expenses, the council is always looking to increase its efficiencies. For example, the paying down of the $10 million debt that was inherited after de-amalgamation that was locked in at 6.5% has given us a lot of room for improvement. And over $1 million of savings from last year going forward, which is equivalent to 2% rate increase savings. So there are swings and roundabouts. And as the Director of Corporate Services said, going forward, the forward budget projections show that we're well within our, living well within our means. No point. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I wish we didn't call this a playground. It projects the wrong image into people's minds of a swing set, a see-saw, and all sorts of other things.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 This is so much more than that. And I applaud the Mayor's passion in this one. I haven't seen you fire up so well at a council meeting with the passion that you've delivered that tonight. It is. It's so much more than just an ordinary playground. And Councillor Stockwell alluded to some of the benefits that something, you know, a project of this scale and this size can bring. Councillor Wellington, again, alluded to from a cost perspective. We've always been aiming somewhere around about $2.5 million. And from Council's coffers, that's about where we're heading on the playground. Councillor Jackson alluded to parking, footpaths, and the like. This is going to deliver parking for Cooroy, something that the Cooroy traders and Cooroy residents have been calling for for some time. It's going to deliver more footpaths. It's going to deliver safer crossings. It's going to deliver a number of those outcomes. And it's not going to cut back on service levels. This is a misnomer.
04:01:00 As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, 1%, I mean, that's a figure that is a potential impact. But we started zero-based budgeting. We look at our service levels. We haven't even determined the service levels on this. At best, we've got a projected conservative estimate, as we usually do with these sort of projects, on where this may go. But until it's built, until we know what it's built of and all the rest of it, until we know what the materials that are being used and all the rest of it are, we're not 100% sure what the service levels will be on this. So I think, you know, I think a conservative estimate on where the service levels might go is proof. We've built a boardwalk. We've built a Peregian hub. Have any of these had significant impact on our budget going forward? No. We've absorbed the costs. We've managed to, one, construct them. We've managed to get external funding to make them occur. And we've got great outcomes as a result of the projects and the vision.
04:02:00 Vision. There's a word that we haven't heard much of tonight. Vision. This is imagination. And it's only until the fly-through, as the Mayor has alluded to, is suddenly being presented that people see this is so much more than just a swing set, a playground. I think that conjures the wrong image in the public's mind. Let's see it go forward. We've still got some work to do. Our staff have turned around and acknowledged that this is something beyond their scope. And we need to get those contractors in to give us expressions of interest on what the heck they can provide. This is ambitious. It's a water park. There's water elements. There's all abilities elements. There's pathways. There's something for everyone in this. It's not just a kids' playground. I applaud Council on having this sort of foresight. And wanting to take projects to the next level. Because of all of the reasons that Councillor Stockwell alluded to. We talk about economics. We talk about bringing jobs.
04:03:00 We talk about growth, you know, growing things for the economic benefit of the community. This has the potential to do exactly that. And as I said, I for one support this project going forward. Again, it hasn't exceeded the $2.5 million that we originally spoke about. That was always a figure that we had in our mind. The rest of it is external. External funding. And I said, we went out, we got, went out, searched for that funding. We got that funding. Because not only are we the visionaries, but those that supply that money can see that there's so much more potential in this than meets the eye. That's it. I look forward to being built. Cheers. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Care to close, Councillor Stockwell? I will briefly. Very briefly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do I have another five minutes? If this is not a strategic priority, then I'm a monkey's uncle. To say that sealing of gravel roads compares with providing lifelong memories for our young children, our family, their grandparents, to say that there's economic benefit flowing from sealing a bit of gravel, that's equivalent to a project that's going to give us a 500%
04:04:00 return on ongoing costs. And that it's suggesting that for a quarter of a million dollars per annum operating cost, it'll return 1.2 million per year to the economy. That's a pretty good return. Okay. So if that's not a strategic priority, that this council should be doing things that builds the community infrastructure, that satisfies the need for our children, young families, teenagers, elderly people, that builds the Noosa brand, and there's no doubt that this is built for our residents, but it helps establish the brand of Noosa. If it's not a strategic priority, that this whole council since the 80s has badged itself on integrating nature with our public infrastructure. In fact, a half a lifetime ago, I wrote a paper on the environmental discussion. Every single one of those things has happened over the last 30 years, except for the one
04:05:00 page that I dealt with, which was the desire building of building a nature reserve. And that was the nature based playground because I was in studying environmental design. It was known in the 1980s of all the fantastic benefits and the significant amount of literature that's around just proves that over and over again, that when you build stuff like that, you are building community wellbeing. You're saving on public health costs. You're making people more happy. And when people are happy, less bad things happen in life. I love your optimism. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour. That's Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. All those against. Councillor Jackson: Myself. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson. The motion is carried. Item number nine is the Cooroy Hinterland Playground Expressions of Interest. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'd like to have that dealt with separately. Mayor Wellington: Okay.
04:06:00 I'll move it. Move Councillor Stockwell. I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Jurisevic. Don't need to speak. They'll be paid. Councillor Jackson: I'm just going to say that as I... I will be consistent and vote against this Expressions of Interest because I do not believe this is a project that should be proceeding. And I request a division, please. Mayor Wellington: Certainly. Anyone else wish to speak to it? I'll put the motion. All those in favour. That's Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. All those against. Councillor Jackson: Myself. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson. Thank you. The motion is carried. Item number 10, Development Application for Building Works at 54 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'd like this one dealt with separately, please. Mayor Wellington: Okay. In that case, I'm happy to move it. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'm happy to second it. Mayor Wellington: Just give me a minute to get myself together. Okay.
04:07:00 Look. Council refused this matter when it came before us. Previously, as a material change of use. And as always, it's very important that... Oh, thanks for joining us, Kerry. You woke yourself up just in time. Speaker 3: That's all right. Mayor Wellington: Look, as always, it's very important that Council is consistent in its decision making, supporting the planning scheme and maintaining an unswerving approach. To be inconsistent would jeopardise, arguably, a range of Council matters that come before the Planning and Environment Court. Indeed, judges have noted that Noosa Council consistently opposes the development of the planning scheme and supports its planning scheme. And they've, in turn, supported Council's decision making on that basis. And the Noosa City case is one case that comes to mind in this regard, where the judge noted Council's consistency in supporting its planning scheme. Noosa Council has an enviable track record of wins in the Planning and Environment Court, arguably because we support our planning scheme. Council also has to be consistent in its dealings with regard to climate change. Again, to do otherwise would not only be hypocritical, but weaken the development of the planning
04:08:00 We were the first of the Queensland Councils to enjoy very significant funding under the Q-Coast 2100 program and we received almost half a million dollars and that money has gone to a number of years of effort towards our almost completed Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan. The modelling is, as I say, largely completed and this modelling has been checked and ratified by the State Government. If we were to allow this development to go ahead, apart from being inconsistent with our previous position, we'd also be signalling that all that effort and all that money that we've put into the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan has been a waste of time and I'm not prepared to do that. We have a duty of care to consider the potential impacts of climate change and here I'm not
04:09:00 talking about sea level rise, I'm talking about the impacts of storm surge events. As we know, they're likely to become more insistent, more frequent, more severe. We know that as the climate warms, sea level rise increase and that results in more extreme tropical cyclones and other such events to which our coast is going to be susceptible. We also know from the LGAQ and from briefings we've had from King & Co. solicitors that we have a legal responsibility to take into account the most up-to-date information we have when considering development applications that are likely to be impacted by climate change. Again, to fail to do so would be remiss of Council. And of course, for a long time we've known that these sorts of decisions were coming and people who own property in potential flood zones along the coast, and in flood areas have also known these decisions are on the horizon because at some point the
04:10:00 impacts of climate change are going to have to bite and we can't ignore it and unfortunately it is going to impact on some property owners. That is a crying shame and particularly, you know, property owners who are perhaps in some sort of denial about the impacts of climate change, it is a crying shame. However, property owners living in areas affected by storm surges have largely been unable to get insurance for storm surge inundation for many years, a couple of decades now. Insurance companies are aware of the problem, they're onto it. They're aware of these threats, that's why they're reluctant to insure against these sort of future storm surges. If that hasn't been sending a message to property owners, I don't know what has. I absolutely agree that it's a shame that, you know, the owners will be impacted in the scenario we're facing. But as I say, this isn't a new notion. We've known about climate change for a number of
04:11:00 decades, arguably since the 1980s, and we cannot falter on these first tests of council to actually stand by the modelling and stand by our principles in dealing with the impacts of climate change. If we falter now, then we've absolutely undermined every future decision we need to make. In short, the proposed development is inconsistent with the current Noosa Plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the proposed new Noosa Plan. The state planning provisions of today do not countenance development eastward of the coastal building line, or in erosion prone areas, or in natural hazard areas. So any attempt to use neighbouring properties as a reason for approval is a product of an outdated and now repealed version of the state legislation. And the state legislation actually, if you look at it, supports council's position, and that is we should not be allowing construction to encroach on the coastal hazard line, and on the mapping that we have already determined for future hazard events. I accept that there
04:12:00 was a referral agency response from the state on this, but the referral agency response does not override council's own response and council's own decision, and the state recognises that. So I urge councillors to stick with our ongoing commitment to dealing with this matter with the due seriousness that it deserves. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question, Mr Chair. To Kerry, the Mayor mentioned the state planning changes to the state planning policy, which is very, seems to be a very pivotal point. Can you explain what changes to the state planning policy there has been, and how it means that relaxations in the erosion prone area are no longer appropriate, as have been in the past? Speaker 3: Through you, Mr Chair, yes, that's correct. The state planning policy is no longer appropriate, and the policy has changed over time, as recently as 2017, when the Planning Act commenced, which
04:13:00 is our new planning legislation. But the planning policy has become more stringent over time in relation to coastal management, because of the greater knowledge government bodies are having around the impact of coastal processes and climate change. And essentially, it's a very strong statement that the state planning is looking for development to be landward of the erosion prone area, and not located in there, because that's the areas of risk from coastal processes. So that's quite a strong statement. Previously, state planning policies were more about looking at existing lines and ensuring development of the coastal development didn't proceed forward of existing lines. So it's sort of taken a slightly different
04:14:00 tack to now. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Jackson: I have a question. Mayor Wellington: Yep. Councillor Jackson: Of Kerry. Hi, Kerry. How are you? I'm just wondering, I did read in the SAF report about the issue that the material change of use was initially the requirement, and that the owners had to pay for, you know, a fee to council for material change of use, and then it turned out that wasn't necessary, and now they've had to do a fee for a different type of application, a building works application. How is it that they've had to pay two fees? Speaker 3: Through you, Mr Chair, the applicant, when they lodged the material change of use, did not have a pre-lodgement meeting with council. They lodged it through a planning consultant with us, and we have assessed that application. So I'm just wondering, what's your take on that? Yes, we did not pick up that it was a material change of use until council's decision
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 on that material change of use was appealed, and the applicant solicitor suggested to us that it wasn't a material change of use. So the applicant has then lodged a building works application, which is the correct application that should have been lodged in the first place, so yes, they have paid two fees, one for the material change of use. Which we have processed, and then paid a second fee for the building works application. Councillor Jackson: Do you know how much they paid for each of those fees? Speaker 3: Yes, approximately $2,000. Mayor Wellington: Is that for both of them? For each. For each. Speaker 3: For each one. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Anyone else wish to speak? Can I ask another question? Mayor Wellington: Okay. Councillor Jackson: There were other properties at City Hall. There was a property at City View Terrace that appeared to have also been requested to have an MCU, which is listed in the staff report.
04:16:00 Does that mean there's just been a normal process without necessity of asking for MCUs? Mayor Wellington: I don't think this is relevant to the matter before us, is it, Councillor Jackson? Really? I mean, we can only deal with the application before us, not other applications. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic? I'll wait. Councillor Jackson: Call the Councillor. No, that's fine. I'll wait. I'll wait. Mayor Wellington: No, let the Councillor take the question. Councillor Jurisevic is signalling that he would like you to speak, Councillor. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I'll speak first. All right. Look, ever since I've been elected Councillor, I have been supporting every step the Council has taken to reduce global emissions. I support Council's zero-emission policy, and in fact, I was the one who moved a motion to advocate for the Prime Minister and Premier. Let me write to the Prime Minister and Premier to take action on reducing emissions.
04:17:00 Mayor Wellington: Point of order has been called, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson, sorry. Point of order has been called. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're dealing with a development application, and this is not going anywhere near what the motion is. It's about mitigation options. We're not talking about mitigation. We're talking about a development application for a house. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. I think that you do need to talk to the development application, not to your history on Council, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I believe that climate change is a major global challenge, and that action needs to be taken to reduce it. The climate change adaptation program is something else. It's not about reducing emissions. It's about what Council is doing. It's about what Council will do in the worst-case scenario if global emissions are not reduced. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson, you still don't seem to be talking to the matter before us, which is the development application for building works at Peaky Forest Secret Terrace. Councillor Jackson: I am actually speaking about the matter before us, Councillor.
04:18:00 Mayor Wellington: I'm struggling to see the connection at the moment. Councillor Jackson: Well, if you would let me finish, you will see the connection. I'm drawing a connection. Our climate change project manager has explained to us that climate change is a major global This application is based on the worst-case scenario, and also that the lines are generic, so not customised to geological characteristics of individual properties. While I'm all for Council doing what it can to encourage residents to reduce emissions, and for Council to reduce its own emissions, this application is a different proposition. It's simply about replacing a house that is already located there and is within the urban footprint. The staff report says that when the applicant appealed about 54 CB Terrace, Council's solicitor and Council's officers agreed with the applicant about the lack of a need for an MCU, and I quote,
04:19:00 Given the site already had a large dwelling constructed on the site, which intruded into the setback to the coastal building line, and the new dwelling did not raise additional impacts compared to the existing one, so the applicant withdrew the appeal. This time the applicant has instead presented the same application for a development permit for building work. The August staff report, which I read in detail, is almost word for word identical to the April staff report about the MCU. And again, it recommends refusal. And my position remains the same. I continue to believe that because there is an approved house there already, the replacement house has less bulk and intensity than the existing approved house, and is further sent back from the property's coastal boundary,
04:20:00 that the replacement house would cause no further impact to coastal processes and no new risk to people and property. I will therefore, again, vote against the recommended refusal. And I request a division, please. Mayor Wellington: Certainly. Councillor Jackson: Anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic: There's a reason why the wording hasn't changed a lot from the last time. That's because the application essentially hasn't changed. It's still exactly the same plans and process being put before us that had been last time. It's just a different, it's an understanding that one application format was incorrect, and now they've gone with the corrected format. It's a different application style, process. But it hasn't changed the element of what's being presented. It hasn't changed in any way, shape, or form. And I'm not prepared to re-prosecute it. I mean, we've gone through this, and whilst I'm hearing councillors essentially re-prosecuting the argument,
04:21:00 we've been through this process. It came before us some time back. I had some, as I said, had a large element of empathy for the application. I don't know what they're presenting and the rest of it, but it's clear that this doesn't make the Noosa plan. It's clear that the challenges of the future are going to impact on residents in certain areas. And unfortunately, I think this is one that's going to be decided in the courts, which will give us guidance for the future. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillor. Anyone else wish to speak to it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wasn't going to, but there's nothing that made me want to. This is not about global climate change. It's about assessing a development application in accordance with our planning scheme and in accordance with the state planning policy. And bringing in a whole lot of furfies around why it may or may not have an impact is not up to us as councillors. It's up to us to understand what council staff are telling us.
04:22:00 And council staff are telling us that it's within the coastal building line and that the six metre setback isn't enough by what the state planning policy and our planning scheme is selling. It's saying that erosion is likely to occur in the future, which may threaten life and property. That's what we're trying to avoid by doing planning. That's about looking into the future and making the decisions today that doesn't expose this council to future risk and the people in those houses and neighbouring properties to future risk. And as we found out recently, doesn't threaten the continuation of a natural beachfall. That generates so much money to our economy. So, it is about making a decision based on the regulation and the planning that is in place for Noosa and we have no other opportunity other than to support the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: The key point for me is that regardless of the size of the house,
04:23:00 given that when an application comes before council to approve a house seaward of the coastal building line, there have been changes in the state planning policy which means that it's no longer possible and relaxations can no longer be given. And on top of that, we have all the other arguments about the climate change adaptation planning that's being undertaken. We've been through this before. I support the motion before us. Mayor Wellington: I'll close. Councillor Jackson suggested the mapping that we've done is not down to the individual house level. In fact, it is. And it's unfortunate that she's in Europe because we had a coastal hazard adaptation planning workshop where we got to see the mapping in great detail at a house by house level only this week. The lack of requirement for an MCU doesn't render the replacement of the current building any more acceptable. The suggestion that the new house has no greater risk to people
04:24:00 and property than the current house is neither here nor there because the current house we know now represents a risk to people and property. Therefore, to allow it to be replaced, even with the current footprint, is to exacerbate an existing problem. It's very straightforward, really. The application conflicts with our current planning scheme. The application conflicts with our draft planning scheme. The application conflicts with the State Government's planning instruments. Those three are enough for us to be able to say, no, this cannot proceed. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. All those against? Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. Mayor Wellington: Ingrid Jackson. Thank you. Back to the agenda. And we go to... Thank you very much, Kerri. Have a good sleep. Speaker 3: Thank you. And dinner. Mayor Wellington: Thanks, Kerri. Councillor Jurisevic: Rubbed that one in. Dinner's a distant thought. Rubbed that one in. Mayor Wellington: Item 11 is Budget Review 1 for the 2019-20 financial year.
04:25:00 Item number 12 is the Financial Performance Report for July. I move the General Committee... Recommendation... Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'll second those. You beat me to it. Mayor Wellington: I didn't realise... Wilkie, seconded Council of Jurisevic. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Oh, aye. Thank you. That's unanimous. And finally, the Year in Review 2018-19, a report direct to Council, a weighty tone by the CEO. Does someone want to move it? Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, hang on. I've got to get to it first. I've got to find it. Mayor Wellington: I'm moving it. I've been moving it too long. Councillor Jurisevic: Going through one. I'll move it. Mayor Wellington: I'll move it. Go on, Joe. I'll move it. I'll second. Councillor Jurisevic's moved. I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie has seconded. Councillor Jurisevic, do you wish to talk to this? Councillor Jurisevic: If I can find my notes on it as I get to it. Did I actually...
04:26:00 No, I'll... I can't find one. You can always close. I can always close. That's why I'm trying to remember. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be a shame for the great work that the CEO has reported here. The top 10 highlights. Thank you. Between councillors who provide some strategic action, but the hard work of staff, it's been a stellar year. Most councillors would probably be very happy going, being this stage in the election cycle, if they appeared to achieve that over three and a half years. You know, we have the signing of the formal Ural ringtail. It's already won national awards for collaboration in local government. It's, you know, we've got the opening of the Noosa Heads Boardwalk, already won a national award for landscaping. Two awards. And then some regional ones. Two national awards. Yeah. You know, the reopening of the Noosa Library, and it's now, we're doing away with librarians. We've got robots that read the barcodes.
04:27:00 Oh, no. Sorry, I've had a biscuit now. I'm fully done. So I'll shut up. Sugar here, sugar here. You know, for me, we adopted the Noosa Environment Strategy. Oh, but you always go on there. Two years I've been banging on about that, and people are sick of it. Okay. The planning scheme is going really well, you know, and we're getting some really good and valuable feedback on that. And I'm... And, you know, it's really good to see that some of the feedback from the business community that they have seen, that we've listened to them. That we've seen that some of the stuff that was put back before it got cancelled into the Noosa Local Economic Plan is being played out in the planning scheme. And we're looking at how to make centres more diverse, and we're looking at how to create villages around shopping centres, not shopping centres around villages. So I think it's really good. We've looked at the liquidity review, and that's a great one, because we can boast that we're...
04:28:00 We're steady, you know. We've done $10 million, we've paid it back, and they're saying to us that our credit rating, I forget the exact word, it might be there, that we're sound, and it's going to continue neutral. Which means we've reached the highest the council of our size can get, and we've got a trajectory that says we're going to keep at it. We're somewhere just to the south of us, we've got a trajectory somewhere different. Okay. And you have to be happy with what we've heard about the digital hub. But more than that, I think that the community satisfaction survey has said that people are happy with what we are achieving. And it's both the big picture projects, but we know when we get those back, the people that rate the highest are the people who are front on to the community. And we have to pay a lot of respect for those people who deal with all the difficult customers. And councils, we only have to deal with social media, that's easy. They have to deal with them face to face. And they do it with great aplomb.
04:29:00 And they provide... They provide the service, and they are responsive. And for all those reasons, I think it's been a great year to achieve the corporate plan across all the themes. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to this? Audible, Si, and up you go. Councillor Wilkie: Look, it's a shame it's come at the end of such a long meeting, because this report, it's got, there's got so much to it. It has been, as Councillor Stockwell said. A really, another stellar year. There just seems to be a year of ambitious achievement after year of ambitious achievement on behalf of the community. It's testament to the discipline of this council. It's, we're only a small council, but operating on financially responsible principles, we're able to make sure that ratepayers money is not wasted. It's used judiciously and to deliver quality services and facilities.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 And projects for the community, on behalf of the community. Just to go through the environment strategy, finalised the action plan, environment grants program, Noosa River Management Plans nearing finalisation, 1,100 solar panels across the major council buildings. That's important, not just because it's cleaner energy, but because of the savings it means for residents and ratepayers. The year-old Ringtail Forest Deal, 2,400 hectares of land over the next 10 years. The year-old Ringtail Forest Deal, 2,400 hectares of land over the next 10 years. Added to the conservation state and national park. By contrast, just to give an idea of scale, Noosa Heads National Park. The Noosa Heads section is only about, not much more than a tenth of that. There's a great partnership which we discussed earlier tonight between the Nature Conservancy and the Noosa Council to restore oyster reefs to the Noosa River. We're not only trying to maintain the health of the river but potentially improve the health of the river.
04:31:00 We're not only trying to maintain the health of the river but potentially improve the health of the river. Installed lateral gas lines at Eumundi Noosa Recovery Centre to better capture methane gas and flare it off. Increase in the number of properties participating in the Land for Wildlife program. A purchase of a 51 hectare property of a boring 0.3 environmental levy program. Development applications continue to roll in and Council approved 95.8% of all development applications. Most people understand that the Noosa Planning Scheme is key to maintain Noosa's key points of difference. They favour quality development over quantity of development. We're working towards an iconic playground. There's been a $2.2 million extension to refurbishment of a much-loved asset. That's the Noosaville Library. Council opened the Park Road Boardwalk, another piece of much-loved infrastructure for all to enjoy for generations to come. Now, one that's flying under the radar a bit, but it's one of my favourites, is the range of community partnerships that went into establishing the use for Tate Duke House at Tewantin, which is a social services hub.
04:32:00 It's well utilised. People that have been referred to it have come away with glowing reports about the free services they receive there from doctors, people who are well versed in all the support services. This is for people that are falling through the cracks in our community, that need help, that need support, and they're getting it there. It's an excellent service and a great use of Tate Duke House. We have an events policy for our Shire. We're still working through the draft Noosa Planning Scheme. We're taking a bit more time because we want to get it right. The events policy, environment strategy, I've all mentioned before. There's so much in this report. I recommend it to anyone. Any resident or ratepayers interested to understand how Council is committed to providing quality services and facilities and very much focused on core services, as well as delivering a capital works program of about $30 million, it seems to end up at about.
04:33:00 To put that in perspective, the former Noosa Council used to spend about $6 to $10 million on capital works. So this Council... Even though it's smaller and leaner, it's directing all that money outward into the community, improving the community assets, and doubling or tripling the money spent on maintaining the residents' and ratepayers' assets. And people who have travelled to Byron Bay and Noosa often remark how well Noosa's assets are maintained. Peregian Beach Digital Hub has officially opened last year. We heard about how that's, what contribution that is making, not only economically, but also socially to our community.
04:34:00 Unemployment rates in Noosa, again, for the first time, well, in recent years, dipped under the Queensland average, and it's made, it's stayed there at about 5.7% compared to Sunshine Coast at 6.3% and Queensland at 6.1%. It's not a complete market, there's always underemployment, but it's one of the indicators to see how we're tracking in relation to other communities in Queensland. Look, there's also the establishment of the Noosa Education and Training Alliance, which works with representatives from all schools, universities, and training providers in Noosa, working collaboratively to advance education and training opportunities and pathways for the Noosa community. This is all about... Mayor Wellington: I think you might have to start winding up, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. There's just... I'm only about halfway through the report. It's... We're not really doing it justice here, Mr. Mayor, but we have to commend the staff for the work they've done in delivering this ambitious program.
04:35:00 Mayor Wellington: Look, it's pleasing to see... Yeah, I'd like to see a few words, too. Certainly, Councillor Jurisevic. No, sorry. It's getting late. Jackson. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'm starting to look like Councillor Jackson. We've been here way too long. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, look, I just want to briefly say that I really appreciate this report, and thank the CEO for preparing it and giving it to us. And also, though, I think it's a really important thing to end on this note, because council meetings and the work of council, inevitably, is difficult. We have to make decisions about complex matters. There are many things... Times have changed. Times when we don't agree, there's much debate. These are taxing things that we all do. But this report, which we can end as a finale on this meeting, demonstrates the great outcomes of this council and the amount of work that actually gets done and completed and achieved.
04:36:00 And I think it's a great tribute to staff, and I totally support this motion that thanks staff for the amount of work done. And it's also terrific to see that this council is achieving so much. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to close, so... Mayor Wellington: Yep. I just want to reiterate, it's pleasing to see that councillors take pride in the efforts of the council. But I also want to congratulate our dedicated staff. There's much in this report that they can take a great deal of pride in, even more so than us. I'm blessed as a mayor to work with a fantastic team, the CEO and leadership of the council. I thank you all for your efforts over the last year and your support for the council's decisions. And I think that there is a great deal of pride to be taken in the depth and breadth of this year in review.
04:37:00 Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'm glad we're live streaming because I think everybody's gone to bed and they'll be watching it tomorrow. But they've gone to bed after watching me. I've gone to bed. I think it's all been said. I think so much has been said. But there's a couple of things to reiterate. I mean, yeah, the Mayor is right. This goes thanks to the work of the directors around the table here and all of the staff that are under their control and under their directive. I commend you all and I ask you to pass those sentiments onto your staff. If anybody talks about roads, rates and rubbish and wonders what the hell a council gets up to, I would suggest you should sit down and read what does get achieved in council. Anyone that suggests their roads, rates and rubbish are neglected needs to have a look at the Community Satisfaction Survey because I don't need too many people yelling and screaming about what we're not achieving. There's a lot of people commending us and are happy with the outcomes that we're doing.
04:38:00 We're willing to dream and take on new projects. Speaker 5: We've just won. Councillor Jurisevic: A... A... An Excellence in Collaboration at the Australian Local Government Awards. Out there leading, showing new initiatives and the like. We've won an award for our Noosa Heads Board Award. Several awards, actually, in that regard. We're not... You know, we're prepared to go out there and put on projects and make projects that are world-beaters, that are out there that the public can be proud of and that turn around and people that come to visit Noosa walk away going, wow, have a look at that. We're prepared to have a crack at our... at our transport issues, the Go Noosa initiatives this year, try to reduce that, that congestion that everybody, everybody knows is here, at those, at those difficult times of the year, and we're succeeding, I believe we're succeeding, I've never, you know, step by step, process by process, we are succeeding, and that's the end, the report and all of the elements in that report that have been highlighted, and there are so many more, as Councillor Wilkie alluded to, that have been highlighted, and there are so many more, as Councillor Wilkie alluded to, that have been
04:39:00 that you should have a look at. We often, you know, we're often criticised that we're not achieving capital works and we're behind, but you've got to look at the end of the year. You've got to look at what gets done through the year and what we end up at the end of the year. I mean, yeah, you can fall behind at some stages, but, you know, the crew turn around and bust their backsides to turn around and make sure that we deliver at year's end. And sometimes, you know, capital works projects can take an element of lag and that, but yeah, they catch up in the long run, and we do, we are achieving all of our outcomes. The most impressive part for me, though, after the amalgamation, we argued that we didn't get our full fair share, and yet within five years, we're paying $10 million off our greatest debt, our greatest, the debt at the greatest interest rate to try and then alleviate elements. We're looking forward.
04:40:00 We're looking forward. We're looking for ways and means of cutting, uh, cutting costs to, uh, to our community where we're in there, finding every opportunity. We zero based budget. We do this differently. And we look at the, are you okay? Ingrid. Yeah. It is, it is a bit upstate, but, uh, I said, uh, once again, I commend this, I commend, uh, councillors, staff, directors, and, and everybody associated with this, I think this is a year in review report that we can all be proud of and, uh, onward and upward for another year, and if you haven't, don't believe that we can do it, look back at the last, the five years in review that we've had so far. Go for it. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favor?
04:41:00 Councillor Jackson: Aye. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: The motion's carried. Uh, that concludes the items on the agenda. There's no confidential session as usual. Uh, before we conclude though, I just wish to, uh, make note of, uh, the fact that, uh, Councillor Jurisevic and I attended the, thank you for the King of the Mountain Festival at Pomona. Um, they've updated, upgraded their awards. Oh. And, uh, we now have a, our own little white Mount Carora. Councillor Jurisevic: And they've been using recycled materials for their other awards as well. Very good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And more importantly, we got to the final of the tug of war. It was noted last night, I can assure you. Councillor Jurisevic: There was a long speech about how we got there. Mayor Wellington: Uh, the next ordinary meeting is going to be the 9th of September here in Council Chambers. I declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Wait a minute. Take that up there. Thank you.