Noosa Council Watch

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

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

General Committee Meeting - 13 July 2020 Transcript

Monday 13 July 2020 · 3 hours 34 minutes of recording · 4,082 lines · 13 voices, 7 named

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

Speakers: the machine separated 13 voices and names 7 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Well, good morning everybody. I declare the General Committee meeting open. We acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or the Kabi Kabi people, and pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging. We have no apologies today, no presentations or deputations. Today is the General Committee meeting. We have the special meeting later in the week to adopt the planning scheme, so it's a big week we've got ahead of us. I'd like to start by thanking councillors for the discipline, respect, and patience they've all brought to the General Committee meetings. I really appreciate that. Speaker 6: That we have.

00:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Look, we've got a, just a, for those who are watching at home, any motions, this is an advisory committee only, so any motions passed today only have the status of recommendations that go to the ordinary meeting on Thursday night. And where the motions are passed, we will be asked as decisions of the local government. Today, we'll probably have a range of amendments and alternative motions. Just some reminders, we can only consider one motion at a time. If the motion is lost, then another motion can be moved. The mover and seconder of a motion can't propose an amendment to their own motion. And councillors will be asked to read out in full their motions or amendments for the benefits of those watching at home. And we will allow Kylie time to document and make sure we have captured the motion

00:02:00 or the amendment correctly before any debate begins on it. And I think it's very important today everyone's heard, so we may be a bit lax with the five minute time limit. Okay, so we begin with item one, which is the council representation on the Climate Emergency Australia Strategic Advisory Group, which is from the Planning Environment Committee Agenda, item one, page three. And it's referred here for further consideration. Speaker 4: I think the referral was the committee was trying to work out who was going to be the rep, and we just need to get one of the councillors to be nominated to be the representative. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, okay. But I'd like to nominate Brian Stockwell for the position as the representative for Queensland Climate Emergency Group. Thank you, Tom. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Tom. And Tom, you won't need to stand today. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Speaker 6: It's not as formal as the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. All our special meetings. Yeah, all the special meetings. Can we have a seconder for this motion, please? Yeah, I'll second that motion.

00:03:00 Seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. He stood up too. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that any special meetings? Councillor Wilkie: Tom, do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Well, Brian has been here the longest. He has been involved in climate emergency since the last council and many councils before that. He is just the most knowledgeable person in this field of anybody in the council now. That's why. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a discussion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second those thoughts. But Councillor Stockwell certainly has a passion in this area, a high-level advocate for climate understanding and is used to dealing with agencies of this nature. So I think he'd be an ideal candidate for council representative on this advisory group. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. A minute. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to just express something. This is my opinion only.

00:04:00 No one wants contaminated water, rubbish in our ocean and water waste, waste that ends up in landfills, plastic trash or junk. What we want is clean air to breathe, drinkable water and food that is safe to eat. In my opinion, I hope that the person we nominate today uses his or her position to explore solutions to reduce or eliminate pollution in our environment and not be persuaded by scaremongering by vested interest groups. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. The other councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, yeah, thank you for the nomination. I do have a very keen interest and I suppose there's not many people around that moved a motion in this council in 1990 to start mitigating our greenhouse gas emissions after the first IPCC report. I think forming a national collaboration to strategically look at the policy responses

00:05:00 needed to secure a more favourable future for the environment and for the environment in the future is a very worthy cause to get involved with. If councillors just think about the briefings we've had on our zero emissions Noosa operational strategy, the largest single source of emissions for this council is the methane from our... Councillor Jurisevic: Landfills. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Landfills. Now, that's an issue that all councils with landfill across Australia will face and it doesn't make sense for everyone to be working on the solution to that. It makes sense. It makes sense for state and federal governments to be making an investment and making funds available for the best practice to try and reduce those emissions. So, two-thirds of our emissions are from landfill. So, two-thirds of my effort probably in this group would be about getting high levels of government to invest in strategies that solve that problem.

00:06:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak? Tom, do you wish to close? No. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Item two is the Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Project Management Plan. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to move the motion on this. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Clare. Welcome, Kim. Clare, would you care to read that out, please? And I don't need to stand up? No. No. No. No. Mayor Stewart: Environmental Services Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 7th of July 2020 and approved the project management plan provided as attachment one to the report as meeting the requirements of the project implementation plan outlined in the alliance and funding agreement subject to the Nature Conservancy including in the monitoring evaluation plan the confirmation of historical numbers of prawn and fish stock including fish species and water quality including Queensland fisheries data and water quality data from Noosa Integrated Catchment Association and

00:07:00 Note the terms of reference of the Noosa River Oyster Restoration Project Technical Advisory Group provided as attachment two to the report and enter into negotiations with the Nature Conservancy to amend the alliance and funding agreement to establish a stakeholder reference group of between five and seven industry and community representatives with the terms of reference for this group to be developed and agreed by both parties and representation on the group to be determined by council and request the CEO to undertake negotiations. and subject to agreement undertake a process to establish the stakeholder reference group in accordance with the agreed terms of the reference. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, may we have a seconder for that please? Councillor Lorentson. Mayor Clare, you have the floor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it is prudent to begin by providing, and this is for the new council as well as our audience, a little history about this project and in doing so highlight the various studies and papers.

00:08:00 which have been presented and flagged as being relied upon for this particular project. I've had the opportunity to read some of the historical documents pertaining to this project. I note that in January 2015 a report by the Nature Conservancy was released specifically titled Report to the Thomas Foundation and Noosa Parks Association on Assessment of Aquatic Restoration and Management Options for Noosa Estuary and Lakes. The report at page 17 noted that, based on key uncertainties identified by the experts for a range of restoration and management options, it was also clear that an assessment of current prawn and fish stocks in Noosa Estuary and a model of their harvest would be invaluable in evaluating different management options and the potential of Noosa Estuary to sustain a boutique sustainable seafood industry. Similarly, in a report to council titled An Assessment of Oyster Recruitment, July 2015, tabled at the Planning and Organisation Committee meeting under discussion and recommendations, the report noted, further investigations would be necessary to determine if the reefs can provide a source of production rather than just an aggregation device for existing species, page 19 of that report.

00:09:00 The Thurston report funded by Noosa Council, the Thomas Foundation and the Nature Conservancy was tabled at the November 2015 Planning and Organisation Committee meeting. Clear objectives of this report were set out on page 9, which noted, this study aims to develop an understanding of historical fisheries product in the Noosa estuaries. It does not intend to prescribe targets for management. A further report, Monitoring of the Noosa River Oyster Reefs, November 17-18, by USC was undertaken. This was a report which spoke of monitoring of oyster reefs and made specific mention of the damage caused to reefs, most likely through boating activities. In January 2019, this report was published. The report was brought to the General Committee, specifically noted under risks and opportunities in the agenda, the statement by Council.

00:10:00 This partnership opportunity presented through this proposal is a significant one, one that opens up immense opportunity for Council and the community. There are some key areas where targets for success have not been achieved, and these would be better assessed after another year of monitoring, in what was originally planned to be a three-year monitoring program by USC. Of particular note is the lack of evidence to this stage of the current reef design of the Noosa Reefs. The report also does not include the fact that the Noosa Shire Council is a stable matrix, forming a stable matrix essential to the long-term success of the project. We also do not yet have detailed results from fish studies being undertaken associated with the project. In July 2019, the alliance and funding agreement between the Nature Conservancy and Noosa Shire Council was approved and ratified by Council. I acknowledge and respect the fact that the previous Council entered into this agreement, supported this alliance and we have an existing partnership with TNC before us today. We have a signed contract. The highlighting and outlining of pertinent history and recorded statements in documents we are relying upon seek to support, in my opinion, the motion I put forward today. We do need confirmation of historical numbers of prawn and fish stock, real, tangible numbers, including species from Queensland fisheries data.

00:11:00 The statement I have drawn out of reports, in my opinion, would support this. Indeed, the comments by the TNC in their original 2015 report state, and let me reiterate, it was also clear that an assessment of current fish and prawn stocks in the Noosa estuary would be invaluable. We need confirmation of water quality, historical and current, and NICA should be engaged. They are experts in this area. As I said previously, we need baseline data. We can't know if we are improving if we don't know where we are starting from and where we have come from. You can't say to a swimmer or a runner, you're getting better, unless you know the time at which they are starting from. Similarly, this data must be available so we can monitor and evaluate the improvements going forward. Tangible, measurable, key performance indicators must be measured, documented and evaluated. The implementation of such can only strengthen this project and provide increased comfort to the wider audience.

00:12:00 Finally, I believe that increased community participation and consultation is absolutely paramount to the success of this project. Indeed, historical extracts from relevant documents would support this wholeheartedly. In January 2019, a report which was brought by Council to the General Committee Agenda, specifically noted in Risks and Opportunities. The prioritisation of the next phase of the Oyster Reef Project of this partnership proposal provides a greater opportunity to better engage with and involve local recreational and commercial fishermen as part of the second and third stage of the Oyster Reef Project, who were not heavily engaged in the first stage. Early community engagement is proposed to build support and understanding of the proposed next phases of the project. And also provide for volunteering opportunities. It is clear an additional stakeholder reference group, including all of the above, would be a welcome addition to this project and will provide sound expertise, advice and guidance to the continuation and ultimate success of the project. Based on this information, I would argue that this alternate motion I have put forward will strengthen the alliance between Council and TNC going forward and provide increased comfort to the community in regard to measurable outcomes and increased engagement.

00:13:00 Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Questions, Joe? For staff, within the agreement as it stands currently, what are the provisions for monitoring and evaluation of historic numbers of prawn and fish stock and water quality as it stands? Speaker 5: The provisions for the monitoring related to this project are in the project management plan. So they're not historic numbers. The idea is to create a baseline of the areas where the reefs would be located and look how that changes over time. Obviously, it's challenging to focus on the estuaries as a whole because there are a lot of different influences on the estuary. The idea of the monitoring within the project plan is to identify what improvements are directly related to the oysters and not what issues are related to what other actions Council might be taking or what other actions might be occurring in the river. Which is why the monitoring actions in there are targeted around those specific areas where the reefs will be plus associated control sites.

00:14:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So as far as historical data goes, we've got a number of reports. We've got Menthe Glare and the Thurston report, which have fed into the understanding going into this project. Does that provide us with that historical data? Speaker 5: It provides us with a lot of historical information that provides the basis for wanting to do the project. But does it provide a baseline that the project will be measured against? No, it doesn't. Councillor Jurisevic: So in obtaining those current levels of, or current understanding of what the water quality is from water quality monitoring, and the current levels of prawn and fish stocks from Queensland Fisheries data, that would assist you in a baseline? Speaker 5: We have excellent water quality monitoring data across the whole estuary already. Obviously between the State Government and Healthy Land and Water, we have the Environmental Health Monitoring Program, which currently news that the river's rated as an A-, so people are really familiar with that program.

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 Obviously all the data from previous work on oyster reefs around suggests that they definitely improve water quality data, but as for the contribution that the data this project will make towards that A-, which is a very broad brush figure, the water quality measurements in the management plan here are focused on the areas around where the oysters are. So we want to actually see whether it's the oysters responsible for making improvement to the water quality. The fish and the prawns are a little bit more challenging because most of the historical data of the state level is from commercial fishing catch. Now the commercial fishing catch data is really interesting because in most circumstances, the only data that we have which is collected over any long period of time, everything else tends to be individual studies which are a point in time. Now we have 70 years of data as outlined in the Thurston report around commercial fisheries, but obviously a lot more than just fish stocks influences commercial fisheries. For example, things like markets, weather, just the number of fishermen in the river,

00:16:00 and the data itself is not based on that. It's not based on just the Noosa River estuary. It's usually done on a grid system. So while it's really interesting, in 70 years of data, you and I could sit down and look at those same graphs and probably have different interpretations of them. So I wouldn't consider that a useful baseline for measuring the success of the oyster project. But it would be useful information to have which we already have. Councillor Jurisevic: It's already been collected and gathered which is feasible. Speaker 5: We have and it's been presented both in the Thurston report and also in the Fishing Futures. For this specific project, what we wanted to do was measure the oyster reefs contribution towards improved biodiversity on the reefs. Councillor Jurisevic: Now one of the reasons we considered going forward with the small permanent reefs is the success of the trial reefs, even though a number of them were damaged and had to be removed, but they were trial reefs. But was there a noted value of improvement in fish stocks? Did we get a sort of a figure that we could attribute to?

00:17:00 Speaker 5: Oh, we did. From the University of Sunshine Coast final report, there was roughly about a 40% increase almost immediately in the amount of fish associated with that ecosystem. But you need to temper that a little bit. Like a lot of things, it's not black and white when we're talking about the interpretation of scientific reports and I don't want to present it as such either way. It's likely, given the fact that reefs have just been in, they'll pull in fish from other areas. Mayor Stewart: That was the question, whether they'll pull in fish from other areas. That University of Sunshine report too, that evaluation was supposed to be three years, wasn't it? It only went for 12 months, is that correct? That's correct, yes. So why didn't it go for the whole time? Speaker 5: The assessment of the reefs was supposed to go for three years, not necessarily the fish stocks. Mayor Stewart: But it was terminated after 12 months? Speaker 5: What happened is, well, 10 of the 14 reefs were damaged after 12 months. So the trial has been coordinated by the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation. They funded the trial. And it was decided not to keep on University of Sunshine Coast for the monitoring. They engaged a separate consultant because it was going to be a lot more cost effective to do the ongoing monitoring of the oyster reefs. But that continues?

00:18:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That continues. Speaker 5: Not the fish monitoring, but the monitoring of the oyster reefs to meet the benchmarks that were set by our state permits still continues and they're due to be removed in October this year. And a report will follow that? That's correct, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And a quick question. From memory, there was a statement there about a lack of detail or evidence of oysters. Both from the USC project team, there have been peer-reviewed papers that have attested to the value of oyster reefs in estuarine restoration, including data that was used from that study. And there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence from around the world and Australia, to your understanding, that does support the role of oyster reefs in the restoration of estuarine ecosystem biodiversity and their contribution to water quality improvement. Can I just... Councillor Wilkie: Is this a... Sorry, that's my question. Is this a question, Brian? Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it's a fair statement. Oyster reef restoration is a relatively new science, but we're seeing it occur in a lot of different places around the world.

00:19:00 It's very much akin to a terrestrial ecosystem where if you start to have different sorts of habitats, you get improved biodiversity. So in that sense, it's definitely true. I've got a question. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, just in regard to those oyster reefs that Councillor Stockwell was talking about, they're all currently all over the world in open waters, such as Port Phillip... Correct me if I'm wrong here, Craig. Port Phillip Bay, Gulf of St Vincent, Oyster Harbour at Albany, Gulf of Mexico. Do we have any specific data in regard to how they're going in actual river systems? Because that's open water and that's different to what we're looking at now. Speaker 5: I'll pass to Craig in a moment if he's got anything more to add, but I'm not aware of it. This is a really unusual and novel project, hence the couple of years' work beforehand to understand, firstly, whether there were oysters in the river system, whether they're still able to be regenerated. I know there's certainly ones in shallow bays. I'll pass to Craig. You have any other estuarine restoration projects, Craig? Speaker 6: There is one in the Swan River that started just a couple of weeks ago and they've laid some oysters straight into the Swan River. That one's supported by the Western Australian Government.

00:20:00 It's in Australia, but a lot of the estuarine work getting into the rivers has been done in the United States. In Chesapeake Bay, for example, and some of those are around Sydney. So when we're looking at rock oyster species, we've got some very similar species living in the States and we use those as well to guide us and the experts have been working on those for quite a while. So there's quite a lot of work going into the place. And in terms of Sydney rock oyster, Fort Stephens, the Government of New South Wales, has a restoration project from Fort Stephens. They've got a large amount of substrate to put in. That's four months ago now. And their first one is communicating record for success. But longer term studies and things of abundance, diversity won't be released until later this year. Mayor Stewart: So Craig, would it be fair to ask that most of the projects that Councillor Stockwell has talked about and that have this history of success

00:21:00 were in the open waters and the new ones, the river systems, like the one in the Swan River and the one you just talked about, they're relatively new. So I'm assuming... Speaker 6: Only in the Australian context. Mayor Stewart: In the Australian context. We know that it's from Speaker 6: the scientific literature and the experts who are working in this field that there are similar habitat requirements and life histories of species, for example, in the United States. As to our rock oyster food, which we can make some relatively good comparisons, we've also had our American ecologist here visiting, who is also Australian by birth and growth, themselves, who have also studied these systems as well and have worked with institutions across Australia to make these systems. So, yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 6: I'm very confident, which is still risk. Yeah. You're right. There is risk, but it's not uncalibrated risk. It's going to manage. Thanks, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, that risk, I would assume, is based on the science that has gone through the restoration projects and the understanding that we get from it. Speaker 6: And that's right. That's why our project is a sort of two-phase project.

00:22:00 The first phase, we get a couple of reasons established so we can tune and tweak and check because what we're doing here in every situation is we're not working in a way where we're getting looser. We have to work with conditions of this history and what's acceptable in this history. So we'll establish the sites. We'll do our baseline before and during and after. We'll bring those reports and then together we assess then where do we go from there. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So, yeah, so it's fair to say we're starting to approach in... Definitely. ...introducing, evaluating, understanding the success or otherwise of the project and progress from there. Speaker 6: And based on used restoration methodology, the trial rate based on the other project is a completely different situation compared to our knowledge and certainty and what we're going to do with council. It's based on our work as direct ecosystem restorers, not experimental scientists. Very different. Councillor Wilkie: Brian? Yeah, Tom. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I had trouble with item A in that when I put my monitoring

00:23:00 and evaluation specialist hat on. Councillor Wilkie: Excuse me, Brian. Can you just ask the question? Yeah, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Make a comment. You make the comments. Well, I have to because what appears to me and I'm seeking advice on this is that we have in there suggestions about potential including criteria about the whole system which would be very difficult to monitor and evaluate the impact of a single project whereas the experts have advised Sorry, Brian. Councillor Wilkie: I appreciate your opinion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could you could you cut to the chase and ask the question please? No, the question is in your opinion it could be either, Craig. Does from a monitoring evaluation perspective the amendment in regard to well, the motion is in red in item A does that add to the monitoring evaluation or confuse between what the project should be evaluated against

00:24:00 versus what the Nurture River Plan should be evaluated against? Correct. I'll get I might comment first Speaker 2: and then Craig and Craig can comment. I the inference of your question I believe is correct. This project is one intervention that we're doing around habitat restoration in the river and and the monitoring and evaluation plan as Craig's articulated and Craig Doolan sent round information to council following the planning committee very much establishes the baseline for that project and a robust methodology for for monitoring on an ongoing basis. Monitoring of the whole estuary and and and pinning that to this intervention is potentially unreasonable. This is one intervention into habitat restoration and and river management and and fish and biodiversity aquatic abundance in our river.

00:25:00 There are there are many others. So there are there are there are projects like Keep It In Kin Kin around sediment runoff management which has impact in terms of habitat. There is a range of another other initiatives in the river plan. Seagrass and mangrove re-establishment mangrove re-establishment all of those things will all contribute to increasing abundance in our in our river. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a follow up question also in regard to item A and the inclusion of a specific community group which was in the mayor's talking for this item suggested were the experts. Can you just confirm that and this is going to catch and has a very good citizen science program around water quality but would be would they be considered the experts in water quality in the Noosa River? Speaker 5: They were contributed up along with a range of different agencies but there's many different agencies that monitor water quality in the Noosa River. NICA have got a great history

00:26:00 of being out there on the river. They know the river really well but they rely on quite heavy support from a scientific point of view in the analysis and our staff work regularly with NICA to make sure to help improve their procedures so water is collected really well. So I would absolutely have them engaged in any water quality program but I wouldn't see them as drivers or coordinators of that program. Tom, Tom, Councillor Wegener: Tom, Speaker 5: would you like to go? Councillor Wegener: Well, it just appears to me as though we're comparing apples and oranges in this situation. Here, what we're voting out of the motion, I mean, not the motion, on the agenda here we just want to Tom, Tom, ask a question. Okay, okay, you're right. We're talking about oysters today and that we want to keep the oyster project going and in the motion we're talking about prawns and fish stocks. Are those, are we comparing apples and oranges here? Are we, like if we're looking at a farm we're talking chickens and here we're looking at the historical history of the entire farm, cows, everything else included. Councillor Wilkie: So is your question what's the relevance?

00:27:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, my question is, yeah, exactly. Are we comparing apples and oranges in this situation? Speaker 5: I don't think we quite are. I mean, fundamentally this project is a habitat restoration project and certainly the wording, the wording making it solely focused on fish or prawns doesn't help because that's not what it's about. It's about restoring habitat to the river just like it's about planting trees or restoring these ecosystems to the river is around improving biodiversity. And I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to be monitoring how successful that is, particularly around the reefs. Our expectation will be as a result of this project that we're able to provide quantitative measures around increases in biodiversity around where these oyster ecosystems are recreated and not just in the short term like we did

00:28:00 where we'll be able to see where the changes actually are. I think as you would have seen through the monitoring plan it talks, it takes about three years for the oysters to start to become self-sufficient. Is that correct? Before they actually basically start to be breeding themselves and hopefully we'll start to see that recruitment happening in the river. So while I think definitely the monitoring benefits are being focused on where the reefs are to identify what the impacts are, I don't think it's inappropriate to be talking particularly around the fish stocks that it is a part of, a key part of the monitoring. Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Can I, I'd like to ask a question Craig. Going back to what we've been asked to do today which is approve a project management plan as meeting the requirements of the project implementation plan that's outlined in the alliance and funding agreement. So I go to the alliance and funding agreement and under clause 4.1 of the agreement the purpose of the alliance

00:29:00 is for quote restoration and conservation of shellfish ecosystems in the Noosa River Estuary. Further on pages nine and six of the project implementation plan it states under project objectives and deliverables that quote prioritisation and emphasis on delivering the following conservation initiatives including one restoration of Noosa's shellfish ecosystems. So my question is can you please define restoration? In my opinion if we're looking at restoring the river back to its previous state then surely we should be considering historical base numbers and as the Mayor alluded to in the beginning we need to know numbers from where we are today from where we were in the past. So have I misinterpreted the word restoration? Speaker 5: No, not at all. I think the way you've described it's exactly correct.

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 I think that again because we're talking about ecosystems no one here is suggesting that fish in Noosa have been in terminal decline. We're not suggesting the sole purpose of this project is to recreate fish or prawn ecosystems. We're talking about recreating the oyster ecosystem. Now unfortunately most of the oysters in the Noosa River were gone by the 1920s. So the ability for us to have a baseline on what the river was like is beyond the scope of anyone in this table and probably anyone in this area. The Thurston Report does its best to pull out anecdotal articles but as you know the sort of things that make the paper can't always represent what the river was really like. What we do know is where a lot of the oysters occurred because you've only got to look in papers between the 1890s, 1900s and 1910s to see the articles about oyster leases and options for oyster leases. So we know where they occurred. We know in areas where oyster ecosystems have been restored we get improvements

00:31:00 in water quality and we get increases in biodiversity. I don't think it's a big leap of faith to suggest that if we restore some of the original ecosystem from the Noosa River that we'll see that in the Noosa River as well. And I think the work we've done over the last couple of years supports that. It doesn't mean there's not risk involved as Craig said. This is quite a this is an unusual project. The Mayor made the point about moving into the estuary. It's not commonly done and hasn't been done in Australia and it's a different species of oyster. I think we've gone as far as we can in basically trying to address some of those risks but it is a novel leading project. Mayor Stewart: How do you get around that the USC had out of 14, 12 were damaged and so that the within three years we had to change it to one year because of that damage and it basically had to terminate the project. How do we know that the same thing is not going to happen again? I mean one of the one of the discussion papers, the USC discussion paper said the monitoring of oyster reefs a major problem was boating activity. We've never had more

00:32:00 boating activity on our river. How do we mitigate that? Speaker 5: We mitigate it by learning the lessons from the previous example and trying to improve. One of the reasons we do those trials is to learn from our mistakes and it was a lot better to learn from our mistakes in the University of Sunshine Coast trial than it was in a large scaling up. We know where every single one of those reefs are. We know that they were damaged. We know what sort of location, the signage that was put in place. So we learn lessons from it and we also need to consider the experimental units were coconut fibre logs. They were experimental units to test various things. That's not in any way what these reefs will look like. That doesn't mean there won't be different challenges that come up as we put in these reefs which is again what we're trying to take a two stage process through this. We would have loved to have had those all 14 reefs still in the river. I don't think we would have learned a huge amount more about the oysters, but we certainly would have learned a lot more about the fish. Mayor Stewart: How do you determine whether or not fish go towards a structure?

00:33:00 How do we determine that what the fish they're attracting hasn't already been in the river and they've just hey mate, there's an oyster reef coming downstream to actually creating new fish and more sea life? Speaker 5: In the short term we don't. And the University of Sunshine Coast report was very clear on that. The figure I quoted of immediate increases within weeks of about 40% I think of fish numbers or fish biodiversity around those reefs almost certainly just pulled existing reef. I mean you can't create more fish in three months. It almost certainly pulled that in. It does take I guess a bit of a logical step to suggest that if the reefs are in there for a longer period of time we have higher food, we have higher biodiversity, we'll start to see increased recruitment in fish. It's a logical step. Do I have the data for Noosa? No I don't. That's something that hopefully will be answered by this project. But I don't think it's a big step to suggest that that will be the case.

00:34:00 It certainly indicated there were plenty of oysters spat in the river because oysters were settling and growing. So we had basically two full years. We had the first year then the first full year of monitoring so we had increases in oysters. We actually had a slight decrease on some but that's because the oysters were getting bigger and pushing the other ones off. So it showed the oyster spat were there. It showed that they didn't move which was important and it showed they didn't have negative impacts on surrounding environments. So that was important that having them there didn't actually impact on mangroves or seagrass. It actually improved seagrass probably because it slowed flow. That was the subject of a scientific report? It was. Where there were still question marks certainly around the human intervention. I don't think anyone had anticipated the sort of damage we saw but the first six months in monitoring there was a little bit of boat damage which they fixed as they went. They certainly didn't anticipate the degree. Now whether that was to do with the media around the increased fish presence

00:35:00 it's possible. We certainly speculate that and even the wording on the sign basically invited people to come over and have a look and see what was going on. The other thing it didn't settle was around the solidification of the oyster reefs so all the shell actually coming together. They were starting to see signs of it but it hadn't completed within 12 months and that was a requirement of our state permits because in order to leave them in the river at the end of the three year trial they have to be basically permanent structured. So if they weren't holding still at the end of the three years they couldn't have been left in the river. So we didn't get a clear answer. We didn't expect an answer after 12 months but we hadn't seen it after 12 months. Speaker 2: The other sorry just to add to that the other lesson and learning from the trial phase is about locations and locations of where those trial bags of shells were put in and absolutely in the river modelling and the locational modelling those things are being considered to mitigate

00:36:00 I guess the potential of future human boating or at least minimise. Some of those were in highly trafficable areas. Councillor Wilkie: And how significant was the data around oyster growth and recruitment towards having TNC invest and launch this project? For us I probably can't speak Speaker 5: for TNC. The data itself? It confirmed what we expected because it was the second stage. TNC had already been involved in the river system undertaking a small pilot study to see if there were any oysters left where they put out little ceramic plates you might there's some pictures floating around just to see if any oyster spat landed. The intent of the USC project was then to start to develop that tried at a few different locations see if we found some areas were better than others and test some of the other issues that we would need to know if we were to create permanent reefs as opposed to really short and that those things I just rang through the sort of things we would need to be able to step through if we're going to have permanent reefs in the Noosa River. Councillor Wilkie: And in the project management plan at the rear of it

00:37:00 is the monitoring evaluation and reporting plan which is quite weighty and it talks about benchmarking in there before and after on a range of things such as measuring the nekton which is the fish and other animals that feed on the benthos which are the creatures that live in the mud which so that's include prawns and other invertebrates and as well as shellfish monitoring before and after and water monitoring salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen blah blah blah. Why is it so important to have such a range of measures beyond prawn, fish and water quality before and after why do they go to such why was that so important to outline that why is it so important Speaker 5: to go to such an extent? I just think it's really important if we're going to put an investment into a project that we really fully understand what the outcomes are after a couple of years and I think the point I made before to Council Lawrence and around the fact that the oyster reefs have been gone

00:38:00 for nearly 100 years actually makes it really challenging for us to understand what we're measuring if we still have living memory of what lived on the oyster reefs and what it was like we might have been able to narrow that down a bit you might be able to go well look the oyster reefs really didn't impact on prawns at all it's not an issue for prawns sea grass is much more important for prawns so maybe we'll just monitor that but at this stage we are throwing a little bit of a net out there going if we're going to restore the habitat we really want to understand what the impacts are Mayor Stewart: I've got a question about state permits because I know that under 13A that's a requirement isn't it under measurable yep that's correct I'm just going back to the January 19 report where again on the agenda it says current state approvals do not allow for the next stage of the project so significant liaison will be required in the planning stage so the current state approvals do not allow for the next stage of the project I mean where are we with that now Speaker 2: just on that

00:39:00 so the current state approvals didn't anticipate the next stage of the project so the approvals were very much around the trial and the pilot phase so yeah it's not that they didn't allow it's that they weren't that's not what was applied for Mayor Stewart: so I'm just reading from this yeah just to clarify Speaker 2: agenda do you want to comment Speaker 5: on where we're at Craig oh yeah look I'll um I don't know how much water um no we're good as Kim said the reason we put together technical advisory group with key stakeholders around that was to help us navigate through the planning process it should be simpler this time because we're in a situation where we know what a lot of the permits are um certainly we got caught last time uh during the trial because there were some permits we didn't even know we needed um until the last moment um but as for where we are at right now we're not behind we didn't expect to have state permits by this stage um we need to fully understand where the locations are going to be and that requires a lot of river hydrology work to be done um I'll pass over to Craig

00:40:00 see if he wants to add any more specifics around where we're at with the permits Mayor Stewart: and discussions sorry I thought you said you just knew whether are you talking about the oyster reefs then you still got to decide whether they've got to be done sorry yes at no point have we said where oh I thought you said when I said how are we going to mitigate loss I thought you said we know exactly where they're going to be for the oyster reefs no we don't know Speaker 5: sorry Mayor Stewart: we don't know yet sorry remind me of the context sorry Speaker 5: no that's not the case at all Mayor Stewart: no I thought when I asked how we're going to mitigate to ensure that there would be no boat traffic and they'd get damaged again and you said we know where oh sorry Speaker 5: no that wasn't the intent of what I said at all my apologies if it came across differently we will we know where the damage was caused last time um so we know where all the previous reefs were oh ok sorry so we know but you don't know where you're putting them no ok got it Speaker 2: the suitability modelling's happening at the moment Councillor Jurisevic: yeah I understand that's what Craig's going to take at the moment do you want to start continuing ok sorry thanks Speaker 6: yes so we've done the habitat suitability modelling from an ecological point of view we had some preliminary slides to take to our tags to have a discussion about what they think

00:41:00 about the size and breadth of those and how they also relate to the permits because the last project for permits was very very specific to very very little areas and we'd like a little more scope in our permits so our phase two doesn't need to then have another set of permits for phase three so we're talking to the state and it's one of the good reasons for CAG with state members on that to talk about the ways that are more efficient in navigating through the permit system and um helping getting their advice on how best to present the areas that they want to present but before then too I would really want to have stakeholder input to those areas of interest or footprint so from an ecological point of view and that's why I spend time and want to spend time with the different user groups on the water going to those sites and talking about them first so we have preliminary information from each stakeholder group about what they like what they don't like what their concerns are and we'll take that to our technical advisory group and then after that we'll come to council and talk about common stakeholder considerations so we have a habitat suitability model that's drafted already when we go to our

00:42:00 technical advisory group but then we have what we call a restoration suitability model where we put all these other social information what people like don't like where the zones are not to go reducing places where they think we might put the oyster substrate until we really know where people are coming from and we've had good close discussions amongst the technicians about how which would be the best candidate from that we then go on to permitting because when we go to permitting they want to know exactly exactly where we're going to work and I wouldn't do that until we have the full confidence in the community that they support the areas they fancy Councillor Wilkie: just on the stakeholder reference group Craig in the project management report are you talking about Councillor Jurisevic: the technical group or Councillor Wilkie: no the projects the stakeholder reference group which is another element of this motion in the project management plan your project stakeholders list

00:43:00 is quite extensive there's one you know maybe ten government and community stakeholders oh sorry fifteen government and community stakeholders there are maybe another ten from the private sector another four from the academic sector how many how many at any one time would you have representatives would you have on this stakeholder reference group Speaker 6: from the nature of concern we never expected to formulate a formal community stakeholder political sort of reference group we would use what we've used in other states is we would use one-on-one bilateral meetings and presentations to garnish support and we would feedback to the agencies what that feedback was and then with their support we'd go out to a standard community consultation process by whatever mechanisms we could be broadening I think in South Australia the State Government itself ran a community reference group but they were putting like 20 hectare large

00:44:00 sort of structures for Noosa that's another discussion I have an opinion on that but whichever way we go councillor there's no way there's conservancy with council in the river it's not very strong support because as we said we don't want the risk of damage we're looking at storing an ecosystem and we want people to love that ecosystem and to support its presence we can't get that equivalent adversarial to the idea we're just going to go backwards yep Councillor Wilkie: councillor Stockwell yeah Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to move an amendment yep the amendment reads that council note the report by the environmental services managers of planning environment committee meeting dated 7th July 2020 and A approve the project plan provided as attachment 1 of the report as meeting the requirements of the project implementation plan outlined in the alliance and funding agreement and B note the terms of reference

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 of the Noosa oyster reef oyster restoration project technical advisory group provided as attachment 2 to the report and C establish a Noosa River stakeholder reference group to provide strategic input just have to slow down you've already got this as per your circulator Councillor Wegener: yep Deputy Mayor Stockwell: um yep to establish so well starting with C C to establish a Noosa River stakeholder reference group to provide strategic input local knowledge and expertise into river management initiatives initially provide strategic input into the shellfish restoration project and more broadly into finalisation and implementation of the Noosa River plan and E to delegate to the CEO to determine the terms of reference and undertake a process to establish the Noosa River stakeholder reference group and that's the

00:46:00 that's the motion as circulated on Saturday morning Councillor Jurisevic: councillor Deputy Mayor Stockwell: is deleting the first part of paragraph A of the original motion yes I'm replacing A with the A as recommended by staff and B as B recommended by staff B is the same as the original motion yeah and Speaker 4: I'll see probably better would be put in in A would be delete the following yeah Councillor Lorentson: um Speaker 4: that would be A would be delete It's an amendment to what you're doing in A, B, C, and D. So really what you're doing is in A, the B team, those words. Yes.

00:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: B is the same. B is the same. B is the same. Councillor Finzel: B is the same and C and D are changing. Councillor Lorentson: That's based upon. Councillor Jurisevic: But then there's two added clauses. There's a new C and a new D.

00:48:00 Or replacing. Replacing. Speaker 4: Replacing C and D. Can we read the new C and D as well? Can I suggest then that council stop and read that out again? The whole motion or? Just what the amendment is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, there. You can see what the amendment is in A, is it taking out the last part of A. Yep. And then C would read, establish a Noosa River stakeholder reference group to provide strategic input, local knowledge and expertise into river management initiatives, initially providing input to this shellfish restoration project and more broadly into finalisation and implementation of the Noosa River plan. And D would be to delegate to the CEO to determine the terms of reference and then take a process to establish the Noosa River Stakeholder Reference Group. Councillor Wilkie: Alright, so that's moved by Councillor Stockwell. We have a seconder, please. Councillor Wegener.

00:49:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you alright, Carly? Speaker 6: Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you switch over, please? So, councillors, I want to go to the heart of what this project plan, does that work? Yeah. It's already on red, do I press it again? Speaker 2: Yeah, go to, you're on, so press it again and then navigate to your present address. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So it was on mine. Yeah. There we go. Yeah. So why is adoption of this project plan so important? To me, I'm probably going to mirror the movers' sentiments. I'm going to say, this has an urgent need. It's an urgent call to action. And I do so because we know the Noosa River is one of the most valued assets of this Shire. The Healthy Land and Water Annual Report Card identifies that we have a five-star rating,

00:50:00 according to our residents, of the social and economic benefits flowing to this community from the river. And nearly 70% of the residents do so, they recreate it on a weekly basis. Probably the highest in southeast Queensland, certainly the highest value apportioned to the residents. But it's not just the residents. We recently saw this data from TripAdvisor, which says our visitors also highly value the river. If you look there, the top 10, and out of the top 10, number one is the national park, number two named beach, number three, five, and six are Noosa River, the Everglades, and Lake Wyver. Always four and a half out of five stars on TripAdvisor. So we know it's an economic asset. And we know this is not a new thing. We know that people have been concerned in this area about water quality for over 20 years. A very large survey by the Northern Region of Toronto, which used to run from about, I think it was Caboolture, up to us.

00:51:00 They did a survey of nearly 1,000 people, 980 people. And that survey said that the most important main environmental condition that needs improvement over the next 20 years, in 2002, was water quality in our rivers and streams and lakes and oceans. So 75%, three-quarters of people thought so. Now, we've heard that we want to baseline our water quality. And as mentioned, the Annual Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program is a world leader in providing the community information about the baseline. And we know that the Noosa River performs well on those set of criteria. But what most people don't understand is the difference between an Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program that's looking largely at the ecosystem processes around water quality and the analysis we need to do for estuarine biodiversity and the abundance in our systems. One is a rating against a baseline of 1990 across southeast Queensland. And the other one is what we've been developing through the Biosphere Program, which I'll

00:52:00 bring back to you in a minute. So the report card doesn't say anything about that. It doesn't measure estuarine biodiversity and the abundance. And so that's what's important. And we've already had a little bit of a talk from Craig about the timeline, about the oyster harvest timeline. And this is one I did out of the Thurston Report. We knew that for 10,000 to 15,000 years, the First Nations people here looked after these reefs. They became a cultural icon, a food source, annual corroborees which brought people from all over the region from as far north as Maryborough. And then the first reference to a oyster harvest was in 1881. By 1897 to 16 years later is the first record of problems due to flooding and disease in the oysters. Now, this is not an uncommon thing. My research on rivers up the east coast of Australia says most of the damage to our river systems was done in the first flood after the large catfish clearance. So Kin Kin started clearing in the 1860s and 1870s. And 1893, one of the largest floods in history, would have been one of the biggest liberations

00:53:00 of sediment in geologic times in this catchment. So by 1930s, as Craig mentioned, the wider oyster industry went into depression. Okay? Back in 1897, 1906, they talk about 13 to 14-foot-high oysters in Tewantin. And some of those were the natural relief. But some of them was because to get the logging ships in, they had to clear the oyster reef from the river. So we had massive structural changes in the estuary in 50 years between 1880 and 1930. There's not much we can do about that. And that's consistent. Let's not go on our own. Here's, out of the Thurston paper that got circulated yesterday, this is across all from up Glatham down to Doreen. It's exactly the same all throughout the coast of Queensland, where we had this huge harvest

00:54:00 of oysters around the end of the century. And by 1960, we're in very low numbers. So we can't suggest that there's a baseline to compare against, because we haven't got any significant data. But there's another second major structural decline in the estuary. And that is, in 1940, the Mouth River looked like that, a beautiful mangrove island in the inlet that would be the huge refugia and nursery for fish and biodiversity. And it got turned in the 1970s into Noosa Sound. We can't turn back time. But we may be seeing the influence of what was a very wide river mouth, with huge dynamic processes that allowed huge floods to flow through, taking some of that sediment out to sea. We may be seeing, by the training of the river mouth, by the stabilisation of Hayes Island, that we've lost the ability to get to sea. And this may be what fisherman John Clarey in the 1990 oral history, after 50 years of commercial fishing, he was lamenting about the changes in prawn stocks.

00:55:00 And he said, in a good season here years ago, 15 or 20 prawners here easy, I think, and they all could have caught at least 5, 6, 700 pounds of prawns every day. That's approximately 0.2, 0.3 tonnes per day per boat. And I think they need protection too, that's what I think, I think it's down to let them spawn one in three anyway, I think he's talking about the one in three years of the prawn. It's relatively hard, but we've got to do it, haven't we? So in 1990, the commercial fishermen were saying, we need to think about how we're harvesting. And this prawn decline is really captured in his era between 1991, where he talked, where there was 26 licence recording catches, up to 1,100 fishing days on prawns, down to 2014, where there was just 63 fishing days.

00:56:00 And if you look at the table in the council's future of fishing report, you see that in 2016, 0.01 tonnes of catch. So we can see there is still a response to wet years, like 2018, but we can see, just like the oysters, we're having this decline in biodiversity and abundance. Now, in 2019, they went looking, the study that went looking for prawns and found alarmingly low levels has looked at the whole of the riverbed, the benthos. And I said the other day, it is not alarmist to say that the reductions in those vertebrates and invertebrate communities in our riverbed is in such decline that it's at alarming levels. Okay, so the call for action to do something about it is key. And the action is key. The ability for a decade or two decades long restoration program to address these issues is essential. And so Gilby, one of the USC researchers in his scientific paper in 2018, identified that oyster reefs' fish habitat is one thing.

00:57:00 Fisheries and catchment management is integrally integrated with it. Connectivity between the habitats, but monitoring and adaptability. And that's what this project's about. It's about trying to establish that system. But it's not going to be one project. It's going to be decades of projects to undo a century of degradation, probably 140 to 150 years. We were lucky that our catchment is so pristine that our water quality isn't as significant. And with this, our community has to really thank the foresight and generosity of one of the local philanthropists we have here. The Thomas Foundation does it across the world. But this project has only been made possible because one person in this community who saw the value of the river, who saw the problems, asked TNC, with his philanthropic donation, to come on board and partner with Council.

00:58:00 And it's really important that this is a partnership. The Nature Conservancy, the global environment not for profit, with 407 scientists, a million members across the world, 70 countries, with the best scientists in the world available to us to try and achieve the outcomes. To improve the river health so that our children, our grandchildren go down to the river and still catch fish in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years is important. And this project is about trying to set a leading example of how to work environmentally focused on a collaborative alliance, achieving superior outcomes to other models. But they're not our only partners. And that's what I agree with the original motion and have put in mind, that we need to involve all the stakeholders in the process. But not just about this project. As I said, this is a long-term, leading-edge project as part of the englobo responses that are in the draft of the Noosa River Management Plan. It takes all those community and stakeholders to get around the table and provide the local knowledge.

00:59:00 The one thing that TNC haven't got, that knowledge over the decades. And that is always essential. But that's not a technical reference group. That is a stakeholder reference group where the informal knowledge, the anecdotes, can be put in and then can be interpreted. Within the context of the science at hand. So I'm going to finish with just one other comment from John Clarey back in 1990. And he said, but it all boils down, in my book, that you're taking too much out if you're putting nothing back. It's time to put it back. Councillor Wilkie: And councillors, you're all free to, it'll be more than five minutes for each of you today. It's important you're all heard on this. Was it five? Yes, it was. Mayor Stewart: With pretty pictures. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So don't feel shellfish. I thought we were all in a bit of behaviour. Yes. Amelia.

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you for your presentation, Councillor Stockwell. I'm actually going to make a reference to something you brought up in the planning and environment meeting just the other day. And we had sort of a general discussion about it. And I actually did some research on it. And we discussed the difference between outcomes and outputs. And I think you talked to Craig a little bit about how the alliance agreement was outcome heavy and that we perhaps should be looking at more outputs. And I, my understanding and what I've read, I actually agree with you. And I think that the proposal, the amendment that the Mayor put up, which, in my opinion, is a request for extra details. Or extra quantifiable outputs. I think it's a good measure. Again, I think the numerical information that can be provided with these additional outputs,

01:01:00 combined with outcomes that quantify performance, will, in my opinion, help us better assess the success or failure of the project. Craig, my question to you is, do you agree with that? Speaker 5: I guess I wouldn't, I look at a proposal to do an estuary-wide monitoring program on fish and prawn stocks. And no one would disagree that wouldn't be a valuable exercise to do. I don't, wouldn't agree that it's an output. It's a different monitoring baseline, but it's not an extra output of the project. I mean, the outputs of the projects are what are identified in the management plan around improvements in water quality. Oh, the outcomes, sorry. The outputs of the oyster reefs. So, the agreement plan clearly states the expected surface area and volume of the oyster reef. So, there's our key outputs. Our outcomes we're seeking through those is increase in fish biodiversity, increase in water quality.

01:02:00 And I think they're clearly identified within the existing project management plan. The challenge, I think, again, comes down to this idea of estuary-wide versus locally targeted on this project. And whether or not we consider it reasonable to expect this project to deliver estuary-wide outcomes, in which case we need a water monitoring program, or whether it's only reasonable to expect that this project will initially be able to measure significant outcomes near where the oysters are, because there's a range of other things impacting on the Noosa River. My opinion is that the way the monitoring's been presented within the project plan is really appropriate to this project. So, I think it really identifies a contribution of this project. So, I think it really identifies a contribution of the oyster project to these broader issues of water quality and biodiversity. It won't be a silver bullet. It won't solve every problem. And when Councillor Stockwell talks around some of the loss of the benthic fauna, this won't solve that problem. It'll provide a nice spot for the benthic fauna that's still there to survive.

01:03:00 Keeping the Kin Kin is really the main project where we're trying to reduce sediment coming in, which is probably the main cause of that. So, it comes out of those two different monitoring methodologies. And in my view, the one in the current project plan is appropriate for this. Speaker 2: I think also the important point that Craig made then is that this project is expected to make a contribution to that. But there are a whole range of other interventions and initiatives, as articulated in both our environment strategy and our Noosa River Plan, over the next decade and plus. That's what we're trying to do. That will equally make a contribution to improve water quality, fish habitat, fish stock, all of those sorts of things. So, this project is but one investment towards that. So, understand its contribution, both from a baseline and an ongoing process, is absolutely fundamental. And the monitoring evaluation plan does that in a very rigorous way.

01:04:00 But it is one project that will make a contribution towards those things. Councillor Lorentson: This is just my opinion, Kim. Councillor Wilkie: Is this a question or a... Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Are you speaking to the audience or...? Councillor Lorentson: Well, no, it is a question. It's my opinion that the more details that we provide on this project, the more satisfied people will be. Do you agree? Speaker 2: Absolutely. The more detail provided on this project, absolutely. I agree with you. But I also believe that it is appropriate that that detail provided for this project is relevant to this project and is associated with this project.

01:05:00 And matches the expectations of this project. And the outcomes sought from this project. So, yeah, absolutely. And, you know, a 40-page project plan is incredibly detailed. And there will be ongoing reports. So, yeah, I agree. I think providing enough detail and information so that as many people as possible, and stakeholders and users of the river, understand that this is a project that needs to be done. This project, in greater detail, I think is absolutely fundamental. And it's actually a critical success factor. Councillor Lorentson: I think we all understand the cost benefit. And I think that's something that I really would like to communicate to the TNC, that as a community, we need to understand that we're getting bang for money. And understand also that science funding is not a cost. It's a question. A clear question. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Chair, I'm going to argue.

01:06:00 Yes, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Look, I don't agree with Councillor Stockwell's motion. I stand by my original. Because I do think the more details we can provide in this, the better. Nothing. Thank you very much, Councillor Stockwell, for your presentation. But nothing in that very detailed presentation talked about three basic things. No one's ever presented what was the baseline. We've been alluded to. We've been referred to. But we've never had the baseline of water quality and fish stock and prawn stocks evaluated. Nor the health of our river historically. We're going to enter into a restoration project. As Councillor Lorentson has said, surely we must know that we are restoring. Our river has always had an A to A plus rating. So where is the deficit? I mean, I'm looking at a Noosa Integrated Catchment Association report card. It says the water quality of 2019. The water quality of the estuary and estuarine lakes improved and remains in excellent condition. Excellent catchment conditions results in extremely high numbers of residents satisfied

01:07:00 88% with their local waterways. So we need to have some baselines and we need to work. As I've said again and again, you can't tell a swimmer they're improving unless you have a base time. And that's what I think we need to be looking at. And we need to be looking at our historical data and getting information on that. And as Councillor Lorentson also said, the further information that we can provide to the community and the further hard, factual, tangible, measurable data we can give, the better. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener, a question or? Councillor Wegener: A question. The cost of a new study. Because we've just. We're talking about a new study. Councillor Wilkie: No, let's talk about a new study. Councillor Wegener: We're not talking about a new study. A new baseline. So we're not talking about a study to establish. Mayor Stewart: No, we're just warning the data. Councillor Wegener: The data. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can I speak to the motion? Councillor Wilkie: I thought you had. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I thought there were questions. Councillor Finzel: But you started with comments.

01:08:00 Councillor Wilkie: That's right. Can I ask a question? Yes, of course. Councillor Finzel: I'm just wondering, community expectations of this project, just coming out of what the mayor just said. Are measured in what way? How are you measuring the community's expectations of this project? How do you plan to do that? Or how is that currently being done? Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 2: When you say community expectations, what the partnership and the project sets up is in its agreement and enshrined in the project? Well, I think the key thing in the project management plan is that the project needs to be an open project and engage the community. So leading into the project, there's been a number of public forums held last year to understand what the project's about, what it's trying to achieve. As Craig said, it's a habitat restoration project in our river.

01:09:00 There's always been an intention and continues to be an intention for anyone who's interested in this project to be involved in the project. And there's a range of ways that that may occur, whether it's to provide local knowledge on a Craig's meeting with dozens of local people daily, both commercial fishers, commercial users of the river, recreational users of the river, to understand what their aspirations are, what their involvement is, what their local knowledge is. That's happening all the time and has been happening as much as Craig's been able to over the last couple of months. So it's very much about creating as many opportunities as possible for there to be communities.

01:10:00 And we've had a lot of community engagement and involvement in this project, both to understand its objectives, but like we do with conservation projects on land. We create opportunities for community to be involved, whether the parallel might be whether that's tree planting days. We've got in here shell collection and being involved in construction and very practical, tangible things for communities. We know lots of our community like being involved in those sort of conservation projects on land. We're wanting to apply exactly the same sort of principles here, to get involved in very practical ways. Councillor Finzel: So then just going back from that, you've told us what you do, which sounds fantastic. Thank you for all your work there. How is it measured then? Do you use feedback forms or how do you measure the data after these engagements with the

01:11:00 community? Speaker 5: I can provide some of that and I might pass on to Craig. Within the project management plan, we've talked a lot about the environmental targets, but there's also, I think, three goals and seven clear objectives on socio-economic targets to talk through a range of different things. Firstly, what the indicator is, the method, given the fact they're social indicators, they're not always as precise as the scientific indicators, some of them are. Things like total number of volunteers engaged, total number of volunteer hours, some are around the use of students, either local or university students, people attending public consultations. So there's a range of different metrics there that are all identified within the project management plan on exactly what those indicators are and how they'll be measured. And they're the things that are reported annually with the annual report as well on just how far we're going with those measures so everybody can see. Right. So as I said, every performance indicator which is in this project management plan gets reported on in the annual report. So you'll be able to go down line by line and see which ones we're really succeeding

01:12:00 in and which ones we're not. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So would you say that that has been a successful engagement of community? Speaker 5: To this point? I think there's been some challenges for a couple of reasons, and I'll let Craig add to my answer initially. Firstly, Craig's only been on board since February this year, so I think that was challenging. We would have liked, I think, someone on board earlier. Then it was a bit slow. And of course, only about six weeks after we got here, we went into a COVID lockdown, which made it really, really challenging, for example, particularly to present openly, to invite the community along to public forums. So Craig's had to work really hard in focusing on one-on-ones. Whereas at that stage of the project, Norman could be doing a lot more. I think it's obvious we haven't done a very good job, probably even before Craig was on board, in dealing with some of the negativity around this project previously. I think if we'd been more forthright in addressing some of that, I think we probably wouldn't be having this discussion today.

01:13:00 I'll throw to Craig if you want to add anything further. Speaker 6: Thanks, Harry. Thank you. Councillor, it's very encouraging that it's a labour-intensive meeting, one-on-one. We do do that in our meetings. The stakeholders have kept a very good record, and that information will go back to our advisory group to advise us on how we move forward. But when it comes to actual sites where people are mainly interested, where you're going to work on the real-time, we'll do that very carefully, and we'll use council formal consultation processes to make sure it's clear, it's documented, and all those that need to be involved in that decision, or advise those decisions, is heard and recorded and assessed. So we won't want to do anything that does anything other than that, really. It's very encouraging. I will say a bit of feedback to the councillors. Most of the feedback I get from the users is to do with non-project-related stuff. There are other associations to do with the general rhythm management, but they always talk about ecosystem restoration.

01:14:00 In itself, generally, there's a few people who are concerned about it, but I want to get down to folks what they're really concerned about. It's really about not ecosystem restoration. It's usually about other aspects of water quality, or fisheries management, or really resource allocation in the estuary. And that's really interesting, but I find it a little beyond my scope and beyond my mandate to comment much on that area. In that space, the Nature Conservancy is part of this partnership, offers itself to provide technical assistance to the council in those areas, but we're not the rhythm managers. We are not responsible for fisheries management. We are not responsible for the long-term work of the system. But we've come offering our support while we can, and while there's some funding to allow us to be here, to do so, to provide those, give feedback where other feedback is gathered, and try and pull in other research support about it, wherever we can, to add to the knowledge bank of the estuary and provide any support we can. And that's why we're moving to a partnership and not a fee-for-service contract, because

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 we do want to set that value-added approach, and this sort of united approach. I think that's quite important for the way we work. And so we're out there talking to stakeholders in that vein. Now, do you have concerns? What are they? Are they particularly related to us? Then we'll work through them together. Related to other issues, I'll have to defer you back to the council, because that's the other line of the matter. So, other than that, it's labour intensive. I would like to run some open forums, and we will get to that, you know, the committee. But other than that, I'll just have to extend where she goes, whether it's by order or by state. I'm a very good at the one-on-ones and the LIFEX. I get a lot better quality information when I do one-on-ones. I spend a lot of time with people who are disabled, but better access, they're more accommodating, and they're very open. And I respect that. Thank you, Craig. Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel, further to that, all of those opportunities. There are some quantifiable measures that are listed in Schedule A also. So, there's requirements to do at least nine open public forums throughout the project.

01:16:00 There's a requirement for there to be demonstration of buy-in and support and for reports to be provided on the stakeholder engagement and who's involved and those sorts of things. So, there are some quantifiable measures also that back up, I guess, the intent of ensuring this project has good outcomes. And I think that's a very important part of community engagement and buy-in. It's important. Thank you. Yeah, it is important. Councillor Finzel: I agree. So, thank you for that. Given that you've mentioned on several occasions there that it is very labour intensive, the question is, do you see the reference group that's being suggested as contributing to lessening the workload around your workload and bringing greater input from the community, how do you see the reference group being of benefit? Yeah. Speaker 2: I think the reference group's a good idea. I think, I mean, the River Plan already talks about a, I'm not sure, remind me the language,

01:17:00 but a community management. Speaker 5: This was the intent. Speaker 2: This was the intent. Yeah. A reference group that might be called something slightly different in the River, in the draft River Plan. So, we always envisage that a group around stakeholder input across a range of stakeholders would be really valuable. Yeah. To, you know, over the next two, three, four, five years, whatever, for River Plan implementation. So, I think the concept's a really good idea. Again, to be, you know, providing input and expert knowledge into, local knowledge into each of the projects that happen in the river, I think the state, that group could do. Yeah. And the Shell Fisheries Restoration one being one of them. Yeah. Yeah. I think, I still think though with that, Craig's still going to need to meet one on one with people. Yeah, I understand. Absolutely. So, is it going to shift the workload?

01:18:00 Right. You know, it's something we always envisage that should happen. And we would, I would think that council would lead that, it's broader and TNC would be part of that as on a needs basis when it related to that project. So, probably going to add to Craig's work because he needs to be, he'd need to be part of that stakeholder reference group to be honest. Yeah. But, you know, and he will still need to continue to have very detailed one on one conversations with whoever he needs to. Councillor Finzel: Sure. Okay. So, overall though, staff would be supported of a stakeholder reference group. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Well, look, I'll speak to the motion if I may. So, the motion is that the TNC for, and the staff for producing this management plan, which is a very extensive document. It wasn't until we got to about page 70 where it has the monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan, which goes to the heart of the topic of the conversation today, which is benchmarking,

01:19:00 that all the detail is there. That the benchmarking that's proposed is extensive, it's targeted, it's very rigorous and it goes beyond fish, prawns and water quality. It talks about benchmarking what we have in the river system immediately prior to the oyster reefs going in, in terms of the benthos, which we've come to learn recently. We've all been educated recently. It's the creatures that live in the river bed and the nekton that feed upon them. That's the fish and other creatures that feed upon the benthos, as well as monitoring for the shellfish themselves, as well as elements of water quality, such as water temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrient load, turbidity, on a monthly basis in terms of those water quality indicators. It's very extensive, very detailed. Monitoring will continue throughout the project and at the end, so we'll get a really good idea on what's being delivered by this project, which is essentially the restoration of an

01:20:00 oyster reef, which used to be so abundant in this river system. That's the principle. The principle goal of this very highly valued and much appreciated strategic partnership, which has brought $1.2 million from this world leading environment organisation to invest in the Noosa River, and that doesn't happen every day. It makes ratepayers' dollar go twice as far. Restoring the shellfish ecosystems will re-establish a previously common ecosystem, as well as boosting estuary health. And that'll be measured by the benchmarks that are in the back of this document. It starts about page 70. Very extensive and rigorous. The motion today is to approve the project management plan. I support this amendment because it's about approving this project management plan. The sooner we approve it, the sooner it can start to be implemented, as well as, by inference,

01:21:00 the monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan, which sits at the back of the document, which is the real engine room of this document, in my opinion. I also support the idea of the formation of a stakeholder reference group to more broadly engage community representatives in all issues to do, covered under the Noosa River Plan, which is far broader than this oyster restoration project. And that, of course, can include families who have fished this river for generations. Of course that will include them. The motion is also to note the terms of reference of the technical advisory group, which involves the Noosa Council, TNC officers, and state government department officers, and Kabi Kabi representatives, who are committed to gaining principally the appropriate permits for the installation of the reefs. I appreciate two weeks since we received this work is really a short timeframe for the community,

01:22:00 and councillors to get their heads around what's gone before and what's before us immediately. So for those watching at home, I'd like to give, also in support of what the Mayor has done, flesh out a bit about the history of the project. It started with a two-day Noosa River Expert Workshop at Brisbane's Powerhouse Museum in 2014, where 14 activities were identified that could lead to a healthier Noosa River. Oyster Reef Restoration was listed in 2014. The project was also listed as a priority, in addition to prawn restocking and managing the sediment flowing from the Kin Kin catchment. These actions became the three elements of what's known as the Bring Back the Fish program. The science supporting this TNC Oyster Reef Restoration project began with a scoping study in 2015, where TNC and ecological services, on behalf of Noosa Council, conducted a short

01:23:00 five-month trial involving ceramic plates at various locations in the TNC. The study confirmed high densities of oyster attachment around Waiber Creek, the main channel around Tewantin, and in the narrow channel between Goat Island and Noosa North Shore, areas where the historical record also indicated oyster reefs were highly prominent. The project recommended installing a number of pilot reefs for further trials, and this led to the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, the United Analysts, and the Noosa Biosphere and the University of the Sunshine, coast pilot oyster reef trial involving shells in coconut fibre bags. After the first year of that, the study showed that oyster recruitment and growth was of a sufficient rate and concentration that TNC could proceed with this larger project. That project is still ongoing and will conclude in October, and there will be a final report

01:24:00 on that. It will also... ...provide information about dealing with state governments in terms of permitting. It will also support the final design and installation of the oyster reef restoration project conducted by the TNC in partnership with Noosa Council. Noosa Council and TNC recognised that the strategic priorities of both organisations would be more effectively served through a formal partnership rather than on an individual project basis. This led to the development of this oyster reef restoration project. So it's essentially focused on the restoration of oyster reefs. The potential...it also includes, as a value added bonus, the exploration of the potential to restore seagrass habitat in Lake Cooroibah and potentially elsewhere to reduce sediment and increase invertebrate and fish numbers in the river system. It also provides access to TNC's global network of hundreds of scientists who can provide peer

01:25:00 review and offer advice on a range of Noosa Council programs. As they already have done in terms of the draft Noosa River Plan and the Fishing Futures paper. As I say, I'm very impressed by the level of detail, the rigour and the extent of the benchmarking proposed in this document. It's far more extensive than I, as a layperson, could have come up with. I...and the monitoring intervals as proposed by the experienced scientists are from a number So, because what they've learned provides the most meaningful data from the projects that they're conducting around the world and also around Australia. So, I defer to their scientific knowledge in that regard in terms of what's required to provide meaningful data in terms of benchmarking. On a personal note, I'm extremely proud to be part of this and excited to be part, play some small part in progressing this project, this partnership.

01:26:00 As a community representative, it's part of my, it's a pleasure really and a privilege to do what you can in some small way to help ensure that we're leaving as a custodian of the Noosa community. And we're leaving it in a better state than what we found it for our children and future generations. And certainly from all the data that's presented, scientifically based, an excellent foundation, it shows that this will go a long way towards achieving that. Thank you for your indulgence, councillors. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. I'd like to propose a motion. Councillor Wilkie: I'll amend a motion. So, Councillor Finzel, what we'll do is we'll deal with this amendment first. If the amendment is passed, that becomes a motion. And then you can amend the motion. Certainly, my apologies. So, if you'd like to wait. Thank you. Speaker 4: We can only deal with one amendment at a time. Oh, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: So, would anyone else like to speak to this amendment?

01:27:00 Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, councillors. Welcome. Does the community want to see an improved diversity in our river? I think there's no doubt about that. I think the people that I've spoken to over the years, and even now, have expressed a desire to see that in our river, and I think this is one element of a number of projects, as Tim has alluded to, that will help us move forward in providing that. I'm glad that you mentioned land-based ecological restoration projects, and it's ironic to me that this sits in the planning environment. Because I see absolute synergy between the two projects in what they're trying to achieve, from a land-based, we have no issue with a land-based approach to ecological restoration, but the minute we're in the river, we've got some sort of a brain-fade around it.

01:28:00 The loss of pine forests where koalas won't go, and the return of native vegetation that koalas will endure will bring koalas back to that section of the forest. They already exist in the other sections. Will it bring more koalas in, and all the rest of it? Possibly. And that's the hope for the future. But you've got to restore each individual element, provide sufficient habitat to increase and encourage those numbers over time for them to be able to grow. This is exactly the same thing that we're talking about with oysters and oyster reefs, and seagrass, and mangroves, in my mind. And as I said, the oysters are an element, almost like a species within a biodiversity improvement within a land-based approach. So I see no problem. So I see this as a great project going forward, like Councillor Wilkie said. I mean, this, for me, will be a legacy project for future generations that we can, you know, I'll leave this council very proud to deliver.

01:29:00 Disappointment is a perceived failure of the temporary reefs. And I think it's a bit... You've got to remember that these reefs were temporary reefs. They were never intended to be the permanent structures. They will be the element to educate us as to how to approach this further. As Councillor Wilkie alluded, we started with plates, the sea. So we went to the next step to create some sort of temporary structure, the sea. We were challenged by the state agencies on getting these things. The challenges that these have all presented, we've been able to overcome one by one. And it's fair to say that this project will not proceed if the state agencies aren't on board, hence the technical group, to try and work around any of the issues about this gate core. Are we going to inundate the entire river structure with oysters? No. In the beginning, we start small. We start small and we scale to prove and verify that the activities that we're undertaking are worthwhile and that they do succeed.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 And of course, within the plan are benchmarking details that give us that. It gives us those parameters under which to work. Again, the historic information that is detailed in the numerous reports we've undertaken here also helps set those benchmark. We know what was in years gone past. There haven't been oysters in sufficient quantity or size in the river since the 1930s, almost 100 years. So to try and understand how that works when you don't have the structure to maintain those sort of numbers shows what's happening to the river over many, many years. What this project also does is it does establish baselines at each of the established locations where these reefs will be undertaken. That's one of the first parameters is to establish the baseline, introduce the reef and monitor from there on. I think the baselines are clearly here, which seem to be part of the parameter around which these motions and amendments are arguing towards.

01:31:00 I'd like to thank Councillor Stockwell for his presentation. I thought it was very good to go through. Historically that, and history does tell us that the river did support a far greater number of oysters than are there in commercial quantities over the years. So to try and re-establish these reefs should reintroduce that biodiversity. We know that oyster reefs do encourage biodiversity species and they maintain those species around them when they're re-established from projects around. Sure, this is in a river environment. It might be a little bit different, but I think it's an exciting project to undertake. There are over 20 projects around the eastern coastline, as I understand it, around oyster restoration and numerous projects worldwide. Chesapeake Bay is a classic example of that, with numerous areas of Chesapeake Bay and starting at the end of today's Easter Island areas with regard to oyster restoration. That have been extremely successful in recovering the environmental degradation that happened around there.

01:32:00 And I see that the opportunities for us going forward. I encourage and I like the idea that everyone wants to see a stakeholder reference group around this, particularly with recreational commercial fishermen engaged in the process. I think that's a wonderful initiative to go forward to enhance the community engagement that some of the councillors have brought to the table today. And I think all that I see going forward is the way that we overcome some of the challenges that we've had over the years. Some of the negatives that seem to be perceived around this project that I can only see positives. Again, I think this is a legacy project for the future generations in re-establishing oyster reefs in our river. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener: I'd just like to add one point that really gets me is the identity of the Noosa people is involved in and wrapped up in the environment that we have around us and that we maintain a clean environment and that will improve the environment.

01:33:00 And here it says in the literature, by 2025, together with government, business and community, we aim to protect and restore 60 shellfish reefs across Australia, making Australia the first nation in the world to recover a critically endangered marine ecosystem. And that's coming from the Nature Conservancy. And that's just part of what we are as Noosa and who we are as Noosa residents is to be across this project and to be leaders in this field. Along with the Nature Conservancy. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will close. There were a few issues raised that I think do require a response. The first one is the more detailed monitoring and evaluation, the better. And I agree. And I'm either fortunate or somewhat boring because I am actually a specialist in this field.

01:34:00 I am. As a consultant, I've done monitoring and evaluation programs for water quality improvement on the Great Barrier Reef, a program running for $50 to $200 million each. And at last week's committee meeting, having read the full plan, I made a statement that it is the best monitoring and evaluation plan that has come before this place in five years I've been here. It is a very, very good approach to monitoring and evaluation. To think that we've got the expertise to vary that when we've got the advice of our professional staff and the leaders in the field is something that I find hard to deal with. Some of the issues in the original motion are excellent things to think about when we adopt the Noosa River Management Plan because they're about the bigger picture. But monitoring and evaluation projects, as proposed here, is about the things that are likely to be an outcome of the intervention you are doing.

01:35:00 So that's one. The next one is about cost benefit. And I agree. Cost benefit. And this emerging era of green infrastructure, we're going to have to get our heads around that quite often it is more beneficial to invest in green infrastructure than other forms of infrastructure. So, Council, only a couple of months ago, we spent over a million dollars fixing up a mistake about people who forgot to look at the geotechnical vulnerabilities on the street. And we're going to spend another $700,000 because the road was designed with embankment. So a similar amount of money on about a 100 metre stretch of street in a residential area, and we just let that go to the keeper, we spend a similar amount in doing something on the most valued asset, one of the most valued assets in the Shire, and we put it under the microscope. So cost benefits, I can tell you, it will be somewhere over 1,000 times higher than the money we spend on Suburban Street. Thank you.

01:36:00 Okay. I think also the question about baselines. So there is no question we have a water quality baseline. The Healthy Land and Water, previously, NCQ Healthy Waterways, was established after a grant in 1998, and we've had that baseline on water quality in the estuary going forward since that time. We have a historic baseline from the survey analysis of oysters. We know we can't go back and see, but the monetary evaluation plan does the next best thing. It says we're going to compare what we do here in terms of restoration to another natural intact system somewhere else in the state, and you compare references, and that's a standard procedure in restoration ecology. We've got another really important baseline, and that is that one of the issues coming out that's not picked up in the water quality monitoring, because that's about water flowing through, is about the fine sediments that are also moving through this system that isn't picked up in the annual report code. And those fine sediments, yes, most likely liberated from Kin Kin, and that's where you start the process of trying to stabilise them up there.

01:37:00 But we also know that oysters filter 100 litres of water each per day, and they historically play a role. So the removal of that bit of structure that used to be all through the estuary is also one of the reasons why we have problems with the benthos, most likely a link, is that we're seeing, perhaps, increased levels of anoxia with the fine sediments going through the riverbed. No lack of oxygen. And we've had, actually, back in 2016, three of us should remember that we had a leading professor from America brought over by USC, and he gave the case study of an estuarine oyster reef and how they did it to improve anoxia so the local commercial fishermen could get back to fish, and it was a success story. So there is links between all these baselines. We don't have a great baseline on all sorts of fish. We just have commercial fishing, and we've done as good as we can there. And maybe, in the real plan, we might have to think about establishing a baseline criteria. But it's the river plan, not this project.

01:38:00 I think what we have to remember is that this is a project looking at taking the river forward, and it's the start of what I think should be a decade of the River Venusa. It is a long-term process. It is not about the blame game. Everyone who lives in this catchment, who has lived in this catchment, has both benefited from and in some way contributed to the reduction in the biodiversity and abundance that has been demonstrated. It's about moving ahead together in partnership and probably healing some of those wounds that have been in the community over recent years to say, do we value the river? Our world leading scientists are saying this is a good shot of how we go to improve it. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillors Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie. And those against?

01:39:00 Councillors Stewart, Finzel and Lorentson. The amendment now becomes the motion. So that's the motion before us. Would anyone like to move an amendment to the motion? Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate every... Speaker 4: I need to outline what your motion is. Councillor Finzel: What my motion is, right? Speaker 4: I think it's on the board. Councillor Finzel: It's on the board. Okay. Do I read that out? Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, please. Councillor Finzel: That the following words be added to item B of the motion and request the Nature Conservancy to agree to amend the membership of the Technical Advisory Group to include additional members of the Council as an observer. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Finzel, would you like to speak to your amendment? Councillor Finzel: Sure. Thank you, Chair.

01:40:00 The Nature Conservancy brings significant expertise. I acknowledge the formal partnership which has been approved by a previous Council and that a contract is in place. I believe that the inclusion of a councillor at the TAG group aligns with the Council as an organisation in terms of having observers in place with other groups that do have social, economic and financial impacts into this community. An example of this is the Noosa Tourism Group, which currently has an observer sitting on the board through a funding agreement. I'm sure today there is some way we could work together with the TNC to put in place

01:41:00 a councillor as an observer. I'd like to say that this aligns with our local government principle and values with the Local Government Act about inclusion for the wider community. I believe that putting a councillor in place fosters a collaborative approach, strengthens partnerships with key stakeholders, provides a direct line of communication to community members and allows a councillor to be a voice for the community. A councillor in the position of observer would promote inclusivity and meaningful engagement with community. It would increase and provide support and understandings as we head towards the next stage of the project with increased engagement. As Craig mentioned earlier, as key stakeholders, this is required to navigate the process with

01:42:00 a wider inclusion of as many people as possible and I believe that the appointment of a councillor as an observer would support this. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, I might just ask a question. Do you want the councillor representative on that tag group to be an observer or a voice for the community on that group? Councillor Finzel: I believe that as they sit there as an observer, they gain knowledge, which will be important moving forward, especially in agreement with what Councillor Stockwell said today as the future vision is for green infrastructure. I believe that as they sit there as an observer, they gain knowledge, which will be important moving forward, especially in agreement with what Councillor Stockwell said today as the future vision is for green infrastructure. I believe that as we head towards that future and a lot of that is not navigated, it's a vision, by having an observer at that table, that councillor gains knowledge and insight, has an opportunity to sit alongside great minds and be able to learn.

01:43:00 So it's a voice back to the community. A voice back to community. Thank you. A councillor is the conduit between, you know, outside of the community and this table. So I believe that would be absolutely a valuable resource to the group, around the table as well, because council can bring something back to the group, like you can access information that might benefit the group, you can send information back out to the community. Councillor Jurisevic: Question. Question from my staff. Can you just remind me what our staff represents? Do you have any representation on the taggers? Speaker 5: On the current technical advisor group, it's only myself at this stage. So we may bring another officer in, depending on need as we go, but at the moment it's just myself as council's representative. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask the CEO to go to Tourism Noosa or the Biosphere Board where we do have councillors on the boards as observers. Do we have any staff associated with either of those entities? Speaker 4: No, we don't. There's different arrangements for Tourism Noosa, for example, that's in the constitution

01:44:00 of Tourism Noosa, not a council decision per se, and certainly with the Biosphere Board, that's in the Biosphere Board constitution, that there's a councillor rep on that. Councillor Jurisevic: Are there any other examples where we've got councillor reps as observers on organisations? Speaker 4: I can't think of any off the top of my head. Speaker 2: Sorry, just to add to that, myself and Chris Gillies also sit as the executive level forum, which the technical advisory group. Councillor Jurisevic: It would be fair to say you both have a technical level of understanding and expertise in the field. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A technical question to the CEO. I understand the argument, have sympathies with the argument for why you might want to have a councillor there. Being a technical advisory group rather than a reference group, does that constitute an operational role and therefore would that preclude a councillor being involved in an operational

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 Speaker 4: Not of itself, no, it wouldn't, but you really need to go back and work out what is the purpose of the working group. If it's dealing with technical matters, you'd normally have people who have technical background associated with that, and maybe that's the question I can either ask Kim or Craig about the very nature of what the technical advisory group, their purpose is, and what skills do we want to bring to that table. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the terms of reference is attached to the report. I've got the rest of them over here. I don't have the terms of reference. But essentially, the technical advisory group is a group brought together to help navigate the complexities of the project. It essentially includes a whole lot of expertise in the technical advisory group. We have experts from various agencies that can help move through the gateways, I guess, around as we understand the suitability, modelling, the complexities of the river environment,

01:46:00 fish habitat issues, a whole range of issues. There's layers of permitting. I think there's at least three levels of permitting required for this project from various agencies. Yeah. Each of those agencies that have at least one, potentially two representatives at a very senior level to provide early input as to if these permits are going to be approved, these are the sorts of things that need to be navigated. This is the level of information that we're going to need. Very, very detailed information is being developed to support the permitting process. Craig mentioned before, we anticipate the permitting process taking 12, 18 months. Potentially. The technical advisory group has been established to help navigate that next 12 to 18 months. It is very much full of experts in their own field, whether it's across the permitting

01:47:00 requirements, legislative requirements, the different considerations around the environment of the river, like I said. Things like locations. It's not really a stakeholder reference group. It's not a community reference group. It's very much of a technical nature. Speaker 4: The only thing I'd add, and I've just thought about this while talking about the membership, is that there are probably a number of state government bureaucrats on that. There is. That's great. Whether having an elected representative on there might change the dynamic with them. Whether it's a state representative or a council one. That's the only other thing I think that we'd have to think about. Councillor Jurisevic: The other question, Raj, for that thing is ... Councillor Wilkie: Could I just follow up on the statement the CEO made? How would the presence of a council as an observer change the dynamic with state bureaucrats?

01:48:00 Do they tend to get a bit nervous around council reps? Speaker 4: Yeah, they can do, and I'm sure we've got lovely reps, so they might not do that. No, it's more that some government agencies have rules in place about what level of staff will talk to elected representatives, whether it's at a local government or a state level. That's the only other issue I've just thought about in terms of that relationship issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Sorry, Brian. Yeah. Ex-state government rep, it may be that that triggers that you can't talk freely if there's an elected representative there on certain issues. My question, though, and as I said, I have sympathies with the intent of the motion, but my question is, to start, considering what the role that Councillor Finzel was enunciating, in your view, is that best achieved by attendance at a TAG or best having council involvement in the stakeholder reference group? Speaker 2: Look, no doubt, in the stakeholder reference group.

01:49:00 That's very much about community and stakeholders. I think that's the better forum. But in saying that, the minutes or all of those things of the technical advisory group are completely available. I'm not completely averse to the idea. I think the more understanding everyone has, the better. But in terms of meeting the objectives around that, I think that's the better forum. Being a community conduit and understanding the project and information back to the community, probably the stakeholder reference group is the better group. Speaker 4: Yeah. I'd probably agree with that. So the only downside I can see in terms of getting involved in the technical advisory group is that impact on the state government bureaucrats. Councillor Jurisevic: So, yes, in terms of feedback from that group, the minutes at the end, we've got staff, senior level staff in that level.

01:50:00 I'm assuming that through the process, as we hit barriers or we have successes, that feedback will be advised to the council and the councillors so that we can and to the general public to let the public know what the next level of permit has been achieved or whatever it is that we can have. The milestones are achieved through that process. Speaker 2: Yeah. There's six-monthly reports. There's six-monthly reports that are done, and that report covers all aspects of a project implementation plan and progress. Permitting will absolutely be one of those. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. It seems the intent of the observer being on the TAG is to provide a conduit back to the community of what's going on in the TAG, a highly technical professional body. Did you say that you had no objection to the minutes of that being provided to councillors so that they can relay the decisions of the TAG or the work of the TAG back to community?

01:51:00 I can't think of any concerns. Yourself, Clive? Speaker 6: No. The minutes, very freely available and welcome to be freely available. Good question. I think we have to be a little bit careful, as Brett has said, around how people will work in that group and how they engage with that group if they feel the nature of it will change. I'm not too sure. I've stayed quite quiet and I need to think about it too, but I'm relying on a lot of goodwill from these senior bureaucrats. They call me regularly. They're sort of treating it like a pet project, and they've provided quite a lot of support. There's no secrets, but there's a frankness that we talk about in the meetings, which is important. And then the minutes are checked by all, because then it goes through the hierarchies of the organisation for further distribution. Councillor Wilkie: So, in terms of risk around a political representative being an observer on the board,

01:52:00 in terms of the state government's perception, bureaucrats' perception of that, information may be politicised. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a risk? Speaker 4: I'll probably answer that. I've sat through a lot of these meetings with different government bureaucrats over the years. Councillor Wilkie: What are they afraid of? What are the risks associated? Speaker 4: Often, there's more of a can-do as to what they're afraid of. So, at a public servant to public servant sort of level, when you have an elected representative in the room, sometimes that can-do is not there. That's the main thing I've noticed. So, I can probably run an analogy, if you like. We had a transition committee for the Eural Ringtail project as well, which has quite senior government bureaucrats in there for three years. So, we speak very frankly about how the project's going or what we need to do. And that dynamic may change if there's an elected representative in the room. I'm just plaguing that as an issue from a state public sector perspective. Councillor Wilkie: More questions or anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?

01:53:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I've already asked questions. So, as I said, I support the intent of the motion. However, if this amendment were to not be successful, I'd also support a further amendment, which had a very similar clause put in the motion. So, I think it would be worth taking the technical advisory group out and putting in the stakeholder reference group instead. Can I say anything? Councillor Lorentson: Can I say anything? Are you speaking? Are you right of reply now? Councillor Wilkie: You'll have right of reply at the end, councillor. Councillor Finzel: Before or after we vote? Councillor Wilkie: No, before we vote. You'll have right of reply. After we vote, I'll just vote. You'll have the right of reply. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Good, awesome. Councillor Wilkie: You'll have the last word. Good. Okay, councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I support it. You know, councillor Wilkie, or someone mentioned, I think it was you, councillor Wilkie, that this was a 1.2 million has been granted towards this project, which is great. But we have put $1.2 million worth of our community's money towards this project. And we need to be, at every level, potentially not a voice for the community in this instance,

01:54:00 but rather the ears for the community. As Kim alluded to, there is a lot of information that comes out of these, even though it's technical, there's a lot of information that is available at these meetings. And having a councillor, even as an observer there, can relay that information back to the community. I think it's imperative, especially when we all know how hard, over the last three or four months, we fought to get our costs down, to provide community benefit, and to really sharpen our pencil at every step of the way. So I think if we're looking at this much money, then I think it does make sense that we have a seat at the table, so to speak. We do with Tourism Noosa, we're an observer there, I think there's no reason not to support having council involvement in that regard. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just quickly, I am an observer on the Tourism Noosa board, and first-hand I can tell you that it's a really valuable position at the table, not to reiterate what's already been

01:55:00 said. It gives me the confidence when I speak to community members to be able to relay that the intent of the board is great, that it is community, community-based. I think it's really benefit-driven, and that we derive a lot of benefit from the Tourism Noosa board. So again, I think that an observer on the tag team will serve a similar role. It's more for community reassurance and confidence. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

01:56:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We don't have a Councilor-Observer on the Yoro Winkal Forest agreement. I see these two more aligned than I do with the Tourism and Natural Resources Board. So for that reason, I said, again, this is a technical advisory group. The information from which is given in inadequate feedback and the like. We get minutes of reporting and, of course, senior staff are there, which is not the case with those other entities that we haven't observed. So I think they're quite different arrangements, and I'm not supportive of the amendment as it stands. Councillor Wegener: Castle Wiggler. I don't think I could make a decision on this because I don't know enough. Going both ways, is there a way to make this motion for next time,

01:57:00 to put this off until we actually know better? Is there another meeting coming up the next time we... Speaker 4: It's Thursday night. Councillor Wegener: Oh, there's Thursday night. Speaker 4: All you have to do is make me a recommendation of the Council meeting Thursday night. So we'll have between now and Thursday night to reconsider how you did want to deal with it, but I imagine the motion's going to be put at some stage. Councillor Wilkie: The motion will be put, yeah, at some stage. So what sort of information would you like before Thursday night? Councillor Wegener: Whether... Whether... Whether the TAG Group will be able to function to its fullest potential when there is an elected representative commission to put on the board. And also, this is a partnership. Would the Nature Conservancy be open to this as well? Yeah, those are the two questions. Councillor Wilkie: Could staff provide that information for Thursday night?

01:58:00 Potentially? I'll throw to Craig in a moment. Speaker 6: I can't... No, we won't. No. Speaker 2: I'm not there to ask Craig. Yeah, no, no, no. Oh, okay. Yeah, absolutely. I can have a conversation with TNC and we can sound out representatives. I do think it's important that Council go back to the purpose of... I'm just trying to find it. The terms of reference that's attached to your report and the purpose of the TAG. Thanks. On the board. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks. It was on the board earlier. Yeah. 435 Brokeley Plain. Speaker 2: We have a number of requirements in Schedule A of the Alliance Agreement that relate specifically to governance and how the project's governed, and milestones that need to be met, six monthly and yearly reports that this council gets and considers all of the range of issues, both the technical issues that TAG's dealt with, but also the community engagement issues, the stakeholder management issues, all of those issues, all of that information.

01:59:00 comes to council. There's then an executive level forum, which myself and the project director, national project director of TNC sit on. Then there's a project management group, which has Craig and at least three other people on it. Then there's experts that provide advice into it, and then there's a technical advisory group. So it's actually quite a robust and complex governance structure that sits around the project. The TAG is just but one of those, and potentially a stakeholder reference group also. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I support the intent of what Councillor Finzel is trying to achieve, and that is providing as much information back to the community as possible at every opportunity.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 Even from this highly technical advisory group involving experienced officers from state government, the council, and the TMC. I think the similar purpose can be served by the willingness of the TAG to provide minutes of the TAG deliberations to councillors for their understanding and to feedback to the community, those who are interested in the community, the work that that particular specialist group is undertaking. This project is driven by milestones, and I would, based on the advice we've heard from the CEO and our staff here, that the presence of a political representative on what is a technical group, staffed by officers from the state government and the council, may in fact not allow deliberations to proceed as freely as possible.

02:01:00 The TAG has had hope because of state government policies. I would not like to slow down this project, or put any impediments in the way of this project. I'm satisfied that the provision of minutes from the technical advisory group for councillors to absorb and ask questions upon, to understand, and then feedback to the community if they want, is sufficient in this case. And I look forward to hearing more from the staff about this particular aspect by Thursday night's meeting, or if they can provide it in the meantime, and we can re-prosecute this aspect on Thursday night. But in the meantime, I won't be supporting this amendment. And Councillor Finzel, would you wish to close? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, everybody. Firstly, I'd just like to reiterate where I started at the beginning, was that this was approved before I was in this position.

02:02:00 Had I been back there, looking backwards, perhaps we would have had a different framework for governance, and perhaps we would have had an opportunity at that time to include an observer. However, we find ourselves here today. But one of the purposes of the attachment two, which is under conversation, is to ensure actions within the project plan are effectively delivered. And communicated to all stakeholders. There is no limit on the stakeholders, nor how is that communicated. However, I'd like to bring to your attention today that this motion is in fact to request to TNC to consider the opportunity to appoint an observer. And based on Craig said that he was on the fence on this one, Kim was open to it, and Tom required more information. What we're moving today here is the opportunity to put the request to the TNC with our request for an observer.

02:03:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Finzel, Lorentson, and Stewart. Those against? Councillor Wilkie, Jurisevic, Stockwell, and Wegener. And we'll revisit that on Thursday night if you wish. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have the amendment please? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, you may. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the current motion with an additional wording on the end of item D. Which reads, sorry if you can go back up to the, so the last sentence to read, Delegate to the CAO to determine the terms of reference and undertake a process to establish the lucifer of the stakeholder reference group, together with the appropriate role for councillor representation on that group.

02:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could you clarify what that means please? Certainly, just basically, in moving my last amendment, I just presumed that it would be councillor representation. On that group I think that makes it explicit, but it also then gets the CAO to consider what would be the appropriate role. I don't necessarily think that on the stakeholder reference group a councillor should necessarily be limited just to an observer. So that was what, why I worked in that way, is that there may be various roles that a councillor could play. I think the fundamental objective of Councillor Finzel's previous motion is to ensure that councillors can sit there, and look at what's happening, report back to the community, and back to ourselves as well. And I think that's one very valuable role.

02:05:00 But there's also maybe other roles that could be included. And I think this is where to do it. I don't think a technical advisory group is where that is the best place for that to occur. Councillor Wilkie: Question for you Councillor Stockwell. The wording currently with the appropriate role for councillor representation, that leaves it open for it to be more than one councillor on the group? Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. If we support this, then that negates though, really. You can't have councillor, can we still have councillor representation on the stakeholder and also in the TRG? Speaker 4: If the councillor gets, for example on Thursday night, if someone moves the amendment to have the councillor on the technical advisory committee and all that, both would stand together. Can you say that these are two very different roles? They are. Councillor Jurisevic: Different groups and different roles? Yep. Councillor Wilkie: So, councillors wish to speak to this amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reiterate the comments of Councillor Stockwell. I think this is the far more appropriate location for a councillor representation.

02:06:00 And that engagement with the community overall within the confines of not only this project but the river management project moving forward. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I agree. I think it's, Councillor Finzel's, um, views about the importance of councillor feedback back to the community about this project. Improving the communications between, at all levels, about this project is paramount. And I think with the wide range, the very wide range of stakeholders in the stakeholder reference group, I think the information there will be very interesting. And the councillors play a pivotal role in balancing that information and also feeding back to the communities and representing their communities and being a voice for their communities via their presence on the stakeholder reference group.

02:07:00 Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? If you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Now we now go back. This now becomes the motion. We go back to the original motion to which only Mayor Stewart has spoken. So all other councillors have a right to speak to what's before us. This is the motion that's before us now. With amendments. It includes the amendments? Speaker 4: Two amendments. Councillor Wilkie: Two amendments. So it takes some time to read the motion before us. Councillor Lorentson: Second my amendment. Speaker 4: She's seconded the original motion. Councillor Wilkie: You can't answer that. Because you seconded the original motion. There's an opportunity on Thursday night. Speaker 4: Can I suggest you read that out? Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So what the motion, for the benefit of those listening, the motion before us is the council

02:08:00 note the report by the Environment Services Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 7th July 2020 and approved the project management plan provided as attachment 1 to the report. As meeting the requirements of the project implementation plan outlined in the Alliance and Funding Agreement. And B, note the terms of reference of the Noosa Oyster Restoration Project Technical Advisory Group provided as attachment 2 to the report. And C, establish a Noosa River Stakeholder Reference Group to provide strategic input, local knowledge and expertise into river management initiatives initially providing input into this shellfish restoration project and more broadly into finalisation and implementation of the Noosa River Plan. And D, delegate to the CEO to determine the terms of reference and undertake a process to establish the Noosa River Stakeholder Reference Group together with the appropriate role for councillor

02:09:00 representation on that group. So we've had, the Mayor has already spoken to this motion. Other councillors are free to speak to this motion. Mayor Stewart: So sorry, going back, so this is the motion, the amendment that Brian put up, Brett, that we voted against. Two amendments. Two amendments. Say three of us voted against. Yep. But now the, so with that now the two amendments. Speaker 4: The two amendments are included in that. So that's the original motion that was moved by itself which included the amendments made by Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell. So that's now incorporated into the original motion. And then there was another amendment of Councillor Finzel which was lost. So that was not incorporated into the original motion. And there was a third amendment from Councillor Stockwell relating to the Stakeholder Reference

02:10:00 Group and the councillor which is at the very end. And that has been incorporated as well. So those two amendments have been successful, have been incorporated into the original motion. Mayor Stewart: But at the heart of this, it's, what I came back to originally argue, is not at the heart of this, is it? It's what Councillor Stockwell amended. Speaker 4: Yeah. That has been amended. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 4: So that's what's in front there now is what the councillors are now debating which incorporates those amendments. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So councillors are supposed to speak to this motion. Councillor Finzel: I just have a, can I ask a question? Of course. So then to establish a Noosa River Stakeholder Reference Group, does that mean we've moved away from the original establishment of something specifically to work with the restoration project? Councillor Jurisevic: No. Speaker 4: If you read that part of B, or C, sorry, it's establishing Noosa River Stakeholder Reference

02:11:00 Group. And that's providing into the Noosa River Management Initiative. Okay. So they're initially providing input into the Shell Fist Restoration Project. So it does refer to their first task as a Noosa River Stakeholder Reference Group will be providing input into this Shell Fist Restoration Project. Councillor Wilkie: Now we'd have a life beyond that. Correct. Yeah. Speaker 2: It's got a broader remit, I guess, to River Plan. It's there. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I'll take the opportunity to jump in here and say I'll support this motion before us. It includes the desire of most councillors to ensure that councillors are involved in a reference group involving a range of stakeholders to ensure that, to be aware of what the input is and help guide the project.

02:12:00 Also, to feedback to the community about the project's progress. Also, I like the idea that the stakeholder reference group will not be involved in the project after the Oyster Restoration Project is completed, that it has a life beyond that because there are more Noosa River related initiatives that will flow out of the Noosa River Plan, which is up for adoption shortly. And I also support the idea of the CEO doing some work to determine, that'd be the subject of a report, I'd imagine, to determine the stakeholder, the make up of the stakeholder reference group. And the appropriate involvement for councillors on that group. Mayor Stewart: This is a hard one because I support definitely... Councillor Stewart. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: You've already spoken to this side. Oh. You're going to do the same.

02:13:00 I'll say. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic: I don't think I said everything appropriately when we were discussing the amendments. I think I've said more. Councillor Wilkie: As we... As I say, it's up for... We can debate it again on Thursday night if you wish. We'll have more information then too. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question then? Yes. If we're moving away now to the CEO determining the terms of reference group, everything around in council seems to like take a long period of time. Dare I ask, is there some time... Can we put a time... A reasonable time frame on getting that done? Can we put a time frame on getting this up and running? Speaker 4: I'm going to delegate that question. Councillor Finzel: I mean, we don't want to see this happen in two years' time. You can do whatever you like. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask... I'll ask a question in that relation. One of the challenges heading forward is to get all of the permits to actually progress this project forward, and that's likely to take between 12 and 18 months as I understand

02:14:00 from what you... I think that's what Ken Sell's question was more about, the question on... I'm asking, is that sufficient time because will there be anything for a stakeholder reference group to be engaged in before we actually get the permits? Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. So yeah, I don't think that... I think they're two quite separate things. That's all right. Councillor Jurisevic: That's why I was just trying to work out from a timing perspective how quickly it has to Speaker 4: move. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 4: And what you... What I think we're being asked is how quickly can we have the terms of reference in a suggested framework for what that stakeholder... Yes. Yes. Speaker 2: That's correct. So... Speaker 4: I'm hearing it. I think it's sooner rather than later. Yeah. Yeah. It really depends on the workload that I know... Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm just going to move so Craig doesn't kick me. So councillors, as you know, we're considering, we're having conversation also later this week about the river plan and the finalisation of the river plan. And stakeholder engagement in the finalisation of the river plan is really important. So from our perspective, it's actually a priority to get stakeholder engagement in the finalisation

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 of the river plan. So we'd be quite keen to get this group established quite quickly, as quick as we can. Working with council meeting cycles and decision making and things like that. So I would have thought we... Speaker 4: Staff would see it as a priority. Speaker 2: Exactly. Thank you. And set it up as soon as we can. Speaker 4: Within the last hour or so. Yeah. Speaker 2: Definitely. Within... Absolutely. Yeah. I would think within a few months at the most. Councillor Wilkie: Good. Councillor Williamson. Councillor Lorentson: Well, given that I missed my opportunity to make an amendment, I'm probably going to consider my decision on this until our next meeting. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We will say something now after question two. I think both the initial motion and what Councillor Cleveland's motion cover important things

02:16:00 that need to be done. I think that my... The issue was doing things in the right place at the right time with the right group of people. The technical advisory group is an analytical technical group with some regulatory understanding of the process. It's about the minds behind the project. But the project is not just about the biophysical sciences through a fresh draft. It's not just about conservation. It's also about socio-ecological. And there is no doubt one of the biggest learnings from this process, it will be, does the way we operate end up in three years' time that the vast majority of the community feel pride in the river and what it has become? Because this... And that's where the stakeholder reference groups and councils get involved in, not just

02:17:00 improved communication, but improved opportunities for the community. I think it's important for participation, for meaningful involvement and input. And I think, you know, while it won't be in the monetary evaluation plan, participation will... The hearts and minds of the community as expressed in a few years' time to understand the challenges ahead as well as the values of the river, to me, is important. And I think this plan as proposed will go towards achieving that. Councillor Wilkie: You know, the council's wish to speak to... I don't know. To the motion before Councillor Stewart has the right of reply. Councillor Wegener: Oh, I was just going to say, you know, we're talking of swimming in our lanes and as a role of a council, I'm learning, trying to learn which lanes I swim in, where I get involved. And, you know, I look at the TAG group and I think, man, I don't think I could really give any... Bring anything...

02:18:00 Bring any help. I don't even know if I'd be able to translate what they're talking about and bring it back to council. So maybe that's a part of, you know, that's not the job of the councillor. The councillor is to give direction, make much bigger decisions, and to talk with the community. But, you know, but there needs to be a translation through Craig, through Kim, to us, concerning what's happening. And then we can give the big picture to the community instead of telling the community the little individual, tiny things. If we were on the TAG trying to explain, we might just get lost. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I think, Tom, what you said is interesting. We must swim in our lanes. We... And we must not forget that the river is run by the state. We must always keep that in the back of our minds. And swim in our lanes is an interesting line, Tom. I overarchingly think that there are some very good points in this motion. The stakeholder reference group, I think, is absolutely fundamentally imperative. I think the more community representation that we can have on this project, the better.

02:19:00 The more community feedback, the more open we can make this and available data, I think, the better. I think that the, you know, having potentially, and if we can do this Thursday night too, having a councillor represent on the TAG, I think that is great too. I think, as I said, if we can have councillors involved with this project at an operational level, I will be involved or even observers. I think it's only can benefit. But I cannot support this motion because of the original motion which I put up, and in regard to the information and the... data that I requested in my motion that was voted down. So although there are certain excellent points to this, and I wholeheartedly support, as I said, the stakeholder group and the technical advisory group to have a council observer, I don't support this motion on the basis of my original motion put up.

02:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay. I put the motion. Those in favour? Councillors Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener and Clark. Those against, Councillor Stewart, Laurence Lorentzen, and Finzel. The motion's carried. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I think it's time to call a short adjournment. My letter would agree. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillors. And as Chair, I'd like to thank Craig from the Nature Conservancy for your excellent advice through this. It's invaluable.

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:32:00 Okay. Welcome back, everybody. I declare the meeting open again. We're up to item three on the General Committee agenda, which is the Ural Ringtail Environmental Project update. It's been referred to the General Committee for the significance of the issue. Perhaps, again, declaration, Councillor Stockwell.

02:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't understand that, do I? Yes, I wish to declare a perceived conflict of interest on this matter due to the fact that as a sole trader in my business, Watchit Australia, I have been both contracted by and have subcontracted officers of Noosa and District Landcare prior to becoming a councillor. Also, prior to me becoming a councillor, I took a paid two-day consultancy. Well, that's what that was. I paid two-day consultancy for facilitating a meeting of Landcare members in 2015. Yes, and a subcontractor. There's no nexus between the work that I did back for Landcare prior to becoming a councillor and the matter before council at the moment. I'm also a notary member of the group as long-standing association, including this council's representative that assisted this foundation in 1989. I have a range of collegial relationships dating back to 1980s with members of Landcare and also with my professional roles in state government, public servant, liaising with Landcare through those roles.

02:34:00 And relationships with members of the current Landcare Committee. I believe, however, that I can consider this item impartially in the public interest and request to remain in the room and debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that councillors note the perceived conflict of interest to the cooperation of Councillor Stockwell and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in the matter and that Councillor Stockwell may remain in the meeting as per previous debates on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for this motion. Seconder. Motion, please. Thank you, Tom. What is Landcare's involvement in this project? Is there any moneys? Speaker 4: Yeah, the council's provided no funding to Landcare on this project at all. Landcare have done some work on the land where they've got money from other sources, but there's

02:35:00 no contractual relationship between Landcare and council on this project. Mayor Stewart: Could there be some financial benefit to Landcare following on from this project? Speaker 4: Potentially, but not at this stage. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be in the event that Landcare involved in a project, depending on the cost of it, it would go through in the normal probity of any contract for council? Speaker 4: Well, no, there wouldn't be a contract with council, as I see it. There's no contractual relationship between Landcare and council. Councillor Jurisevic: No, but potentially in the future, with any funding arrangements? Speaker 4: Even then, there wouldn't be, because there wouldn't be a contract between council and Landcare. There would be a contract with Landcare towards some other arrangements might be between. A grant, potentially, or something like that? Not on this particular project. Okay. That's all I wanted to clarify, that those weren't allowed. It may well be that Greenfleet enter into an arrangement with Landcare at some stage in the future. Which is an indirect. Yeah. But there'd be no funding coming from council.

02:36:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councilors Jurisevic, Wegener and Wilkie, those against. Councilors Lorentson, Finzel and Stewart. Councilors, we've faced this particular issue exactly before and the decision was that it was almost unanimous last time that Councillor Stockwell could stay in the room. I'm going to remain consistent with my previous decision and vote in favour of Councillor Stockwell remaining in the room.

02:37:00 Right, so that's carried. We've now got a motion before us. Sorry, Mr CEO, would you care to just give us a bit of a briefing about what this arrangement with Greenfleet entails? Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you, Councillor. I guess the purpose of the report was really to do three things. Firstly, to provide, especially for the new councillors, is an update on the history of this particular project. It's one of the biggest environmental projects we have on. So I've set out all the history going back to 2017 with the MOU and then 2018, the contracts. Have you arranged the site business yet? I think there's a date coming up, yep. And then looking at the current status, where it's up to with the various harvesting. So that's all been set out in the report as well. Looking ahead, there's an opportunity to make what I call a great project. Even better, with an opportunity to bring in third-party funding through, identified in the report.

02:38:00 Greenfleet are in discussions with the state government at the moment to look at whether or not they can undertake work on this land. The benefit of this, I guess, is that council's current obligation to do remediation is limited to only the pine forest areas. What Greenfleet are talking about is doing remediation in both the pine forest and the pine forest areas. And more importantly, in the hardwood forest areas. So they will bring in significantly more funding than anyone else could to do that work, which should develop them a better environmental outcome. And their proposal that they're putting into the state at the moment also would have benefits for the Kabi Kabi First Nations people in terms of how they might wind that out. So I wanted to play to council that in negotiations at the moment with the state and Greenfleet, to have a look at how that might unfold. So far, those negotiations are going well.

02:39:00 The state is, I think, happy in principle, but it doesn't fit any of their usual models. So they're trying to work out what it means. It's, you know, bureaucrats are trying to say, well, this is the idea about it. And how do we then deal with the state looking at their carbon credits and what that means and what changes can be made? Councillor Jurisevic: Is that the challenge for them, the fact of how they could otherwise manage carbon credits? Speaker 4: No, it's partly that. But it's more so that there's three different tenures this land's going through and how those rights carry through different tenures. So you're going from plantation license to state forest to national park, which cuts across different legislation. So they want to work out how that works as well. So the state, I think, are happy in principle. They have a working group going through the details with Greenfleet.

02:40:00 So that's a sort of quite a complex thing in a snapshot in terms of where it's up to at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: There's a $4 million figure mentioned in the report. Yeah. What does that pertain to? Speaker 4: So Greenfleet are looking at, I'll give you a bit about Greenfleet first. Greenfleet are a nationally recognised not-for-profit sector because they're not a private company. They're a not-for-profit organisation that's been operating around Australia for over 20 years doing this type of work. They have done some looking at this site. They want to get involved in it and they want to bring about $4 million, give or take, to the table to do additional remediation. That's way in excess of what we would have otherwise looked at as a council. So as I said, I think we'll get a better environmental outcome as a result of that. If we can bring it on.

02:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: And what are the potential savings for the community as a result of Greenfleet's investment instead of Ratepayers' investment? Speaker 4: Well, at the moment, under the contract, the council has an obligation to do some remediation in the pine forest areas only. And that's from what I call years 6 to 10. This is a long-term project. It's a 10-year project. So we don't have to do any remediation in the first five years. But from years 6 to 10, we have an obligation to contribute up to $125,000 a year, or $125,000 a year for those pine areas. If this comes off, we look at whether that would be necessary or not. That's part of the negotiations. We might not need to do that if they've done over and above that level of remediation that we would have done with our $125,000 in years. Councillor Jurisevic: In essence, if we found an external funding source to provide that work. Correct. Speaker 4: And as I said, the level of expenditure in terms of remediation would be much greater than what the council would have put in. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah.

02:42:00 Questions, councillors, to the CEO? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, following on from that. Yes, Joe. Does that also apply to the Boosa Parks as well, the actual contributions? Speaker 4: Yes, it would. Well, that's up to them to negotiate. But I assume they would seek a similar type of remediation. So we've said $625,000 and $625,000 is $1.25 million, and then we've got $4 million worth of remediation works. Councillor Jurisevic: We'd both get some benefit out of it, correct? Councillor Wegener: You know, for people viewing that maybe not have read these reports, on page 42, it says that this has attracted both state and national attention. It has already won the following awards, the Best Project in Local Government in Queensland for Collaboration in 2019, and the National Local Government Professional Australia Federation Award in 2019 in Partnerships and Collaboration. So I think that's, you know, I always, you always wonder when it's time to celebrate.

02:43:00 And I just, every single little thing, good thing that happens that comes along, I always want to make sure that it's noted. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. Tom, would you like to move this motion so you can talk to it? If we need to. It sounded like you were talking to the motion. Councillor Wegener: I was, oh yeah, I don't know what. I just have a motion. Did I move the motion? Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Continue, please. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks for those 60 words. Councillor Wegener: No, sorry, I guess I lost track there a little bit. But, you know, this is a very, very successful project so far. And, um, so people that are, you know, learning about this for the first time, it's already come a long ways. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor McKinnon. Mayor Stewart: Can I just ask a question about the funding? Um, Brett, it's probably a question for you. The, just in regards to the NPA, um, the second annual instalment of, this is page 40 of the agenda, the second annual instalment of $125,000 is on track for payment in October 2020. Yep. And then for the rehabilitation component, NPA will contribute $125,000 per year for five years to assist, that is separate to the $125,000 in cash.

02:44:00 Speaker 4: And that's similar to us, so there's obligations in year six for that rehabilitation. Mayor Stewart: Yep, okay. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 6: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, as it's a, I know we've used groundbreaking laws. Or game-changing, um, a fair bit these days, but this is one. Um, I, as an ongoing councillor, I apologise for saying something I've said many times before, but when I was lecturing down at the USC, one of the tutorials I did was to get the students to look at the whole of the Sunshine Coast and say, where are the priority areas to build regional nature corridors? And about 90% of students, even though they were probably first or second year environmental science and planning students, came up with this corridor. Okay. One of the highest priorities for a regional corridor on the Sunshine Coast.

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:45:00 Not only links coast to hinterland, it links into regional scale, um, networks that go, allow species to move under current conditions and what might be more importantly, it adds increased elevation so that as species habitats change, as climate changes, that we may see, um, those that are controlled by, uh, various different dynamics within the environment may have more of a chance of changing. It is something that has immense environmental values, but it also is one that will connect and have the potential to connect the Noosa Trail network between coast and sea as well, and there's also, um, significant opportunity, uh, to make linkages between Pomona, Lake MacDonald and Boring Point, uh, through this corridor for walkers and, um, suppliers and mountain bike riders, and I think that's one of opportunities that we're going to be able to make through this corridor for walkers and, um, suppliers and mountain bike riders, and I think that's one opportunity that we will be, something that the committee and council can look at into the future, um, as this project progresses.

02:46:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, any other councillors, councillor Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I concur with those, those thoughts. I mean, one of the things when we undertook this project, uh, was, we foresaw that, uh, there would be opportunity here for external, uh, uh, entities wanting to, uh, to enter in to, to help fund, uh, restoration projects in here, and here we have, uh, you know, the CEO having an in-principle proposal by Green Fleet to undertake, uh, environmental remediation in this area. I think that's a, that's a wonderful thing. It just shows the value that, uh, a project like this and other ecological, uh, restoration projects that we're undertaking within our council area hold within the, uh, the community and, uh, and the nation overall, and the opportunity that, uh, that will derive for stakeholder engagement from, uh, from sources that we, uh, probably aren't even aware of as yet. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Um. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I just have a question for staff.

02:47:00 Yeah. On the, um, page 41 of 46 of the plan. Yeah. That's on the planning and environment committee meeting agenda. Uh, second paragraph from the bottom, we're discussing the ringtail area, um, a southern year old forest. It says the more recently harvestered pine areas are showing positive sign of natural regeneration. Absolutely. Can you tell us what you've seen so far? Sure. Speaker 1: So most of the, um, the regrowth. Councillor Wilkie: Excuse me, Peter, um, just so you can be heard, would you like to come up to the table please? Councillor Finzel: Because Peter, I drive past it every day, so I just want to get some really good insight into that. Speaker 1: You improved. Me too. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 1: So the regrowth is coming back really well, but it is of only a few different species. Mm-hmm. So typically it's pioneer species that come back first. So things like waddles and alpha tonias and garnier type species. So the aim of the, um, restoration is to try and get more diversity into the landscape

02:48:00 there, particularly with, with koala feed trees. So that's why it's important to follow up, um, with tree planting, such as the community tree planting day. Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. Just add to that, um, sort of walk all that area, um, as you're turning into year old forest drive there. So at that end, the level of regrowth is astonishing. Mm-hmm. It really is. Um, and that was the first area they harvested. When was that? Late last year? Speaker 1: Uh, yeah, probably two, two, at least two, three years ago. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. But the level of regrowth in there is pretty amazing. Mm-hmm. So, but that, um, soil and, and area up there is a lot wetter as well. Mm-hmm. So the regrowth should come back pretty well. We were actually a bit worried when we looked at this project three years ago what that regrowth would be like down at that southern area, the further, area furthest away from,

02:49:00 um, from Pomona. Mm-hmm. But it's actually come up much, much better than we thought. Oh, that's good. That's been good. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll add, there's another environmental outcome there. The level of illegal dumping in the area has decreased sufficiently, uh, uh, uh, tremendously since, uh, since, uh, the, uh, logging break, uh, program has been undertaken. Speaker 4: It was one of the unknowns when we did the project what the level of regrowth, natural regrowth would be, which is why we had that funding in there. Um, and the longer this project goes, the more level of comfort we're getting. Mm-hmm. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So, um. Go on, Karen. It's free to speak if you want. So is that where the green tree group will come in and help with the replanting of trees in that area that we're discussing? Yeah, Greenfleet will cover both. Speaker 4: Oh, Greenfleet. Yeah. That's all right. Um. Greenfleet will cover both the pine areas, which are the areas that have been harvested by HQ Plantations at the moment. Mm-hmm. But there's also hardwood areas which, um, are subject to State Forest, which, uh, contractors on behalf of the Department of Forestry are going through. Um, and they will also do those areas.

02:50:00 The Council has no obligation to touch those areas. We only have an obligation to deal with the pine areas. Mm-hmm. So the Greenfleet proposal, the attractive part about that, it will look at, um, doing restoration work in that hardwood area as well. Oh. And one of the reasons that that's important is in the hardwood areas, there is a lot of, um, growth, sorry, a lot of forest that was planted called Kimpy Messmate, which is a type of, um, particular type of tree. Um. Coincidentally, they use that for telegraph poles and things like that. It's a very straight hardwood. Um. So, um, when that's harvested, it tends to coppice and it will come back and, and become, um, reseed itself, so to speak. A dominant species. It becomes a dominant species. And so one of the tricks will be when we're going through doing the, um, doing the hardwood areas, early we can get Greenfleet in there to do planting that deals with or stops that re-coppicing, but also gets the diversity into that area.

02:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, um, that's a question that I'm not meant to say. Um. Interesting. In terms of the role of Greenfleet, my understanding is their money is coming from offsetting the carbon emissions from the corporate and government vehicle fleets. So in essence, we're exchanging our natural asset value of Noosa for climate change mitigation elsewhere. Is that what the likely source of funds is from? Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, they get, um, you can go onto their website, have a look on Greenfleet's website and list out companies that do provide funding to them so they can plant forest so that those companies can offset their, their carbon requirements. Um. I'm trying to think of one. Oh, Europecar I saw on the other day. Yeah. So, you know, like you can tick a box when you hire a car from Europecar to offset. So that's where they put their funding through. So yes, in a nutshell, what they're doing is getting corporate donors to provide money to them if they're not for profit and then go and plant forest to offset those private company emissions. Okay.

02:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: In terms of the, um, the recommendation before us, I'm, I not only authorise the CEO, I'd like to commend and thank the CEO and encourage him to continue negotiations with the existing partners, especially Greenfleet, which looks like it's bringing an investment of $4 million into this community for rehabilitation. Which is an enormous investment and also a great cost saving to ratepayers. So thank you, Mr. CEO. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. CEO, I believe there's also these significant contributions from other, uh, commercial entities that have already contributed to the project. Speaker 4: Yes. So far, um, there's been other philanthropic organisations who've heard about the project and got involved. Um, so one of those is the Body Shop, um, from the UK and then the Australian Body Shop, they're a separate company, but both have philanthropic arms, have both, um, donated, I think between them, about $125,000 towards tree planting out there so far. Um, and similarly, I think Peppers Noosa has also been raising some funds, um, that they

02:53:00 have people come and, uh, check in, they can donate to the local environment, um, and those funds are also, um, gonna be available for planting trees out there. Councillor Wilkie: With trees for tourism? I think that was the third one. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: That's another one. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. I think the Peppers grew into the broader tree. Yeah. Peppers and the trees for tourism, I think. I think the literacy notes were quite nice. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Mm. Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion before Tom closes? If he wishes? Tom, do you have anything else you wish to say? Councillor Wegener: Well, uh, this is such a great project, uh, for many reasons, but one of the partnerships that it has, um, developed with and helped pay for everything, and so, it's a, I think it's something that, that this, um, our council will just continually do is working with other organizations so that one plus one equals three, and, um, especially here with that, um, Noosa Parks Association working that closely with that, that, uh, that group who have put an enormous amount of money towards this. Who nobody's on the payroll and is an entirely voluntary group, you know, is, is pretty substantial.

02:54:00 I think that, in a way, we should be commending that effort as well, because then when I read it, I just go, oh my God, you know, that, that's a lot of money for a community group to be putting towards this. Yep. It seems to me. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor. We're going to nose in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Peter. Speaker 4: Thanks, Peter. I thank Peter for the work he's done. He's tramped every part of that block as well. So he'll, um, he's organising for the councillors who are interested to come out and have a, a tour in a couple of weeks. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, yes, please. Councillor Wegener: Yes, please. Speaker 4: Yes, yes. Can we do it on . Councillor Wegener: You've got an advantage there. Electric bike. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We'll go, uh, now to item four, which is a report direct to general committee, which is an update on council's grant funding allocations, which has been quite substantial. Speaker 4: Council, just, um, there's a lot of really good news in this report. Um, I just want to give you a small bit of bad news. Oh. Um, you said that there's a lot of, um, great money we've got, but one I just want to flag. The Hinderland Tracks and Trails, um, will put in a grant application for $1.3 million

02:55:00 to the state. Did you do it? We thought we were going to be pretty good for it. Mm. The funding pool is $25 million across Queensland. Mm. They have $528 million worth of applications. Oh. So we didn't make the, the cut. Oh. But they've told us that we can hang on, they'll hang on to our application. If they have another round, we'll be in, into that round. Sure. But, um, I couldn't believe it. $528 million worth of applications for a $25 million grant fund. Wow. So, interesting. Councillor Lorentson: Low probability. Yeah. Speaker 4: Three or down. I still thought we'd be good. We've had a good run. A lot of, a lot of shovels of the red. Yeah. Yeah. I just thought I'd bring up, that's, got that advice since I wrote this report, so. Councillor Finzel: Mm. Yeah. Thank you, Brett. Good morning. Good morning. Can I have a little more? Councillor Wilkie: So, Brett, just to quali-, uh, qualify, a lot of these grants have been applied for, but not necessarily granted yet. But you're pretty confident that they will be granted? Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, um, some of them have. So, the Works for Queensland, we've got the letter back confirming that that list has

02:56:00 been approved. Yep. Um, I think, and I might stand corrected, I'll be able to clarify on Thursday night if I'm wrong, the Unite and Recover one, we're still waiting for, but we're not expecting any issues out of that. Yep. Um, but we don't know yet of the extra projects we're putting in to try and get additional funding in the Unite and Recover, how they're going. So, that's there to be unknown as well. But certainly the Works for Queensland one got the big tick. And the Unite and Recover one, we're just waiting for confirmation. I don't expect any issues with what are called the base $2 million funding. And then we'll see how we go with the three additional projects we put in to try and get extra funding on top of that. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors, any questions or comments? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the start. Councillor Wilkie: Someone move it? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the start. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Stewart. Who wants to speak to it, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: A lot of gaps, yeah, in challenging times. I mean, we've had to tighten our belts, and a lot of capital projects wouldn't be, and maintenance projects wouldn't get undertaken without the generosity of the state and federal

02:57:00 governments, with regard to the funding that they've been providing for councils and communities around the country. So, we thank them very much for their contribution. There's some very valuable projects in here, and one that I find great solace is we're finally going to be able to provide additional crisis accommodation for shine houses out of this. There's some great outcomes coming out of this, and work's progressing on towards sports conflicts master plan. That's just a couple of highlights. Mayor Stewart: Yep. Thank you. To the Queensland Government, we say a big thank you. Noosa Shire has been the beneficiary of substantial funds, $1.83 million under the Works for Queensland program, and $2 million under the Unite and Recover project. Combine these monies with the $790,000 we received from the Federal Government under the COVID-19 local road and community infrastructure grant program, facilitated through our local member, Lou O'Brien. Noosa is in a very sound position when it comes to being able to implement and progress with

02:58:00 vital infrastructure and shovel-ready projects for our Shire. The outline of the projects in the agenda just highlight the depth and breadth of community benefit which we will receive. We are incredibly grateful for these funds and the injection of jobs, infrastructure into our community. The monies will make a huge difference to our community at a grassroots level. Although we are incredibly grateful, there is still more that we can do. There is still more funding to be advocated for, projects to promote, and a town to continue to go into bat book at both a state and federal level. Council has an opportunity to continue to lobby both state and federal governments for increased funds. Noosa Shire as we know it has been hit incredibly hard by COVID-19, harder than most Shires as we are a tourist town. Over 4,500 people in our community are on JobSeeker, as I have stated, one of the largest percentage-wise, if not the largest in Queensland. Our people are hurting and they will hurt even more when JobKeeper finishes. Successful lobbying of increased funds to provide more jobs, more infrastructure and more benefit to our community is something which I see as a priority and something which

02:59:00 I see as imperative. As a Council, we are also incredibly grateful to all staff for their hard work, dedication and resilience in having shovel-ready projects ready in anticipation of funding. Similarly as all projects are required to be completed by June 2021, it is this same Council and this same staff that will have the job of implementing and completing the projects in the required time. Again no easy feat and we acknowledge that and are very grateful to them. So to finish, we say thank you once again for the support shown at a state and federal level and the support shown by our staff. There is more to achieve and much to do, but I have full confidence that we are up to the challenge. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to acknowledge the commitment of Council staff in having the shovel-ready projects ready in anticipation of all this funding and also thank the Council staff in listening to the Councillors when we asked that the funding get spread across the entire Shire, in particular hinterlander fairies.

180 minutes in

03:00:00

03:00:00 Speaker 4: Would you happen to deliver them now? Yes. Mayor Stewart: Yes. Yes. No wonder Carl's on holidays. Yes. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: That'll lead into Trent's next report about the Overtime Budget Goals. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to reiterate Councillor Lorentson's comments, thank the staff, the CEO for the work they had to do on very short notice to get these projects applied for and also for the CEO and the Mayor for putting their best foot forward on behalf of Noosa Council to the State and the Federal Government to help get these grants. Any other Councillors wish to speak? Who wish to close, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reiterate the thoughts of yourself and Councillor Lorentson in regard to thanking the staff for their diligence in having these projects ready and yeah, I mean, part of the funding and the timelines, I know that there was an element of expectation from the community to have an input into what these funds went to but given the tight timelines that we were constrained to, I mean, decisions had to be made in-house and so I thank the

03:01:00 staff for having so many wonderful projects at the ready to be undertaken that will benefit our community for years to come. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. We now go on to Item 5, Report Directed to the General Committee, which is the final financial report, performance report from Trent Graff, who's back out of traction after recovering from the budget preparation. That's right. Speaker 3: What makes it a good report? Councillor Wilkie: Afternoon, Councillors. Speaker 3: Afternoon. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors, comments, questions for Mr Trent? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll start with a question. Joe? Interest received. Interest on overdue rates and charges, $107,000 above annual budget. Is this an interesting indicator for potentially what lies ahead? Are we getting an increase in overdue rates and charges that we're having to charge for the accumulating interest? Speaker 3: Councillor, I think what will help with answering that question is on page 22. Page 22. Page 22.

03:02:00 That's it, one step ahead of me there. In our key performance indicators, we also report what our rates and arrears are currently tracking at. So, you'll see at present we are at 6.5 per cent. I do believe this time last year, we were slightly lower than that, at about 5.5 per cent. So, yes, we do have a slight increase year on year, but as you can see, it is cyclical. We won't know the true extent of how that looks until after this current rates arrears, which is going out this week. Councillor Jurisevic: So, this will be an indicator, but we'll let this paper watch that figure. Correct. Speaker 4: That's why that's incorporated in the reports now. That'll be one of the things the Council's got to keep an eye on. So, you'll probably know by the end of September, will be the one. Councillor Wilkie: Correct. But for the benefit of those listening at home, rate arrears payments have been put on hold? Correct. Yes. So, how long do we know? How long will they be put on hold for? I'd have to take that on notice, Councillor. Yes. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Keep going. Keep going, Joe. Yes. Sorry. Development application costs, $276,000 above annual budget.

03:03:00 The question I was going to ask, but I think it's answered in the next bit, is that due to legal costs. But the next item below talks about development assessment legal appeal costs, $366,000 above budget. So, the application costs, what's driving that? Is it just more applications coming in? Larger applications? Speaker 3: Larger applications, Councillor. So, we separated the commentary there. One is about the cost of legal appeals and the consultants and the legal costs associated with that. And separately is the actual cost of assessing the applications. So obviously, in the latter half of this year, we had some quite large applications come through. And whether they come to fruition or not, there's obviously costs to assess that involved during the year. Councillor Jurisevic: And the next item is the landfill restoration version, $3.1 million above budget. I'm assuming that's because we're bringing forward the next sale? Speaker 3: A little bit, but it's not primarily due to this. This is one of these annual end of year accounting adjustments we make. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the part I didn't understand. So, can you please explain the annual accounting adjustment? Speaker 3: So in finance costs, the obvious one with finance costs is interest on our loans.

03:04:00 But the other element to it is what we call a landfill restoration provision, where we set aside money for the future costs of restoring. And we're covering, capping, monitoring of our landfill sites. Now with the current estimates on the landfill, it could be operational up until around 2070. Now the cost is quite substantial to do that, and it's not only from 2070 onwards. It's every few years as each of the sets sells themselves, which is the end of their life. So we're due for some in the next five years. If you saw. It was adopted in the 10 year capital works plan next year. Up until 2070, and they'll be ongoing monitoring beyond that. So in terms of ensuring that we don't burden a future generation of rate payers with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of repatriation and restoration costs associated with the

03:05:00 landfill, we've worked out what that cost will be over the next 70 years. And we've averaged that cost, and we feel like we set those funds aside in the provision so the money is being collected and put aside for that. Now, because it's so far in advance, we need to basically adjust for the fact that there's inflation and opportunity cost of that money sitting in the bank and earning interest. So in the last 12 months, as we know, quite a significant economic decline in those index and discount rates have dropped significantly. So we need to factor that in. So it's a one off hit. It's not often this has occurred. I think, obviously, in the last 10 years, interest rates have been quite stable in terms of that discount rate. Interesting timing going through our COVID. I know, unfortunate timing as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So does that contribute to our bottom line being as... Yes, yes. Speaker 3: And obviously, if we have in the next 18 months, if we have the economy grow or we have different

03:06:00 economic measures coming through the RBA in terms of interest rates getting contracted or expanded, then obviously the opposite will happen. If bond rates go up, then we'll have a credit adjustment in future years. So one off accounting adjustment that we do in June every year. Councillor Jurisevic: And the final one for me, page 24, capital funding, contributed assets. This time of year, I always expect the percentages at the end of that column to be somewhere near 100%, but that one's at 55%. What haven't we had contributed? What are we expecting to be contributed? So it's a million dollars. So it's part of the budget. Speaker 3: As a part of the budget, we actually, we average or we estimate what we think will come through and get put on maintenance in terms of being council assets for roads and stormwater. Year in, year out, it's difficult to estimate whether that's going to be on average, it's going to be up to $5 million or it could be as little as a million dollars. It all comes down to the timing of when the infrastructure is built and handed over to

03:07:00 council. Councillor Jurisevic: But we're aware of the infrastructure because we've approved the plans, we've approved the developments, and we're aware of the infrastructure that should be coming onto the books and some idea of timing the conclusion of these projects. Can we, do we not have a better timeline around when they are likely to come onto our books? Speaker 3: Yes and no, because they have up to two years, I believe, at least. Six. Six years between when they have approval for operational works and when that may come online. So in terms of what we find, for budgeting purposes, we use the average over the last five years. Councillor Jurisevic: So next year we may find some stuff coming on board that we're expecting, potentially expecting. Speaker 3: Last year I do believe the, it could well even drop even lower, it just depends on timing of works and applications. Proven how keen they are to get on the ground and start turning soil. Last year was much higher, 18, 19 year, I do believe it was close to $5 million. So it swings and rounds about 10 years.

03:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What we're seeing is, we ran up to a peak, and now we're in a recession, it's dropped off, so the last five years average won't be indicative of what the next five years will have in dollars. Speaker 3: It's also indicative of the type of works that are going on. So if it's a greenfield subdivision, there's obviously new roads, new parks, new stormwater. If it's infill, less so. It just depends, or if it could be a major commercial development, it just depends on the size and the scale of the works. Speaker 4: Interestingly, there hasn't been a drop off the cliff on development applications since January, February. They've been, you know, not. Well, I was just saying. Councillor Jurisevic: They're actually more than we've expected. Speaker 4: And the second is, we've got over 130 applications that have been approved out there, not talking about residential, that people can develop if they want to. So obviously they're going to be market driven. So that's what people are waiting for. Waiting for the recovery. Did you have a question? Yeah. I'm probably going to ask a bit of a Dorothy Dixer of Transchester. Council is aware of this one. On page 13, which Kylie's got up on the board there, just, you know, this is a report for

03:09:00 June about where we end up at the end of the financial year. And just to explain the difference between, you know, what our general operating deficit have been. We don't normally have an operating deficit. You know, what's happened to our revenue over the last four or five months. And what that means when we have unspent levies as well. And just how that, the difference between the operating thing and really what I call an accounting treatment of our unspent levies. I'll just get Trent to talk you through that. But it is important in terms of where we end up at the financial year. Speaker 3: So the report we have in front of you today is, it's reporting, we've got an operating surplus of $400,000. Just to qualify, that's what we call, what the report's called an interim surplus. So we won't finish all the last accounting adjustments for end of year until the QAO come in and sign off in our accounting statements in September, October. So you will get a subsequent report from finance at the end of that exercise. And it may move quite significantly between now and then as we get late invoices come through.

03:10:00 We're still finalising year end. But at the moment, we're sitting at a $300,000 surplus, sorry, $400,000 surplus, which is higher than what we anticipated, particularly in the report casting work that we had done around COVID. Now, it's important to understand that there's two aspects, or broken up into two key aspects. One is about our general business position, and the other one is about our levies. So for a lot of our levies, for example, environment levy and heritage levy, where we're setting aside unspent funds that we've levied during the year for future capital or future investment purposes, it does mean that in any one year, we may not spend that entire levy. Or we could be spending it on capital. So it's below the line. It's not free cash. It's not free cash. That's right. So embedded in that $400,000 surplus is an element of constraint cash. It's not available. So the second table that we've included there on page 13 breaks that up to show that we

03:11:00 are, in terms of our general business, what's funded through fees and charges, regulatory fees, rates, and any other general income. We're running at, our interim position is an $800,000 deficit. It's not available. Councillor Jurisevic: It's only available for certain. Speaker 3: But for the funds that we're talking about, that's what it's constrained for. That's right. Whereas there is, at present, $1.2 million constrained cash that we've set aside. Councillor Jurisevic: And as far as our capital expenditure goes, are we still expecting more invoices to come in there? Are they 6.2 to- Correct. We are. We'll get better than that 20%. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. I do believe that will be the case. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. I'm sorry, Brian. You go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On that same table, I look at operating revenue and capital revenue. And I see operating revenue, the variance is only $1.5 million. But when I look in the report on operating revenue, I don't see just $1.5 million.

03:12:00 I see about $2.3 million below budget in when you can buy feeds and charges, sales of goods and services, and rent or lease. All those things that were affected by COVID. And I can't see how I get from 2.3. And I know there's a couple others in mind, the above. So is there something I'm missing? Because it looks inconsistent between the table on page 15 and the table there. So I do do a quick look at them. Scroll down to table 15. Unless there's something missed out that was over budget, $1.5 million is being undressed on. Speaker 4: The operating grant is $500 to $400 up. So just go through each of those and have a look at them. Speaker 3: The other place to look, Councillor, would be on in attachment one, which is on page 24. Which breaks up those line items. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there might be more that's not in that table. Got you. I suppose the substance of the question is. It appears that about $2.3 million over the financial year as a result of reduced rental

03:13:00 and lease, reduced community facilities and holiday parks, and reduced fees and charges or some sort of land use permits is about the current cost in terms of income of COVID. Speaker 3: Correct. Now, obviously, within some of that is there are some areas that. Up until the point COVID-19 pandemic started to impact operations, we may have been above budget. So there's been a bit of offset in that for some areas. Example could be for the aquatic centre. The J was going. The J was actually doing quite well this year. And then conversely, in some areas such as disposal fees for waste facilities is slightly under. Councillor Wilkie: Just on. Can I ask questions on here? On page 24, the statement of income and expenditure. Finance costs look like it was a jump from what was budgeted for $1.5 million to $4.6 million,

03:14:00 which is 307% of the annual budget. Can you explain that anomaly? Has that got anything to do with paying a large amount of debt? Speaker 3: No, this was what Councillor Jurisevic mentioned earlier about those landfill restoration costs, where when we work out how much cash we need to set aside in reserve as a provision for future landfill restoration. If interest rates fluctuate significantly, then we need to adjust for that. And the only place under accounting standards that we put that cost is into finance costs. So it's a one-off adjustment that we do at the end of the financial year. It's not real cash out the door. Speaker 6: Nothing to do with borrowings? No. Speaker 3: Nothing to do with borrowings. It's just classified as an accounting adjustment as finance costs. But our finance costs themselves in terms of our loans are basically on track with budget because we know at the start of the year what our debt is. Councillor Jurisevic: I didn't think we'd borrow any more.

195 minutes in

03:15:00

03:15:00 Speaker 3: I was trying to work out what the debt was. No. And our interest rates are fixed. So it's actually quite an easy exercise in terms of matching the budget for finance costs. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And page 25, the statement of financial position. It looks like we budgeted to finish 2020 with cash and cash equivalents of $43 million. The actual is $56 million. Why the discrepancy there? Discrepancy? Speaker 3: There's a couple of things there. I mean, it looks good. Councillor Wilkie: It's a good discrepancy. Speaker 3: A couple of big ones. One is, as we just talked about, those unspent levies. So there's $1.2 million of unspent levies above and beyond what we expect to. Councillor Wilkie: We're looking at $13 million here. Yeah. Speaker 3: In addition to that, we're currently... What was our capital expenditure? Councillor Jurisevic: Capital 6.2. Speaker 3: That's right. So there's over $6 million of unspent capital. Yes. Which if we... If there's no late invoices that are going to come through in the next few weeks, that would all be carried over and be our one budget review.

03:16:00 So it's already committed. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Speaker 3: And in addition to that, if you look at some of the graphs on operating and capital grants, you'll see that our grants on both operating and capital are above budget. The most obvious of those is the FIRE... The $1.275 million. Correct. FIRE grant. So which is committed to spend this year as well. So whilst the cash is coming in the 19-20 year, we're committed to spend that in the subsequent year. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Does someone care to move the motion? I'll move the motion. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic. We have a seconder, Councillor Lorentson. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Thank you, Trent, for all the precise and precise information that you bring before us. A challenging year that we've had. It's a challenging year ahead to try and keep our heads above the high water mark with all of these figures. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors?

03:17:00 No, thank you, Trent. I know you've had a large part in preparing two budgets for us this year, so thank you. Yes, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks, Wigan. Did we vote on it? He's speaking to us. I'm sorry. Can I speak? I thought you were closing. Councillor Wilkie: That's it. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sorry. The Honourable Councillor was very good. My apologies, I thought he was completing the meeting. My apologies. Councillor Wilkie: No, no. Would you wish to close, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: No, nothing further. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Put the motion. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thanks a lot, Trey. Thanks, Trey. Councillor Jurisevic: I've only got my apology. Yes, okay. Councillor Wilkie: Last one. Now we have a confidential item. We need to move that the meeting go into confidential session. It be closed to the public pursuant to section 22751F and G of the Local Government Regulation 212

03:18:00 for the purpose of discussing General Committee Agenda Item 6, Planning and Environment Court Appeal, number BD1605 of 220, regarding refusal of application for a minor change to development approval to reconfigure a lot, 52 lots in part, at 191 Pollard Road, Noosaville. It's moved by Councillor Stockwell. Do we have a seconder for that, please? Seconder, Councillor Stewart. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously.

210 minutes in

03:30:00

03:31:00 Okay. We're back into open session. Council, we have a motion before us. Does anyone care to... Well, I'll read it out. And the motion is that Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee meeting dated 13th July 2020 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal, number BD1605 of 2020 and A,

03:32:00 agreed to allow the appeal as the proposed changes to the subdivision plan would be an approved outcome for the site in comparison with the approved subdivision plan given the changes reduce the development's footprint and number of lots from 52 to 40. B, note that in relation to the four other current Planning and Environment Appeals over the site, allowing this appeal would not undermine these appeals or Council's position that any subdivision of the land is inappropriate and, fundamentally, conflicts the Noosa Plan and the State's planning requirements for the site. Anyone care to move that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll have to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move by Councillor Stockwell. Seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only to explain that it's a minor change to the subdivision approval. It doesn't, as we say in B, it doesn't change Council's position and our intent to...

03:33:00 To defend the appeal against the extension of time for this development. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any other councillors? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And councillors, thank you, Kerry, and thank you, Kim. I believe that's the end of the General Committee meeting for Monday, 13th of July. Councillors, thank you for your patience, your discipline, and your diligence. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your hard work.

Elsewhere on this site

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

What was said

Latest