Start of recording ¶
00:01:00 Councillor Wegener: We're good? Councillor Wilkie: Okay, I'm close, I'll turn it on. Speaker 3: Turn it on, I'll turn it on when we're ready. Councillor Jurisevic: We're ready. Speaker 3: We're good, we'll start with the video. Mayor Stewart: Good evening. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. Do I have a move for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 17th of December 2020? Thank you, Councillor Finzel and a second. Thank you, Councillor. A second. Councillor Finzel: All in favour? Carried unanimously. Mayor Stewart: There are no mayoral minutes. Item four, does anyone have any petitions? Councillor Wegener: No. Mayor Stewart: There are no petitions.
00:02:00 There are no notified motions. There are no presentations and there are no deputations. Which brings us to item eight on page four, which is the consideration of the committee reports. There were no planning and environmental services in the organisation committee meetings this month, so we go straight to the general committee recommendations. Page four of the agenda. Item one, Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation 2019-20 annual report. Item two, Noosa River stakeholder, Noosa River Plan Consultation and Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group. This item was deferred from the general committee meeting on Monday. I would like to move the motion before you on the screen. That council note the report by the committee meeting on Monday. I would like to move the motion before you on the screen. By the environment services manager and environment officer, Rivers and Coast to the general committee meeting dated 18th of January 2021 and. Note the consultation reports for the two periods of public consultation on Noosa River Plan from 20 July to 26 of August 2018 and on the 2nd of December to the 10th of January 2020.
00:03:00 B, note the draft terms of reference for the Joint Noosa Shire Council and Maritime Safety Queensland Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group. And further note, the draft terms of reference will be reviewed by the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee at its first meeting. C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make amendments to the terms of reference for the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee in consultation with Maritime Safety Queensland, following any feedback from the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. D. Request the CEO to report back to Council in March 2021 on the proposed membership of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and further request Maritime Safety Queensland to work with Council to ensure that the first meeting of the Committee occurs within one month of the finalisation of the Committee membership.
00:04:00 E. Councillor Wilkie: Can I suggest that Councillor Stewart's name is inserted there, please? Speaker 3: It's up to the Mayor to determine whether they're happy with that. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Stewart: Appoint Councillor Stewart to be an observer at meetings of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. F. Acknowledge and welcome the permanent presence of Maritime Safety Queensland in Noosa and resolve that, while MSQ maintains an active presence, Noosa Shire Council no longer seeks to take over management of anchoring, mooring and living on board on the Noosa River. Speaker 3: E. You just need a second. Mayor Stewart: The River issue is one which is of utmost importance to our community and so it should be. It is an incredibly important part of our Shire. This motion was deferred from Monday's meeting so we could obtain further information and have further discussions. We did and we have. We met with MSQ yesterday and I believe it was a very productive meeting and we are all very heartened by the
00:05:00 reaffirmation of their commitment to the River and our Shire and I thank them for that and particularly Angus Mitchell, the new GM of MSQ and Sue and Greg for their time, encouragement and support. The words draft and further review and others have been deliberately added to this motion. I spoke of the addition of these on Monday so I won't rehash. I will however say that all here are in agreement and acutely aware of the fact that we need meaningful and significant input from stakeholders and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Indeed many around this table have spoken to stakeholders who are all passionate about the river. I don't protest to have the answers to the River problems but I know many who do and I believe that their input, their advice
00:06:00 and their feedback will drive our plan forward. Everyone around this table wants to get this right. That is an agreed fact. We have all all have the River's best interests at heart. We may just not agree I want to thank all councillors around this table for their input and their discussions and their hard work on this issue. I know that our opinions may differ on this one, but we are all coming from the same place, and that is a place of wanting, needing to get this right, to get our river right. Now, what is proposed isn't necessarily perfect. Indeed, the word draft ensures that. However, the motion put up tonight expedites the process. We get the relevant and necessary stakeholders in a room ASAP, and we get them talking, and we get them advising us on what needs to be done in regard to our river management, river usage, protection of our river, sewerage problems in our river, moorings in our river, environmental impacts on our river, and so forth.
00:07:00 Negotiating an outcome is never easy, and for me, and I dare say to the people around this table, leadership isn't easy at times like this. It involves making the tough decisions. We must have conviction in these decisions. We must believe that what we are doing will be the best way forward. As for the motion before us, to clarify, and it should be noted that this draft terms of reference is a moving document. It was always intended to be. It can be flexible, changed and adapted, and no doubt it will be, and that is a good thing. Indeed, I would like to see at some point an independent chair. I would like to see that occur, but I would like that chair to be decided upon by the stakeholder group, not decided by us as a council here tonight. I would like to empower the stakeholder committee to be able to do this at their discretion if they saw fit. Yet for now, for the time being, what is before us provides us with certainty in many respects. Certainty that we have the support of MSQ regarding the document as it currently stands.
00:08:00 Certainty that we can get all stakeholders to support it. Certainty that we can work with MSQ and with our advisory committee to achieve best outcomes for our community. I'd also acknowledge and like to thank Councillor Wilkie for the recommendation. I'm happy to accept being an observer on the advisory group. I also note that there are others around the table who would like to be an observer. So I'm happy that this is on a rotational basis. And everyone and whoever is interested. Has at some point that opportunity. But thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment to include. B. Request Maritime Safety Queensland to agree to amend the draft terms of reference to increase the number of committee members up to 12.
00:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that for the purpose of the debate. Councillor Lorentson: I give one second. Thank you. Traditional Water Management toization to allow inclusion out of this amendment. To increase the number of stakeholder members from 10 to 12 up to 12. My reasons is to allow inclusion of other groups not currently identified in terms of reference such as riparian landowners, resident and community associations. Or accredited Brown autobiography andhores regulation. ural. Councillor Lorentson: Residents of reference are not in my opinion the only stakeholders of the Noosa River. We all are. Rate payers and residents, if you pay rates, levies, in my opinion, you should be represented. If you're a resident, you should be represented. We're all custodians of the Noosa River and its catchment.
00:10:00 We have in this community residents with governance, board experience, residents who own property along the river or near the river. Residents who have lived in waterways on the Gold Coast, Western Australia, New South Wales, scientists and business people. We need different perspectives and we need balanced outcomes. Finally, this group is still small enough, in my opinion, to deliver outcomes and big enough to allow a more balanced representation of commercial, environmental and community interests. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Aston. Would anyone else like to speak to that at the moment? Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I won't speak against it. I think it doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be 12 members. It's only suggesting that the committee could determine their numbers up to and including 12. And if there's a scope there to incorporate, rather than the number of members, the number of residents.
00:11:00 In the current process, which is 10, if there is a need or an opportunity to incorporate other sectors or other groups that have a valid input, I'm prepared to see that number represented. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: If there is a question for the environmental manager, I note that this body of work is going to be facilitated by not just Noosa Council, but also Marine Safety Queensland. The two organisations involved, and I appreciate Councillor Lorentson's amendments, is up to 12. From what you understand about the working relationship you have with MSQ, is that likely to cause a difficulty with a change like that? Speaker 4: I'd have to put it to Maritime Safety Queensland. It wouldn't, I imagine, be a really significant issue. As you can imagine, the challenge of deciding on a number is always somewhat arbitrary.
00:12:00 It's a matter of getting a balance between getting genuine representation and having too many people around the table that you can't reach a decision. So the 10 number was chosen on balance. I'd be more than happy to present 12 to Maritime Safety Queensland for their consideration. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to that? I just have a question regarding that. If this goes back for an amendment to MSQ, how long will that process take, just to make this one small change? Speaker 4: It'll depend on the nature of other amendments to the meeting tonight. We have an ongoing verbal discussion with Maritime Safety Queensland, so I'll get an informal opinion quite quickly. But it probably takes perhaps a few days per week. They don't need to go to their minister. They just need to go through to their general manager. Their general manager happens to be in Noosa for the next five or six days, so potentially we could find out quite quickly.
00:13:00 Councillor Finzel: I just have another question with regards to the committee members and the numbers of the groups, because it does say that we have up to 10 stakeholders. Six have been identified with the idea that we can attract some other potential people to be on the committee. On the section under subcommittees on page 40, can you explain a little bit more about the formation of subcommittees in the working group and how that has the potential to attract other users and other interested groups or people once this group is set up, please? Speaker 4: The intent is that the stakeholder group themselves would work on the absolute detail and how they want the subcommittee put together. We don't have a program to work, but our intent in including it in the terms of reference was that people with a particular interest would be able to go off and bring in other stakeholders in the community outside of the core group to be able to provide input to issues of specific interest
00:14:00 and then bring it back to the broader group. It would be the intent that only the members of the core group would have voting rights, for lack of a better word, around the table, but they would go out and seek broader input on key issues. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, Craig. Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the points are valid in that when we look at the current draft terms of reference, there is a abbreviated list of sector interests. When I cast my mind to what all the key stakeholder interests are that would be potentially involved in implementing a river plan, and therefore it would be good to get their advice in the priorities for the river plan, I come up with about 12, and they're the commercial interests, the commercial fishes as one sector, the commercial boating as another sector, the commercial river operators as another, and the tourism industry more generally. The community interests, which are recreational fishes, recreational boating, recreational river users,
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 resident associations, catchment and NRM groups, conservation groups, and the people who actually have some form of ownership in these areas, so the Kabi Kabi First Nations people who's got the additional land rights over the land and water in the catchment, and the riparian landholders, which is more looking at the key issues up the catchment. I think the other aspect is while I appreciate a smaller group is likely to come to consensus in more readily, one of the models that this may go down under the current format is to have two subcommittees, one doing river use and one doing river health issues. It makes perfect sense to have about six sector interests in each of those feeding into the deliberations, and for that reason I do support that it gives the option of going up to 12. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this amendment?
00:16:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, Council of Stockwell did mention the groups identified on page 38, which summarises being six. Groups, but the first one is commercial and recreational fishing. By my reading, is that intended to be two groups represented in that one line, commercial fishing and recreational fishing? And similarly for the second line, commercial boating and recreational boating, rather than to represent one group per line there? Speaker 4: No, the list on the terms of reference was not intended to include every potential sector that might be involved, but absolutely there would be no expectation that one representative would cover commercial and recreational fishing. They're very different sectors, the same with boating and the same with two operators. So they were simply put that way for expediency on the terms of reference. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this amendment?
00:17:00 I have a question. Councillor Wegener: Quick, quick question. Craig, so on the six or up under the 12, NICA, it seems to be a bit of a different category altogether or a different group because, unlike the other ones, they're more of the muscle. They're actually going to be doing a lot of the work. It would be better, would NICA, could we include NICA in that group, or do you think that's important, or are they just assumed to be there? Speaker 4: The intent of the terms of reference was not to name specific groups but named sectors, recognising that some sectors have no group that represents them and other sectors have multiple. I would consider, within the existing terms of reference, that NICA would sit within the conservation and natural resource management section. So under no circumstances would I expect they would not qualify under that list, even though, as I said, that list was not intended to be exclusive. Mayor Stewart: Does that answer your question? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, thank you.
00:18:00 Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this? Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'm going to support this amendment. The reason why I do support it is it specifies it doesn't mandate 12. It says it gives the stakeholder advisory group the latitude to select up to 12 if they so choose. And I note that on the groups listed on page 38, there are quite a number of groups already listed there. There's commercial fishing interests. There's recreational fishing interests as well as commercial boating interests, recreational boating interests, conservation interests, natural resource management interests, commercial operators on the river, of which there are many. Tourism operates. There are many traditional owners, indigenous community, Kabi Kabi. So there are quite a few representatives could fall out of those categories that we see before us there. And this doesn't mandate 12. It just gives the group more latitude. And I'm hoping and I appreciate that the manager has to go back to MSQ
00:19:00 to get their consent to that. And I'm hoping it won't gum up the works. So it's that point. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Whitton? Okay. I will put the... Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon. Speaker 3: Councillor Whitton. Mayor Stewart: No, everything's been said. Thanks. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Cathy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move another small amendment. That's item A to be deleted. And Cathy, before I proceed, can you note that the last item B can now be an item N in terms of up to 12 representatives?
00:20:00 So that's number one of the amendments that just... That becomes the last item. The last item. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. I was just looking for the last one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Okay. So I'll read it out. That items B to E be deleted and replaced with new items B to M as follows. The council agreed to the establishment of a joint noose of remittance. Let's see. I'm going to take one and see if I can see it. I'm a little worried about that. Anyway, that's the first item, in part one. The council agreed to the establishment of a joint noose of remittance to ensure that the dam is not turned off. The council agreed to the establishment of a joint noose of remittance. C. Adopt the following purpose, aims and objectives to guide the operation of the advisory group.
00:21:00 Purpose. The purpose of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee is to engage key community stakeholders with demonstrated local knowledge and expertise to provide strategic input, objective advice and recommendations regarding the sustainable use, conservation and management of the Noosa Riverlands catchment. This advice is to inform the decisions and priorities of both Noosa Council and the Queensland Government. NRSAC is not a decision making body. Advice and recommendations provided by NRSAC made to relevant managers and agencies are therefore non-binding. Aims and objectives. To facilitate an equitable forum to discuss matters relevant to the management of the Noosa River that considers the ecological, social and economically sustainable use of the river and its catchment. To prioritise key issues in the Noosa River and catchment and recommend potential solutions to address them. To provide timely and considerate advice on the sustainable use, management and conservation of the Noosa River system.
00:22:00 To establish clear lines of communication between management agencies and river user groups and both understand the basis and breadth of each other's views. To effectively engage local Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people and bring a First Nations perspective to ongoing management of the Noosa River and its catchment. Amend the draft Terms of Reference to more fully identify Council's mandate and therefore the scope of the issues and advice upon which it seeks input from the Committee to include the following description. Noosa Shire Council has responsibilities to plan and manage catchment related issues that potentially impact the Noosa River. This includes management of the diffuse land-based sources of contamination, for example those related to the impact of poor land, wetland and riparian management, as well as degradation from inappropriate land use and vegetation management. Council also has an increasing investment in the rehabilitation of aquatic and estuarine habitats.
00:23:00 The Environment and Sustainable Living Policy, Noosa Environment Strategy, Social Strategy, Local Economic Plan and draft Noosa River Management Plan set out the principles, goals, strategies, targets and outcomes that guide Council and community action to enhance the health of the river and the management decisions regarding its sustainable use. E. Adopt the following more comprehensive list as a desired stakeholder group to be represented on the Advisory Committee noting that the person may have interest in more than one sector and the draft Terms of Reference be amended accordingly. I just read out those so I'm going to take them as read in the last debate. F. Amend the draft Terms of Reference to require the community interests and land and water owner sectors must represent the majority of the advisory group members. G. Adopt the following selection criteria for the purposes of choosing nominees for membership of the advisory group and amend the draft Terms of Reference accordingly. A. Individual nominees to experience and management issues associated with the Noosa River and its catchment.
00:24:00 B. Ability to represent community interests and communicate to as many members as possible in their ideas. C. A demonstrated track record and commitment to upholding the values and principles of sustainable river and catchment management and use. H. Amend the Terms of Reference to identify that the Noosa Shire Council will be appointed as an observer to the Advisory Committee and in this role is able to contribute to discussion but not vote on any matter. I. Request MSQ to agree to the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference and authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make the decision. The terms of reference for the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group in consultation with Marine Safety Queensland. J, request that, I think we've missed a bit.
00:25:00 Another sentence on the end of that to read, further council acknowledge that the CEO in conjunction with MSQ may agree to amend the terms of reference from time to time.
00:26:00 J, request that upon their formation the advisory committee provide their recommendation as to any amendments required to the terms of reference in relation to the structure, governance and operations of the group including, but not limited to, a, the formation of two or more standing subcommittees to deal with river health, biodiversity and or fishing priorities as well as those associated with the development of the system. B, the preferred model for the appointment or selection of chairs to the advisory group and any subcommittees. C, the frequency of meetings and the method of gaining consensus. D, the relevant sectors or expertise desirable on the committee or subcommittee. The previous motion in relation to the appointment of Councillor Stewart is now K. The previous end in terms of acknowledging and welcoming the President, President Samaritano becomes L and then adding a M which reads, advise MSQ that council reserves the right
00:27:00 to form subcommittees or other committees to deal with river related matters outside their remit and to appoint stakeholders to any such body unilaterally if so required. And then the final one would be what we just moved as an amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Just a minor. Cathy, the word from should be, is written as form and you've just typed that in I. Speaker 3: Go on, Cathy. I. Councillor Jurisevic: Reference from, time to time. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Can anyone second that? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll second that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So councillors, I won't debate, I'll explain. So item B, the change is that we agreed to establish a combined reference group. So at the moment all we're doing is noting in terms of reference. Council as yet has not agreed to go into collaboration with MSQ.
00:28:00 So this one agrees to. But it also acknowledges that MSQ has a specific set of interests and they are likely to be the highest priority. And if you look at the feedback from the community, a lot of those issues are the highest priority that we got in feedback as well. So first off, we're saying, yes, we agree to a bilateral arrangement with MSQ, but we must acknowledge that there's a whole range of river and catchment issues that our river plan is interested in that's not covered by the MSQ remit. But it would be great to get this going and then talk to other government departments how they may do something similar. So that's the second part of that change. The next one is in terms of adopting the following purpose, aims and objectives to guide the operation of the advisory group. So as the motion sits currently, we're noting a draft. We haven't actually said that this is what we want. So what I've done is by adopting this, we're saying this is really what Noosa Council wants out of this advisory group.
00:29:00 Now, the statement on purpose is very similar to what is in the terms of reference as is. It adds a few words about which reflect the initial motion which asks for this group to be formed. And it's about demonstrating the local knowledge and expertise to provide strategic input. That was one small addition. The other one is it makes it clear that the advice is to inform decisions and priorities of both Noosa Council and the Queensland Government. Otherwise, there's no change. Aims and objectives. What's called objectives and the way it was written previously was somewhat bureaucratic and it was actually outcome statements. The majority of those there is just rewording to be more a conventional objective. There is one thing taken out. The original objective is actually referred to that we seek to get the community to have collaborative action out of this group. But this is not an action group. This is an advisory group. We want to make it clear that we're not expecting this group to then to implement the action, just to provide advice.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 The terms of reference at the moment list some of the responsibilities of council. But to me, it doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't go far enough to really clearly identify where this council has already adopted or proposes to adopt under the Noose River Plan actions and responsibilities. So all that does is just really clearly specify what the head of power in our adopted policies and the draft River Plan is for this advisory group. I've already talked about why I think a broader list of stakeholders would be good to include. And the next part is just about, as I said, I think it's important that we do make sure that the community is the biggest interest sector and that they should have the majority say when it comes time to this advisory committee. In G, they are the two original selection criteria. Once again, I'm suggesting rather than having selection criteria embedded within a draft
00:31:00 terms of reference. If you go out and say, well, this is our priority. We're going to use it to select you. I've said we need to adopt these selection criteria. And A and B are there currently. I'm suggesting C, which is just talking about making sure that people have got the demonstrated track record and are committed to upholding the values. H is just about what we've already done. It was presumed to make it clear that a Noose Shire Council can be an observer. I is about the process that had been foreshadowed before, just written in the draft terms to any changes to the terms of reference. In J, it's a different way because I'm suggesting we adopt the things above rather than saying we're going to a draft terms of reference. What we're saying is we can amend those terms from time to time, but we're going to specifically ask the advisory committee when it's formed to give us recommendations and about what
00:32:00 they think may or may not be changed and given from what I've got from all the key stakeholder groups. These are the key issues that there is still discussion to be had. So there's a range of different conversations already happening in the community from the key stakeholder groups. And these are the things that they have views upon. And finally, while I think this is a great model with a joint action with MSQ, at the moment the terms of reference talk about MSQ having the same power as us to a point, it may be that this group goes down a very narrow line. It's only about the MSQ issues. And it just keeps Council saying, well, if that is the case, that it hasn't got the time to deal with the other issues around river health and biodiversity, we reserve the right to go down a similar path without actually involving MSQ on matters that are of no interest to them. I think it's a logical way. I have been consulting with a range of different stakeholder groups, and I feel confident suggesting
00:33:00 that a number of the key sectors would be happy with this approach. Councillor Jurisevic: So I think that's the market for MSQ. Q. With regard to the make-up, not only to Brian's amendment here, but from the original motion, the make-up of the stakeholder group, how would the final make-up be determined and who would determine the balance of members on that stakeholder group? If not adding these additional requirements that Brian has added. Speaker 4: In order to determine the stakeholders, there will be a public expression of interest for people interested to respond along the two key criteria that are identified within the existing graph terms of reference, which include individual knowledge and experience in management issues associated with the Noosa River and its catchment, ability to represent community interests and communicate to as many members as possible in identified community sectors.
00:34:00 So we'll be going out to the community asking people to address those two items within the purpose of the statement. The list of stakeholders there is designed to be indicative to say that our expectation is these are the sorts of groups that will come to us. There are six dot points there, but I do note that of Council Stockwell's amendment there that has 12, 10 of them are actually within those six dot points. So they're not, it's not significantly different from one version to another. So our intent is that they would be those expressions. Interest will be reviewed and the final decision will be made between the Chair from Council and the Chair from MSQ on who that membership would be. Was there a second part to your question, Councillor Jurisevic? My apologies. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I think you've answered it, but it was in essence of how, so what makes that determination of what the balance with regard to community groups, commercial interests and that would be?
00:35:00 Speaker 4: There is no current framework within the terms of reference. It says the balance will be 1%. And I appreciate that concerns some people. This is not a decision making body and it's an advisory committee. I think the other challenge is I don't think a lot of the interests are as clearly cut as that. So I think it's very hard to strike a balance, for example, along some of the fishing and boating users, some of the commercial and recreational users. So I think it's a challenge. It wasn't our intent to be really prescriptive that it should be half and half or one should outweigh the other. It's not referred to in the terms of reference. Councillor Jurisevic: So in the final outcome, it may ultimately be determined by those people that would put their names forward. Speaker 4: It could. As I look at this list that's in the existing terms of reference, if you do some quick maths, you end up with about five each, roughly, around commercial interests and community and landed water owners.
00:36:00 But as noted by Councillor Stockwell, some members will fit into multiple categories with that. For example, a commercial boat or a commercial river operator and a recreational fisher could actually, while there are definitely different representatives, I can think of people within Noosa that would fit, a single individual would fit all three of those categories. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I've got a few questions. You worked closely with NSQ, Craig, in regard to the terms of reference. Was that over a period of months that you? Speaker 4: Yes. The council passed the resolution. In July, to develop this stakeholder group, it was within two to three weeks of that, I found out that NSQ were also interested in developing a stakeholder reference group from the local member. So it was within four to five weeks of that resolution, we started working together. So I've been meeting regularly with the area manager for Maritime Safety Queensland between about late August, early September and November, at a point at which we pretty much had a draft to put up the respective chains with permission.
00:37:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. So if, I mean, these are significant amendments, or sort of, would this mean effectively going back to NSQ and going back to the drawing board and needing to get their approval for us to move forward with Councillor Stockwell's amendments? Speaker 3: You've just got it down, Cathy, that that's correct. If you have a look at, where are we? I. I'll pick it up for you now. I. Yeah, paragraph I is, it does, if this passes, it's going to request staff to ask MSQ whether they agree with these or not. And if they do, that's fine. If they don't, this has to come back to Council. Mayor Stewart: And, Craig, in your opinion and your dealings with MSQ, do you think this is something that they would be agreeable to? Speaker 4: While I wouldn't want to speak for Maritime Safety Queensland, I think there are a range of different elements in there that would be absolutely fine, to no interest, that two ones that would be quite problematic, potentially, given the conversations I've had with MSQ and the conversations we had with them yesterday.
00:38:00 Mayor Stewart: So if that was the case, and we would have run with this in its entirety as it is, there might be a few things that would be fine, but then there's others. So then effectively, we could be looking at a couple of months. I mean, it's taken since July last year to get us where we are here today. So this adds a fair amount of time. Speaker 4: Not from an officer point of view. I think we're advanced enough where we have a framework that's very close. We could turn it around very quickly. It will, if we keep having to come back to Council, if MSQ decline on certain areas, that would potentially take time. Perhaps Brett's a better place to comment on that than me. Speaker 3: In a nutshell, if some of these are put to MSQ, and they say, we like that one, we like that one, but that one, or these two, or whatever it might be, is a no-go for us, we'd have to bring it back to Council. If there were minor changes, would you put the right person? Can I suggest, given the interest in this matter, I would bring it back to Council. Speaker 5: Thank you.
00:39:00 Councillor Wilkie: Craig, could you describe how the terms of reference that were arrived at after negotiations, between Council and MSQ were arrived at, they tend to be non-prescriptive, unlike this motion. Could you tell us what model they're based on, and where else that model has proven successful? Speaker 4: So when we started discussions with Maritime Safety Queensland, we're well aware of the history of stakeholder groups, not just in Noosaville, in a range of different places, that have started with the best intentions and failed and not delivered. We were made aware. We were made aware of the local marine advisory committees that the Great Barrier Reef Marine or Park Authority uses. They have 12 or 13 of them dotted all the way across the state that have been operating effectively for more than 20 years now. So we looked through all their terms of reference and used that as an initial model. We didn't take it on board completely. We feel that model was working very well for settled organisation.
00:40:00 So we took the elements of that, that we thought would work in Noosa, and then we looked at some slight differences, which we thought would be required for a community that wants quick action on a few key issues, as well as long-term solutions to more complex ones. Does that answer the question? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Is the intention to set up a working group that is, the terms of reference are intended to empower the working group to come up with their own decisions about timeframes, priorities, etc. and structures in terms of subcommittees and working groups? Speaker 4: It is, and I acknowledge that's something that could have been worded better in the terms of reference, because while it's been in the spirit of a conversation we've had the whole way, I don't think it's reflected well enough in the document, which has created some scepticism. The idea of the terms of reference is to set the purpose and objectives for the group, not for the river. The idea is for the stakeholders to come together and set their own objectives, what they want to achieve in the river, develop their own priorities, and then work with us to help deliver on some of those priorities, which is why the existing document is not a policy document.
00:41:00 It was never the intent to say, these are our top five issues we're going to get the group to deal with. The intent was always to get the group round the table, and for them to tell us what the key issues are they'd like dealt with on the river. Councillor Wilkie: It was also acknowledged that in this very large amendment there are some good ideas. Is it possible that some of those ideas would likely be adopted by the advisory group once they're up and running? Speaker 4: Absolutely. I think there's a lot of good ideas in the amendment, and some of the changes aren't really significant. Some of them are quite significant, but I think certainly as we look at item J up there, that's exactly what we would expect the subcommittees to do. We would expect the subcommittee to be able to do around deciding whether or not we have standing subcommittees, around the frequency of meetings and gaining consensus. I know I've had feedback from stakeholders concerned that every two months wasn't enough. We put in that there because we felt we needed some sort of framework that didn't over-commit people that are fundamentally really busy, particularly when we start talking about commercial operators.
00:42:00 But I think we probably misjudged the desire of some of those groups to get in there and get started and make things happen straight away. And we'd expect the group themselves to decide on the frequency of meetings and how often they're going to meet and how they use subcommittees to achieve things in between meetings. Councillor Lorentson: Craig, at our workshop with MSQ, they were quite loud and clear that they want this committee to be community driven. They also rose the issue of a community chair that eventually would be in a transitional type period. Where they actually want to relinquish their chair position and give it to a community chair. Can you just elaborate a little bit on that? Speaker 4: Certainly. I mentioned our starting point for these terms of reference was Kaboomba's local marine advisory committees.
00:43:00 They have community chairs. We both see a long-term model of the community taking the chairperson role within this group. We decided not to take that from day one for a couple of reasons. One is we wanted to ensure that we're able to have a community chair. With the organisational support behind Council and MSQ to properly support the group. The other thing is this is not the first time we've had an attempt to get action on the river. It's a very challenging space. We didn't want to turn it into a politically adversarial space from day one. Our feeling was that for the first say at least six to nine months, it would be best chaired by senior staff from Council and MSQ to see how the group is going. And then if the group's comfortable and we're comfortable, to transition after that period of time. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I see the... Mayor Stewart: Is this a question? Councillor Wegener: This is a question. The first, Brian's amendment seems like it would fit within the bigger circle of the original amendment. So it's more of a bubble inside that's just a more focused ideas.
00:44:00 But there's nothing in Brian's that precludes the original. Amendment. Does that make sense? I can probably answer that. Speaker 3: I think they are different. But you know, they're not sort of one out here and one out there. It really comes down to, you know, the extent to which the Council wants to prescribe what it's want to achieve and the level of detail around that, which is Council of Stockwell's amendment or have an enabling type provision where you get the, I'll call it the right, you know, the people in the room and set them to work on that. They're the two sort of models that you're having a debate about at the moment. Mayor Stewart: Can anyone else like to speak? Speaker 3: I'll speak. Councillor Wilkie: It is patently obvious that Council of Stockwell has a deep and abiding passion for the Noosa
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 River. And the processes surrounding its governance. It also has extensive knowledge and experience in drafting policy around issues such as this. The question we're asked to consider is whether we take a prescriptive approach and tell and send a message to MSQ that this is what this Council would like to happen within the terms of within the stakeholder advisory group. And also for MSQ processes, for MSQ to be mindful of. Or do we take a more enabling approach and let the stakeholder advisory group determine their priorities and timeframes? In my opinion, this is a very well written amendment. It does have latitude in it. But from my perspective, it is quite prescriptive. It is. And in some parts, the information in it is, should I say, a little bit overwritten.
00:46:00 Because in the terms of reference, which are a lot more brief, it does say similar things. But what I like about the terms of reference, it gives more latitude to the people who will be doing the work. That is, MSQ, Noosa Council officers, and also the stakeholder advisory group. I think, as mentioned before, the Council has already, in July 2020, agreed, passed a resolution that we would form a stakeholder advisory group to inform and advise on the Noosa River Plan. I have a lot of respect for the work that Council Stockwell has done here. But from my perspective, I think at this stage, I think it's going to be a little bit more
00:47:00 difficult to get us to this point. I have a lot of respect for MSQ's resources that have been put into MSQ to get them here and having a presence on the river. I understand that the Queensland General Manager, Angus Mitchell, has taken a personal interest in this. He's going to be driving the issue from MSQ's point of view. I understand he's been out in the water on a jet ski last weekend. He's very hands on. I'm heartened by what I heard from the two MSQ officers yesterday, how determined they are to make this partnership work. And it's a partnership based on mutual respect that gives latitude to the parties. And I don't want to be overly prescriptive about that. I want to, at least in the starting early days, empower the participants, show respect for the officers that have come to the table and put these terms of reference together. It speaks of a model which has worked well in other locations in Queensland. Again, I want to thank Councillor Stockwell for the work he's done on that.
00:48:00 And I hope he takes this alternative view on the spirit in which it's intended. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Peake. Do anyone else like to speak to this one? Councillor Kessler. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I agree with the comments of the OLA. I don't see that the two, I don't think that the two, I don't think that the two motions, or the motion in this amendment, are that far removed. They run very close together, except there are some elements here that Councillor Stockwell has tried to include to tighten up elements of the terms of reference. And in particular, to align the terms of reference to council policies with regard to its responsibilities for management of the river. Thank you. I have no qualms with what's there. I don't think there's anything there to, personally, that would threaten anybody that's associated
00:49:00 with it. I think it's just tightened up some of the elements. And I think a lot of the things that have been said here would probably come out of those terms of reference when the stakeholders all had their input, and likely to be included once that's tightened up. So I'm prepared to support Councillor Stockwell in this regard. I too appreciate and acknowledge the passion and devotion that he has with regard to elements of the river. The drive that he has been putting towards getting the river plan implemented in his timeline council, and the outcomes that he wants to see achieved for the benefits, not only for the river and our community, but for all the stakeholders that have an input into the wellbeing of the river as a whole. So I'm prepared to support the amendment as it stands. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Finzel?
00:50:00 Councillor Lyons? Councillor Lorentson: I don't disagree with a lot of the amendments that Councillor Stockwell has put forward. But I think I agree with Councillor Wilkie in that I don't think it's a good idea to put a motion in that we need to trust the process. And we need to trust the intent of this framework. And it is a framework. And in the original motion, and I've got it in front of me, that we're allowing, we're putting a motion forward where the draft terms of reference, emphasis on draft, will be reviewed. By the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee at its first meeting. And it's, it's my hope, and it's not my hope.
00:51:00 I expect, as Councillor Jurisevic pointed out, I expect a lot of these amendments are actually going to be included. But I think if we're going to empower or allow this to be a genuine community driven committee, then let's empower that stakeholder group. To put this forward. And perhaps not council. So thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I don't disagree what you're saying. I just am prepared to trust the process. Mayor Stewart: Well, I too would like to thank Councillor Stockwell. There's an inordinate amount of work gone into this and a lot of knowledge. And thank you for bringing this to the table. I too agree with Councillors Wilkie and Lorentson. I think the two words are trust the process and pursue the process. We've heard from our CEO that these, these two, these two sort of motions aren't really that far apart. The first, in my opinion, is a little less prescriptive. It enables and empowers the group, which I believe is a good thing.
00:52:00 It puts the power back into the stakeholder advisory group. It's a document that MSQ have been working closely with the council on. It's a document that we know they're supportive of. And it's something that we can move on. Sooner rather than later. We, we've had this issue on the table for a very long time. And I too think we need to trust the process, as Councillor Lorentson said. So I, I, I again thank Councillor Stockwell. As I said at the early part of my speech, we all have the best interests of the river at heart. It's just about how we get there. But I won't be supporting this motion. Thank you. I'm in. So. Councillor Wegener: It, it sounds like Occam's razor has fallen and cut, um, Brian's brilliant amendment, but we're hoping to, to trust the process and that the simpler plan, giving it to the
00:53:00 stakeholders as is, is actually, and will hopefully will come up with the same outcomes anyway, but not being prescriptive. It's just a simpler plan. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Um, probably to say, um, should this amendment, um, should this amendment, should this amendment not succeed? Is there a capacity for the, um, yourself and MSQ to discuss their contents with the stakeholder advisory group? Um, so that they have, can give full consideration to the ideas contained with you? Speaker 4: Um, certainly. I'm sure there's several prospective members of the stakeholder group that have already seen some of the suggestions here, and I would think they would absolutely be front of mind when it comes to the first meeting to discuss the terms of reference. Um, I will note there are a couple of the amendments that actually referred to the development of the committee, not actually the way it functions, so there are a couple there which would own, which wouldn't be relevant because the committee will have already been selected. Speaker 3: Can I just add to that and probably reflect on the answer I gave before, I probably, in
00:54:00 hindsight, wouldn't have used the term prescriptive as much as I did. Um, I think detail would have been a better descriptor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Um, we, um, uh, Councillor Finzel, would you like to speak to this? Councillor Finzel: Well, I feel I have to get up and say something because everyone else has made a comment. I don't want to be the one that doesn't make a comment. So thank you all for your contribution this evening. This has been, um, a long process to arrive at this point. I think that it's good to reflect where we've been, where we are now and where we're headed to. And I think the community is ready for us to take on the leadership role. We've been elected to this position and the community wants to see the river plan finalised so we can move forward. Part of the action of this advisory group is to help move towards that goal which we're all aiming. On page 35 of this agenda tonight, I just want to read out again the purpose of the terms of reference.
00:55:00 And the purpose of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee is to engage key community stakeholders to provide objective advice and recommendations towards the sustainable use, conservation and management of the Noosa River. And it's catchment. I think right there, that purpose has encapsulated every intent that we are trying to achieve in the broader direction of the river. I believe that there is enough in the draft reference to meet all the objections, the objectives and everything that's been discussed on the table this evening. Including we've increased the number of sectors to be recognised, increasing the number of stakeholders to 12, which we've agreed on.
00:56:00 This can be reviewed. We have got Councillor Stewart sitting as an observer on the meeting. We have to remember that what we're talking about is an advisory group, which is a collection of individuals who bring unique knowledge and skills, which we recognise these groups do. Which complement the knowledge and skills of the groups that we're talking about. We have to remember that we're talking about the skills of the formal board members or council. In order to help us govern more effectively and make well informed decisions from the groups in the community that have fought long and hard to keep all the conditions of the river where they are. And I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers, all the groups, all our rate payers, residents who have volunteered over the years and joined organisations and groups to bring that collective expertise to the community. We're not arguing tonight whether Councillor Stockwell, whether this, what he has brought
00:57:00 to us tonight. We're not questioning how that looks. There's some positive points in that which are good and can be recommended. However, tonight, the question before us is to accept the terms of reference in the draft statement that they are. Giving back the opportunity to hear what the stakeholders and the sectors have to say. Thank you. With regards to that, I'd like to thank MSQ. I'd like to thank the staff here that have spent at least the amount of time behind the scenes negotiating, having endless conversations. And everyone's intent is for the best use of the river. I think it's time for action. I think it's time to get underway. We have to remember it is an advisory group. It will advise council to make the decisions for governance. So we can have best outcomes. Everyone will have an equal say as best to our ability. I'm also satisfied that the opportunity for subcommittees can bring on board at any time any other people, if they follow the due process, can be on board and bring their voice to the table.
00:58:00 We are in a post COVID time. Fundamentally, the world has changed in how we operate. It is time to pull together. It is time to collaborate. To get around the table. Put our feet on the table. Get under the table. And deliver good outcomes for the community. I'm satisfied that all the meetings from the minutes will be put up onto the council website. Again, that will confirm our commitment to open and transparency, which I'm sure the community will be more than happy to see. Therefore, I will not be supporting councillor Stockwell's comments. Thank you for listening. Mayor Stewart: Yes.
00:59:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm confident that the majority of you really want to vote for this amendment. Councillor Lorentson mentioned we want it community driven. Yet you want to adopt a draft that's been bureaucratically developed, with no reference to us in its formation until it got onto agenda. And we can't do that. A lot or a number of the key stakeholder groups in this community are terms of reference which is considered inadequate. As soon as it went up on the website I started to get phone calls and emails and I then did a broader collaboration myself to ask people what they thought, giving them the original and giving them some of the options that I proposed. So if we want community driven and we haven't asked the community how they'd like to set up and we just say I will adopt the terms of reference that MSQ and our staff have developed.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 So it's not community driven, it's administratively driven. And you're right, I do get passionate about it and I apologise if I get too passionate in advance. So the key to getting these things right, in my experience, are the terms of reference. So what we have done for 20, 30 years, working in similar areas is you do that community consultation approach. So from July to January, where we asked for the advisory group, we have been working in what is, to me, an exciting model. I'm not going to at all criticise the model that's been put up with MSQ. What we haven't done and what we won't do if we revert back to the current motion is we won't agree to adopt that model. Council has not agreed to that model. We've just got here the draft terms of reference, okay, and I respect the CEO's clarification. What I've got here is not prescriptive. It's about specifying Council's interests and expectations to go out to call for an expression of interest.
01:01:00 It's about being clear on what we want to achieve. Now anyone who's applied for an expression of interest in business will know, or put out an expression of interest in business will know, you get the best results when you clearly identify the specifications. The people know what they're applying for and can respond to those specifications clearly. And what I'm saying is, while the substance of what you're applying for, what the terms of reference does is good, it's not complete. And the way it was put up raised concerns in a range of stakeholder groups. So if we want to be community driven, and we want to keep the community on side, we want to be clear on what we want, we adopt what we'd like out of it,
01:02:00 we talk about MSQ, about what our joint interests are and whether they're happy for that to occur, and we ask the people to apply and say, look, we've adopted this, but we respect that when this group gets together, that you have the right to amend it about how you operate. We don't want to amend the whole thing about what the purpose of it is, or amend what our objectives are, because we wouldn't have it if we didn't want to achieve our objectives. We'd only want their input on that aspect of the current draft terms of reference about how it's going to be operated, how it's going to structure itself. And that's what this amendment does. But the other clear thing is, what the current terms of reference is, it has one paragraph that talks about the other government departments' interests. It doesn't clearly identify the difference between what is an MSQ and council joint issues, which this does, and what the other issues are, and how they might be addressed down the track. It's talked about this might happen in the future. So for me, that's really important. The River Plan isn't just one theme.
01:03:00 It's about the sustainability. It's about people use and enjoyment of the river. And it's about river health and biodiversity. And they both deserve attention. And in my opinion, the stakeholders across that spectrum would prefer a model where those interests are recognised. And by splitting out some of the dual things and making more specified detail in terms of sectors, it helps do that. And by accepting this, council then puts out a professional expression of interest. So I expect the majority of people on that basis would vote if they want a community-driven process. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour of the amendment. That's Councillor Jurisevic and Stockwell against. Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Stewart. Which takes us back to the... Yes.
01:04:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. On the original motion, that the CEO report back to council on March 21 on the proposed membership of the River State Health Advisory Committee and further request Marine Service Queensland, I suppose to the mover, is that intended for council to make a decision or just as an advice to council? Because my understanding is MSQ felt this was an administrative process rather than a political one. Speaker 3: Yeah, I can answer that. It's essentially advice. Obviously, the council doesn't have the final say about membership. Neither does MSQ. It's going to be a joint process. But it'll come back here for information as part of that process. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Mr. CEO. Would anyone like to speak to this motion? Councillor Jurisevic: No. I would like to ask a question, though, Madam Chair. Can we go back to Councillor Stockwell's amendment for a moment? Just the point that he raised there, right to the beginning of the point.
01:05:00 And I might have to read for a moment. And I'll address this to either the CEO or Craig. Point B, agreed the establishment of a joint Noosa River Advisory Group with Maritime Safety Queensland. That isn't clarified in the motion as it stands. Is that a pertinent point? It's a pertinent point that should be raised and added to the amendment because it's not clear that that is what the intent of the motion is at this point. Speaker 3: Cathy, can you just go up to the original amendment? It's essentially inferred in the current B that you're not adopting it or looking at it in terms of reference to the establishment of a group without going down that path. So whether it's that obvious, it's... Councillor Jurisevic: So the inference there is in point B that it covers. OK, thank you.
01:06:00 Mayor Stewart: Anyone like to talk to this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. Firstly, I'd like to say that we understand we're all on the same page. We all want to get to the same point. And I also want to say that I think the work done by staff to bring together a collaboration with MSQ on what will be some of the most important issues from the river from somewhere about here to the mouth. It's incredibly disappointing that an advisory group set up to advise the river plan and the oyster project as by council resolution is not adequately reflected in the current terms of reference. And that the governance arrangements will tend to bias towards a certain element. In that saying, I also have particular standards for the community and I gauge community. And when I go out with expressive interest, then at the moment, what's put before me as a councillor doesn't meet that standard. So while I support the intent of the arrangement,
01:07:00 I can't support the motion. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Thinking about... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll head in next if Frank's still sitting there thinking about it. Look, I agree. I think the intent is here. I think the scope is there. But I too have some reservations about the elements. But I guess I'll hold those reservations until I see what comes back from this process in going out. I too see that there are elements there that involve other state government agencies. And I see that the opportunity is there to raise those matters and subcommittees to be formed and the like. I see the points that Councillor Stockwell raised earlier
01:08:00 and the opportunities of directing the terms of reference of a group with MSQ and as opposed to other agencies as an opportunity to present them. But I'll... Again, I'll reserve judgement and support the motion as it stands and wait to see what comes out of the process. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor George. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: I absolutely reject the inference that council staff and MSQ staff can't put together an expression of interest that is not professionally worded and gets exactly what they're intending to get in terms of stakeholders for this reference group. I don't think we need... I'll use the term prescriptive because I think that's what it is when you try to spell out to that degree exactly what you think you need and what you would like to see when in fact we're not necessarily all agreed about the number of working groups
01:09:00 that will come out of the stakeholder reference group. There may be two, as in the model that was suggested in the amendment. There may be four. There may be six. But that'll be driven by the issues that the group chooses to discuss. It won't be driven by us at this point here. And I think that's the beauty of this motion before us now is it gives the reference group much more latitude and it respects the integrity of the officers who are putting this together. Councillors are good. Councillors have a certain body of experience, some more than others. But also officers also have a body of experience that they draw upon. And the people that we met from MSQ yesterday were, in my view, fairly impressive. And I'm not going to disregard their capacities before they're given an opportunity to demonstrate them.
01:10:00 And we'll know soon enough if things aren't going well. And I trust that our esteemed officers will be reporting back to us if things are going up the rails and steps will be taken appropriately. But I don't want to jinx it by even suggesting that. I have full confidence that it's going to proceed well, I'm hoping it will proceed as intended. And, yeah, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else who wants to ask a question? Councillor Finzel: Given some of the reservations that have been raised around it, just a question. Is there a possibility we can include in this for a review in 12 months? Speaker 3: The terms of reference already have that built in for two years, not 12 months. Yeah, do we change that to 12 months? That's up to... I want to make an amendment. Yeah, that's up to the Council meeting. That was, I think, being discussed with MSQ and Craig might be able to answer this more quickly than I.
01:11:00 But it's within two years or at two years? I can't recall. It could be done earlier, potentially. I can. I'll just keep getting that checked with you. Speaker 4: My recollection is the wording said it would be reviewed at two years and the initial membership would be for two years. But certainly informal discussions we've had with MSQ, including yesterday, indicated a willingness to do that more earlier than that. And also the changes to the resolution around it being a draft terms of reference and the ability for groups, the group to have input to themselves more clearly, doesn't completely negate that, but it gives them input right from day one as well. So whether it requires a resolution today or whether it could be decided by the group where there was a 12-month review, I would have thought that probably requires a resolution today more so than a decision of the group. But our conversation with Maritime Safety Queensland has been more than open to a full review, 12 months, bearing in mind we'll also be doing it when the group starts. Councillor Finzel: Well, can I put that up for debate? Yeah, would you like to put that up? Yeah, an amendment. Can I make an amendment to that then?
01:12:00 You can second with anything. Yeah. Yeah. We changed the wording in... Sorry, Council, we'd like to stand too. Oh, sorry. I think it was on page one. Oh, yeah. So on page 38, 155, under terms, we have the NRSAC will convene for two years initially. Is that right? And will review the terms of reference to ensure its meeting is stated objective and amendments necessary. Is that what we're saying? Speaker 3: Yeah. I can perhaps help with the wording if that would be of assistance. Yeah. Can we change that to one year? So as we would add in an amendment to paragraph B, we would add in a new number B2 and change existing B2 to B3. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, can you say that again? Speaker 3: Yeah. So we'd add in, in paragraph B, we'd add in... Councillor Lorentson: This year. Speaker 3: Correct. Paragraph B.
01:13:00 Yep. We'd add in a new number two. Councillor Lorentson: So hang on. I'm just going to say amend item B. Speaker 3: So add in a new number two and the existing number two would become number three. Request Maritime Safety Queensland to agree to amend the draft terms of reference to make provision for a full review. Is that what you're after? Well, just explain to me what you're after and I can help you with the wording. Councillor Finzel: Well, I guess I'm putting it in as like a cautionary move because there's a bit of, you know, we all agree on the intent. I guess it's about some technical aspects
01:14:00 to just review it. Do we need a full review? Speaker 3: Okay. So my suggestion is to make provision for a review. The review of the Noosa River Stakehold Advisory Committee after 12 months to ensure it is meeting the stated objectives. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. That's fine. Speaker 3: But remember you need a second amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone second that? No. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: The rationale for putting this amendment forward is to just, I don't know, I guess put a stop gap in place
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 to just review what is happening and where we're at with the outcomes and measure the measurables. I do think normal two years is a good time as recommended, but given the feel of the room this evening, I'm putting this proposal forward to let's have a look at it in one year's time. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Amendment. Mayor Stewart: Amendment. Amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be a useful amendment if we'd set out what we do. We want to achieve until next. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to speak Councillor Lorentson: to this amendment? Mayor Stewart: Councillor Forrest. Councillor Lorentson: We talked about, before, trusting the process. I think this inclusion rebuts that. I think that this is, this is sending a message
01:16:00 to our stakeholders, to MSQ, who are sitting at the table with us right now wanting to know and wanting to be part of this community, wanting to be part of this solution. And now we're going to go back to them and say, hey, we may not, we're not sure whether we trust you. I don't know. I'm not prepared to support this motion. It's giving the message that we don't have the faith in this document and in this agreement. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else like to cast a restriction? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I won't be supporting the amendment. I think we've talked about due process and we've talked about trusting the process and the documentation before us. Let's let the draft terms of reference come back from the stakeholders and see what, see what they feel and let's see how they get underway. I'm prepared to give them the necessary, the timeframe that staff
01:17:00 have done and trust the process that staff have put in place to see us through the two year time period. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Any other, Councillor Woodman? Speaker 1: I don't have to. Councillor Wegener: I was forcing your hand. Yeah, no. Just to, see, it says here the NRSAC is not a decision making body. Advice and recommendations provided to NRSAC to relevant management agencies are not binding. And, and to me, as, as Amelia says, you want to give them leeway to, to do the best that they possibly can. Don't tell, don't be too restrictive. Don't, because again, it's not binding. It comes back to us. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Woodman. Councillor Wilkie: It's, it's easy to pick up on some concern when you've got persuasive speakers like Councillor Jurisevic and Stockwell in full flight
01:18:00 in the room. And I appreciate, so I appreciate where you're coming from, Councillor Finzel. But I'm inclined to want to let this process breathe. And so I, for that reason, I, I won't be supporting them. I'm, Councillor Finzel: Thank you all for your feedback. It's good to hear that everyone is happy and in agreement with the two years that was initially put up. My intent was never to cast any doubt on the advice or the ability of the future stakeholders and sectors. I value their expertise. I would like to also comment that based on Craig's response, he said that MSQ was open to review in 12 months. So thank you all for listening and considering my amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We might put that to a vote. All in favour? Against? Against. You get it. Yes, you get it. Turn to the other.
01:19:00 That was against. Thank you. You test the water. You test the water. It works today. I showed you that on Monday, right? Yep. You test the water. Speaker 1: Water would fall. Mayor Stewart: All right. So we're back to the motion before us. We've had... Speaker 3: Councillor Stewart, Councillor Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wilkie have spoken to the original motion. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. I'd like to speak to the motion. Thank you, Councillor. I just want to address some of the comments that have been made today. And I'd just like to add that we are not here to rub a stamp on recommendations made by staff. We're here to question and we're here to challenge. The decisions, staff decisions and recommendations. Not because staff are wrong, but because best outcomes are achieved when decisions and processes are challenged. And I believe that's actually what we've done today. We've questioned and we've challenged this process. And this is
01:20:00 the outcome. In front of us, we've got a framework, a pilot program whose purpose is to challenge and provide state and local regulators with recommendations on management issues at a local level and on locally relevant projects that contribute to the health of the Noosa River. It's non-restrictive. The agenda will be community driven and the communities will be, the priorities will be community step. It's a first step and it's a positive step towards what I call, I think it's a positive step. I think it's a positive step. I think it's a positive step. I think it's a positive step towards collaborative leadership. And I say, let's start. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor, can you say anything? Sure. No, you don't have to say anything? No? Okay. I'll close. Yep. I'd just like to quote what Councillor Jurisevic said yesterday, and I think it was a really
01:21:00 powerful statement. He said, the best way to achieve community confidence is to deliver outcomes. Tonight's decision is the first step in delivering that outcome. It's not the final step, but the first step. And the time has come for us to begin. I'd like to acknowledge all the hard work that Craig and the staff have done. I'd like to acknowledge MSQ and their reaffirmation of their commitment. I'm excited that they're a part of this journey with us. This will be a journey, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. And with the support of MSQ and our stakeholder advisory committee, we must take that first step tonight. Thank you. I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Councillors Lorentson, Wilkie, Finzel, Jurisevic, Wegener, Stewart. Against? Councillor Stockwell. Can't live my life for a while. That moves us on to... Thank you, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Craig. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Craig.
01:22:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Craig. Mayor Stewart: That moves us on to item three. Draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, CHAP for Community Conflictation. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as my brother, Gabriel Cherosani, owns a property at Beaches Estates on Wise Beach, which is one of the properties that's been identified as a risk under the CHAP. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. I will repeat what I said at the general meeting because I'm very disappointed about leaving the room. I respect the advice given by the CEO to leave the room for this debate, but I want on record that I'm greatly disappointed with what, in my opinion, is an unintended and undesirable consequence of recent reforms to council conflict of interest disclosure and obligations. This is a major policy for council.
01:23:00 I will leave the meeting room and this community and it's, in my opinion, that in the best interest of local democratic representation, that I should be allowed to stay in the meeting room for discussion for at least part of the CHAP that does not deal with the Sunrise Sunshine Precinct. My exclusion may, in my opinion, result in a decision that is contrary to public interest. I will leave the room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I am the owner of Lot 45 Noosa Lakes Resort at 3 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin. The draft Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan identifies that riverine areas including Noosa Lake and Tewantin will be most affected by periodic storm tide inundation and permanent sea level rise. And further, the property is mapped in Figure 5 which relates to potential inundation resulting from sea level rise.
01:24:00 In particular, the plan says low-lying areas will be exposed to more frequent inundation under everyday conditions and also with storm tides. At best, this means that access to the property will be more frequently inundated and actions and investigations are envisaged to adapt to this increased risk from climate change. As such, I stand to benefit more from the record of inundations in the draft plan than the majority of residents in the Shire. As a result of my conflict and the fact that I need to stop talking, I will now leave the meeting while the matter is considered and voted on. Who's the first? Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We have a recommendation by staff on page 5. I'll move it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Wharton. Seconded, Madam Chair. All in favour? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Just for the benefit of those listening at home, the only thing we're actually voting on here is to approve the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan in supporting information for
01:25:00 the purpose of community consultation. We're not making any decisions or having any discussions or decisions about the content of the plan, only that it be approved for community consultation. And just out of interest, our Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Office says that there are a number of councils around Queensland that have either already adopted their finalised Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategies or have completed consultation on their draft but are currently in the middle of consultation. There's about nine others. Bundaberg has adopted their final Coastal Hazards Adaptation Strategy, as has Douglas Council. The other councils that have their similar work underway have both adopted their final Burdekin, Gladstone, Gold Coast, Gympie, Livingston, Redland and Sunshine Coast. Although Noosa likes to be at the forefront of this sort of work, it's just part of the
01:26:00 raft of councils undertaking this responsible identification, communication and preparation for coastal hazards as a result of climate change. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wharton. Would anyone else like to speak? Put it to a vote. Oh, would you like to close? No, thank you. All in favour? It's unanimous. Thank you, Kath. Speaker 6: Thanks, Graeme. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks, Graeme. Yeah, Graeme. Don't pour too much next time. Mayor Stewart: Okay, we are up to item four on page five. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move the motion. Please. Thank you. Madam Chair, similar to the one that was moved on Monday, with the change being that item six, condition six, that all outdoor areas, including balconies, decks, pool and
01:27:00 the like, must not be used after 9pm each night. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And that, Councillor, that's not pre-charged. Councillor Wilkie: He's showing his intention before he's even heard the arguments. Councillors, I'm doing this because we've had word from the applicant that their original intention was quiet time after 9pm. Now, we're happy to ensure that to mean no use of the outside areas after 9pm each night. I think that shows a very high level of responsibility from not only the property, but the community They're wanting to show that they are responsible and also minimise their impact on the neighbourhood. I think I really respect and admire the stance they're taking here.
01:28:00 I'm wanting to support them in that. I think for councillors wanting to give latitude to that, if there were to be complaints about noise after 9pm given to the owners, they could quite rightly say, well, we're happy with 9pm, but the councillors want it 10pm. So I'm prepared to support the applicants in their request for the 9pm limit on use of the outdoor areas. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Whilst I acknowledge and respect that viewpoint from the owners, there's nothing to preclude the owners from enforcing their own time limits on their tenants and placing a 9 o'clock curfew if they so choose. So I see no need to change the motion as it stands, and I respect the owner's opportunity there to, again, put in their own time limit restrictions of 9pm if they so choose. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll hear ourselves speak to this question.
01:29:00 Amen. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, well, it's a difficult one in that I have no problem with this doing and staff recommended 9pm time. The difficulty, I suppose, is... what we talked about is staff will probably, you know, they've put this up to us to try and get a litmus test about what councillors' view would be in terms of these types of applications going forward, and that was why I thought there may need to be a sort of... It's almost saying this is what we will set as a precedent. And I think the arguments about use of decks that can be quiet, and, you know, the fact that if you did take the all outdoor area to a very fine point, that it could really reduce the, you know, passive use of certain areas which most people
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 on holiday would do between 9 and 10 o'clock, it's not a great deal, but I think that as we got to on Monday, it's probably what I think would be a reasonable condition, maybe, going forward, because, yes, most times, as I mentioned, activities in the pool, it tends to be shared space by a range of people and can be quite noisy, particularly when you're going out, with doors clanging, is something that you'd want to restrict online in other areas. I think the noise conditions, together with 10pm each night, would be satisfactory. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 2: Yeah, Councillor, you want to start? Councillor Lorentson: I want to thank to VMB and the applicant for being so respectful of noise restrictions and understanding that it is an issue.
01:31:00 I don't believe this condition is precedent setting. I think we, the approach we need to take as a council as we look at it, each application case by case. Peregian is a different precinct. It's a different area. I'm happy with the amendment to go back to the 9 p.m curfew. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, just back to 9 o'clock, but not... Speaker 3: No, it's the approval as well.
01:32:00 It's the approval as well. It's not an amendment, it's the motion. I can probably answer. Councillor Wegener voted against this on Monday on a matter of principle. So what Councillor Wilkie has put forward is the entire motion. So if you still have an in principle objection to that, then you should be voting against it, the entire motion. Probably more than in principle. Mayor Stewart: Put it to a vote. All in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I suppose so. Mayor Stewart: Councillors Lorentson, Wilkie, Finzel, Stockwell, Stewart against. Councillors Jurisevic and Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, I didn't know the amendment was up. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Item number... Councillor Jurisevic: We've been falling down, we've got to go back. Four. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Mayor Stewart: Item number five. Development application for extension to food and drink outlet and shop at two parking in Court, Tewantin, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy. Item six, planning applications decided by delegated authority.
01:33:00 Item seven, pathways and boardwalks asset management plan. Item eight, regional us. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, Madam Chair, I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as grant applicant, Tandon Ash is a personal friend. And as a result of this conflict of interest, I must leave the room. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I'd like to declare a declarable conflict of interest in the matter as I performed as an amateur in theatre productions in the region produced by Gelli Productions, who are a grant applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. Therefore, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Councillor Jurisevic?
01:34:00 Alright, I move that Councillor Jurisevic has declared a interest, but it's only a declarable conflict of interest, and that he remain in the room. Seconded. In the interest of the public. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Do we have a mover for the staff recommendation? Councillor Limeston. Thank you very much. And Councillor Finzel. Thank you. All in favour for the staff recommendation? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thanks, Cath. Speaker 3: Councillor Limeston. Mayor Stewart: Yes, thank you. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item 9, financial performance report December 2020. Item 10, appointment of an external member to Council's Audit and Risk Committee.
01:35:00 Item 11, confidential, not public release, environment levy proposed a land purchase. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move that the report of the General Committee dated 18 January, 2020 be received, and recommendations be adopted. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: And seconded. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Unanimous. Thanks. Now we go to the ordinary meeting agenda. Item 9, page 11. Ordinary meeting reports. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting over the clearable conflicts of interest in this matter. As a recommended tenderer, Kane Constructions has previously contracted to undertake major works at the Noosa Lakes Resort where I own a unit. I own a unit and am the current chair of Body Corporate. I was not on the Body Corporate Committee at the time of the appointment of Kane for these works. Due to the scale of the works, as an ordinary member of the Body Corporate, I was required to vote on and approve the committee recommendation at a general meeting.
01:36:00 My recollection is the works were completed prior to my election as chairman in 2018. Although I have the clearable conflicts of interest, I do not believe regional persons could have a perception of bias because I believe I have no significant part. In the selection of Kane Constructions and Noosa Lakes Resort, I have received no greater benefit than any other as an ordinary member of the Body Corporate. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Strickland. Anyone have any questions? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I've got a question for Councillor Stockwell. Just to clarify that in your role on that Body Corporate, you, again, you weren't the Body Corporate chair at the time, but were you involved in the Body Corporate in any decision-making associated with Kane Constructions and the development that was undertaken at Noosa Lakes Resort? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As it was stated, any acquisition of services of goods over $25,000 of Body Corporate requires a general committee approval, and that was well in excess of $25,000, so my recollection was there was a motion to vote on.
01:37:00 Okay. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone else have any questions? Yes. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move a resolution. Let the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates both on this matter, because the Council believes that he does not stand to receive a reasonable, he doesn't stand to receive a personal benefit or loss. He doesn't stand to receive a personal benefit or loss. He doesn't stand to receive a personal benefit or loss. And therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll second that motion. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I believe the reasons are implicit in the motion. I don't think there's a link between the work that Kane, this group did at Noosa Lakes and what we're doing here now.
01:38:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Woodley. Anyone else like to talk to that motion? All in favour of Councillor Stockwell, remain in the room. Councillors Wilkie, Lorentson, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Finzel, Jurisevic, Wegener, Stewart. Thank you. We have staff recommendation on page 11. Which one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This one. I've just got a question. With the, going from a design construct to a completed design, is there any significant changes between design concepts that went out to, well, the Council's been involved with setting? And if so, could you outline what they are? Speaker 2: There haven't been significant changes, but there have, there haven't been significant changes. There have been minor changes so that we could make sure that the package that we were putting
01:39:00 out was likely to remain on budget. Adam might be able to comment on some of those changes. Speaker 6: To be honest, there's very, there's very immaterial change in any of that. So it's really just defining the detail. There was no change in terms of the scope, size of the building, contents. There's no difference in what the community was getting before to what they're getting now. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Purely as a curiosity, how does this list of tenderers compare to the list that we had previously? Speaker 6: Through you, Chair, the list is fine. We actually probably got a better turnaround this time, but the prices were higher than the previous tender, whether that was through the market at the time, but we still got a reasonable submission. We're happy with what we got. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The, this project was delayed because of, you know, the pandemic. Unfortunately, a collapse of the previous tenderer and, and that was despite all legal
01:40:00 processes being followed at the time, including stat decks as to their capacity to pay contractors and whatnot. What additional steps has this Council undertaken to ensure that similar sorts of problems won't occur in the future? Speaker 2: So, yes, thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Part of the process that we've been through. So it's been quite some time. Since the collapse of the previous contractor and going out to tender while we went through and looked at what type of provisions we could put in place both through the tender process so that we had a, while we had a rigorous process, we want to put some more measures in place, which included much more significant assessment of financial capability as well as putting processes in place throughout the contract process. To be able to ensure that there are checks and balances in place when payments occur.
01:41:00 So it's both pre-tender and then during the contract that there are additional measures in place. And Adam, you might want to add something. Speaker 6: Yeah, I'll just add further to that is that we're actually adopting project trust accounts and bank accounts with this project. So that's a, that's the first project that we'll be doing that for this Council. So that's an added measure that puts the protection into the subcontractors that we haven't done previously. So we're bringing that ahead of the State Government requirements for Councils to do that on this project. Councillor Wilkie: When you say more financial checks, does that mean looking into their financial statements? Are they willing to provide that? Speaker 2: Yes. So I'll let Michael comment on the detail. But, you know, previously where we had some external checking done, this was much more thorough. So Michael, do you want to add to that? Speaker 5: To the Chair. Yeah. So we did commission an independent financial capability assessment, which, which was undertaken
01:42:00 by ADC Group. And there were two components to that assessment. There was a quantitative. So looking at three to four years worth of financial statements, trends, and within that element, the criteria, there was, you know, obviously profitability, cash flows and so on. The other component of the assessment was qualitative. So doing credit checks. So you can go through credit checks. You can go through credit agencies, looking at directors, you know, previous, previous sort of issues and claims. And that was rigorous, a rigorous assessment. And then there was a scoring methodology applied to all of the tenders because they were all assessed. And that then, that scoring, the raw scores then fed into Council's overall scoring methodology. So, so personally, I'm really comfortable with what we've done here. We don't have a formal policy yet on. On this sort of process that's coming to Council in the next few months, but we saw this as an opportunity working with Kerry and Adam to, to drive on what we look at looking at
01:43:00 putting into the policy. And I think it's got some learnings that we can, we can use going forward. But I think, I think this is, I think for me, looking at the preferred tenderer, a low risk of financial default. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. And just to be, so we all understand that we've all heard about the use of public trust accounts. Could you explain what, what they are, what, and how they're used and why it gives certainty to the contractors and to the client? Speaker 6: Through you Chess, I'm not an expert, obviously I have not done one of these because it's new to Council. But as I understand it, it basically takes the cash flow control away directly from the contractor. So, so there's a management process in where payments are put into a trust account. There's some point where the subcontractor is able to communicate on what their financial status is with a project so that there's some visibility on whether they've been paid or
01:44:00 not. So in the past we've had stat decks, but that's a piece of paper. So as we move forward, we'll actually have visibility on where that account sits and whether they've been paid and who has control and payment. So it's been tested. It's been used multiple times. I've just looked, you know, Cains, they, they've done project, you know, bank account projects for I think 13 or 14 projects they've done, you know, with state government, et cetera. So it's common practice at a high level of government and it will be the new norm. And I think it's good that this Council gets on board with that and, you know, the protection of the subcontractor. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question. Page 1926, I see a roof with whole lots of solar panels on it, which I got really excited about. And then a little red square that said current solar panels, 3.5 kilowatt. What's the remainder being reviewed? If project is favourable. So that basically says we've got no money at the end, we might throw a few more panels
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 on the roof. Is there any need to amend the recommendation to refer any shortfalls between what the budget, the project can fund and what we might look at in the budget in terms of our broader zero emissions? Speaker 6: Great answer. Yeah, to each, I'm happy to answer that. So the diagram that shows the full panels, that obviously is an intent. But doing budget control and financial management, we've got the red line about what we're starting with. But the intent is as shown by the diagram with more and more panels. So I don't believe there's a need to describe that further because that would be the project or part of the project intent as shown on the drawing. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I disagree with that. Given that there'd be an additional cost in the event that we implement one system and then try to implement another because an inverter would be an additional cost, wouldn't undertaking some partial... A partial solar installation and then complementing that at some later date incur additional costs
01:46:00 in the loss of the additional, the original system. Speaker 6: Through you Chair, that would be solved before we actually finish the project. So this is exactly what we did on the digital hub. When we did that project years ago, we started with a smaller panel system. As we started the project to make sure we had plenty of contingency, as we ran through the project and got more sure of the project budget, we basically omitted the solar panels. That allows for that and that scope of that project and went to a higher standard and a higher spec that allowed the budget allowed for. So more panels, inverters that suited, et cetera. So that was done as part of a monitoring of the budget and monitoring what was available. Councillor Jurisevic: So to clarify, without any additional costs being incurred or within the original budget of the project? Speaker 6: Didn't go over the budget. It was all managed within the project using the contingency that was available. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. So the limitation on the size of the solar system on this will be contingent upon residual funds through the project before completion?
01:47:00 Speaker 6: Correct. And that was done previously. And it's common practice for something like that with an ideal aim of environmental initiatives. Councillor Wegener: So is it just a matter of semantics? Just saying that we know it's going to happen. Because I just think that we wouldn't accept the fact that there's not as many solar panels as possible. So it's going to happen. But it's not in budgeted right now. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question possibly for the CEO, Brett. And it's just an auxiliary sort of question to the recommendation in front of us. I just want to talk about parking and whether there's opportunities for additional parking being provided. Clearly there's not enough parking in Peregian Beach Precinct.
01:48:00 And this new community house, I think, has the potential to exacerbate this problem. Is there opportunity for additional parking? Okay. Speaker 2: So through the master planning process, parking within that Peregian Precinct and Peregian generally was considered. And one of the outcomes of the project was an additional car park. That was actually the first part of the project that was completed. So that car park was completed in December last year. Sorry, December 2019. And it has in fact been operational. The design... Speaker 3: Near the community garden. Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. The design of the community house also includes car parking. So it has car parking on the understory. And those... Yeah. There's some additional parking to car parks considered sufficient. There's some additional car parking there, I think, in terms of another car park that's
01:49:00 being, I guess, incorporated as part of the project. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Is there any more questions? Councillor Finzel: Well, I just have a question around the... Thank you for the work you've done. It's just out of my own curiosity, because we've been getting reports back from staff around emissions and emission targets and everything. When this has been looked at for the build, has it been calculated, like the emissions through the construction and or what is going to come back to emissions to Council or our Shire with outcomes that are heading towards our zero emission targets? Has anyone calculated any of that? Speaker 6: Through you, Chair, we have done an environmental assessment of the project and whether that's labelled as an emissions target and converse back with the team. I haven't checked. I can check that for you. But... Yeah. Councillor Finzel: That would be great. Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question just to check. One of the initial designs had a very high energy, embedded energy within aluminium rather
01:50:00 than timber. In terms of slats, we are still staying with timber and not moved to the Chinese aluminium slats. Does it look like timber, Alex? Speaker 6: To date, we do have some aluminium. It's not my preference, I must admit. But it is what we currently have. So that is something that we can review through the design process as well. Again, you know, NUSA design principles and maintenance things, they've all been balanced up with this. But... So we've gone with the cheap Chinese, I-N-G-L-E means, but Chinese. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll clarify the other point with regard to the Council of Wigan border. In the event that the maximum capacity of solar storage envisaged for this building can't be delivered within the current budget, will there be a request for additional funds from Council so that we can deliver the entire package before the end of the project completion?
01:51:00 Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. If Councillors wish to see a report that can... We will be providing updates through the project. And obviously, it will be reported through the Capital Works Project Control Group. If Councillors wanted to see a further request at such point that we found that there were budget constraints, then we would put forward that report for your consideration. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I answer your question? Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 2: Is there any other questions that we have? Mayor Stewart: There is a motion recommendation. Can I have someone to move the staff recommendation on page 11? Go for it. I'm happy to move the recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Ross, would you like to speak to this? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. I just want to say that I think it's critical that we look at new provisions or safeguards to put in place in our procurement processes to make subcontractors feel safe, that they're
01:52:00 going to be paid when working on local government jobs. Our subcontractors are residents. Having project bank accounts. I think in... I think this is a terrific way to securing that the money owed to subcontractors are actually paid. And I want to commend staff on that. I'm happy to support this recommendation. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I too am happy to see... To support the recommendation, I'm happy to see the final completion of this project, which has been a long time coming, unfortunately, with delays, with the demise of RICON. But a well-needed and well-desired building in the community for the Peregian people, Peregian community. And an opportunity here, once that is developed, to then continue on with the next stage of the Peregian Digital Hub, which will see the completion of the work to be done in this precinct for the Peregian community. Thank you to staff for all of their time and effort in getting us to this stage.
01:53:00 And I can't wait for the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Woo-hoo! Appreciate it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's unfortunate we're dealing with this. We probably should be opening it. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it is something that, you know, the very early stages of the return council in 2014, 2016 started working on. And that we have received significant government funds. We know that the first stage, in terms of the digital hub, is going to be very, very We are a developer. We have development standards set by our planning schemes and encouragement
01:54:00 in our planning schemes. And if we can't meet those then we either review the principles or review our designs to make sure we can meet principles on budget. This time I'm not going to make a big deal with it because it is an unusual situation but I do expect that public buildings in public places in Noosa are at the highest standards of design, construction and materials to meet our sustainability principles. Mayor Stewart: I completely agree with Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener: I see very lofty goals for Noosa and I consider it, in my own mind, a new Florence. Today we were listening to the community, the roundtable business community, and each area, Kin Kin. Jody says, Kin Kin, we're busy.
01:55:00 We had a remarkable year. And then Peregian, busiest year. Hastings Street, busiest year. We have the opportunity to be great and I think we should run with it. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Can I just make a comment on that? Yes. Following on from those comments with design principles and being far-reaching and setting examples. I've just looked up. There's two topics. There's two types of energy associated with the building over its lifetime, embodied, and that's energy and operating. We've discussed both of these things this evening. So hopefully, moving forward, we will see different reports coming to the table moving forward. Thank you. Councillor Walker. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Yeah. I'd like to commend the staff for learning the lesson of the collapse of the former tender and taking the extra time to forensically delve into the bank accounts of the former
01:56:00 tenders, do credit checks, and also insist on the use of public trusts. So for more transparency and so that the payment to subcontractors are insured, guaranteed, and that we learn the lesson of what happened before. And so I commend you for that. We could probably never recover from a second incident. I'll put it that way. Speaker 6: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So well done. And thank you. Thank you. I'd also like to point out that this project also involves the retrofitting of the existing community house for expansion of the digital hub, which has already proven itself to be an incubator of some fantastic enterprises, including Fireball and FireTech, which is going to radically transform the way we detect and fight fires across this region. And they've got a global outlook. So they'll be working across the globe. Also, Councillor Lorentson mentioned the fact that there's going to be a lot of work to be done on car parking.
01:57:00 This project is part of a wider Rupert Street project, which has an extra capacity, an unused capacity of car parking. Even when Peregian Village is chock-a-block and all the car parks are full, there is still plenty of car parks there. So perhaps we can do more to alert the public to the existence of the car parks over there and make use of that beautiful lift, golden arches, walkway, the emu walk linking the precinct up there. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the golden arches at Peregian. Councillor Wilkie: That's the golden arches at Peregian. And yeah, and I thank the councillors for their support in this project, because after all, it is your Peregian. Mayor Stewart: I decided to join my voice for the litany of statements that have been made here today. And thanks, staff, very much for their hard work in this area. I think the processes we have now in place will certainly provide a real surety and security to all of us around the table, but also to the wider community.
01:58:00 So thank you for that. I'd also like to thank the federal government for the building of better regions and for their flexibility in regard to this, because this has been a long ongoing process. So I'd like to thank them for their patience. But most importantly, thank you, Kerry and Michael and Adam, for all your hard work in regards to this space. Speaker 2: We'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: There are no confidential items, but there are a couple of questions. We have two questions under public question time, submitted by Mr Ian Hodgerts. Our CEO, Mr Brett de Chastel, will read out Mr Hodgerts' questions, and our Acting Director for Environmental and Sustainable Development, Manager Anthony Dowell, will respond. Speaker 3: Yeah, just before I do so, councillors, obviously, with some of the social differences and issues we've had in the last nine months, council meetings are still not able to have people attend. But the good news is we're going to be looking at unwinding that as the provisions have been
01:59:00 unwound a bit more by the state. So we've got a question, two questions tonight from Mr Ian Hodgerts. And what I'll do is read out the questions that Mr Hodgerts has lodged, and we'll get Anthony Dowell, who is the Acting Director, looking after this area to provide the response. And Mr Hodgerts, if you're following this live, we'll also send you a copy of a letter which provides these answers to you as well, directly. So the first question from Mr Hodgerts is, the council effectively advised the state by letter dated 29 July 2020, from the Acting CEO to the Executive Director of the State Government Department, known as DSDMIP, that the Planning Scheme amendments to address coastal erosion would reduce the value of a limited number of properties along the coast. Are these to be devalued properties as identified by council on 29 July 2020 in the following streets? And if there are any properties to be devalued in other streets, please list those other
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 streets. The streets Mr Hodgerts asked about is Seaview Terrace, Arakoon Terrace, The Esplanade, Stephens Street, Belmore Crescent, Park Crescent, Ross Crescent, Dindura Crescent, David Loway at Sunrise, Lorikeet Drive and Pitta Street. I'll ask Mr Dowell to respond to that question and then we'll deal with the second question later. Speaker 1: Through you, Madam Chair. Council staff are currently in discussions with the State Government regarding a proposed amendment to the Noosa Plan 2020 in response to the findings of the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, the CHAP. The wording referred to by Mr Hodgerts relates to the proposed Community Engagement and Communications Plan for this amendment, which details a process for ensuring that the community is fully informed of proposed changes. The Community Engagement and Communications Plan specifically refers to the need to consult
02:01:00 with any property owner that may be materially affected. It does not make any reference to devaluing property. There are no specific streets identified as part of the correspondence to the State. The CHAP does, however, identify areas that are likely to be at high risk to coastal erosion along the eastern beaches over time. Recommendations are made in the CHAP for responding to these erosion risks for the different localities affected. The CHAP is the subject of a report to Council as part of this meeting today. Speaker 3: Thank you. And the second question for Mr Hodgerts. What criteria did the Council use in identifying this limited number of properties? Was it the Coastal Hazard Line as at 2100, or 2070, or 2040, or at present? Again, I'll ask Mr Dow to respond. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor Chair. All hazard events for the years 2040, 2070, and 2100 are being considered as part of developing
02:02:00 a planning scheme response for coastal erosion risks. In particular, 2070 and 2100. The methodology for determining coastal erosion risks are included in the BMT Coastal Hazards Assessment, available on the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Project page under Your Say Noosa or Council's website. Speaker 3: Thank you. Just confirmed we'll send a letter out to Mr Hodgerts for those answers as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.