Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good morning everyone, 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 and I welcome those viewers who are in the gallery.
00:01:00 We have two items on today's agenda. The first item is item one, temporary event permit approvals during COVID-19 pandemic update report. We have staff here to answer any questions councillors may have. And perhaps before we start on those questions, Brett might just set the scene of how this morning may proceed. Speaker 4: Thanks Mayor. As you know today we've got a special meeting dealing with policy for events around COVID-19. So I just want to remind councillors this is about events and COVID-19, not about events per se. It's an important distinction. You're probably aware that there are different views, 30 different views within our community. There's different views within our staff and I'm sure there's different views amongst our councillors around this issue. So it's a good debate. As you know, I love my quote, but it sets the scene with a great quote for today, the one from Voltaire, the famous French philosopher who says,
00:02:00 I may not agree with what you say, but defend your death device or something. Speaker 2: So I'm sure we'll have a, hopefully it doesn't come to that in the debate, but we'll see how we go. Speaker 4: In terms of process, as you know, there's a number of ways that these debates can occur. One motion move with amendments. We always end up in the same place because eventually everyone gets tempted on the floor. My advice to council is going to be starting with a motion that's probably going to have the most commonality in terms of what people are thinking. But I'm sure there'll be a series of amendments to that and we just work through those amendments one at a time. That's the best way to do it. The other two things in terms of process is that when councillors are having the debate, you make sure we're debating councillors, not staff. So that the issue is where you're trying to talk to each other in terms of that debate, but not debating staff on the issues. And secondly, in terms of questions, if you have questions, it's about trying to gather more information or to learn more issues rather than trying to have youth questions or the facto debate. It's important to remember those two issues.
00:03:00 So that's a bit of scene setting for me and probably hand back to the Mayor in terms of where to in terms of bringing forward motion or having questions first. Mayor Stewart: Thank you to the CEO. Aaron, do you have any questions for staff? Councillor Wegener: Questions? I'll start. With the Enter the Biosphere Tourism News campaign, it was very successful. But the idea was that it was going to be a very successful campaign. The idea was, you know, enter the biosphere, which is a safe place to be in general, you know, the biosphere is different from other places. But at the same time, we have events that want to bring in people, you know, for a very different reason. But essentially, both, is it true that both of these ideas, both of these advertising campaigns basically are for the same reason, and that is to bring people from all corners of Australia here?
00:04:00 Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can answer that. I can't answer it. Sorry. Yeah. Speaker 4: Tom, I'll probably have a crack at that. I mean, what I said before was that the issue on the agenda today is about our events policy in terms of COVID. I think what you're talking about is why do we have events and how they're marketed more generally. Yeah. I think that's a slightly different issue. Probably all I can answer in terms of that. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to just ask a couple of questions about the reference group, the COVID-19 event reference group. Who sits on this group and what skills and credentials do they bring to this group? Speaker 2: Through the chair, councillor, the reference group covers often a wide variety of skills and abilities. We have two chairs, a joint chair, Michael Shave, Kerry Contini, who's here today, director
00:05:00 of corporate services. We had health officers on that reference group, committee development manager, economic development manager as well. So we tried to pick a very broad spectrum, different perspectives. Councillor Lorentson: When was the last time that group met? Speaker 2: Through the chair? The group has met monthly since October. So the last meeting was about the third week of February. So the last meeting was about the third week of February. In terms of the decision-making ability was set out in the report to the August meeting and it makes it makes decisions around event application requests it also reviews the category three assessment criteria and it also considered the timing and risk of allowing category one and two
00:06:00 events to proceed so in terms of a formal decision-making ability any formal decisions particularly around the important issues around the risk of allowing larger events that comes to council which is what we're talking about today. Councillor Lorentson: Was the vaccine rollout considered a smart fit in your risk management? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, the timing of that has been considered and it was noted as being scheduled to commence in February of this year. Mayor Stewart: On that reference, you just said that there's been on page three of the report it says there's not unanimous support for this position within the group about the recommendation. Can you tell us a little bit more about that please? Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. The decision-making and the kind of the discussion has been very robust so when you get that variety of different skills and perspectives on a group like that you're always going to get differences of viewpoints and our view was that's a very good thing.
00:07:00 And we didn't want to have a homogenous group that was just you know some kind of group thing. Kind of decision-making. So basically what it's come down to is there are some in the reference group and I think this is fairly well reflected in the community. There are some in the reference group who would have a category one, two and three events proceed as per the state events framework. There are others that would have the category three events happen only. That's up to the 1500 outdoors. And there are others who would. Just have the current situation to remain. That is fewer than 500. So I think that kind of broadly reflects the difference in views. But probably the viewpoint of sticking with the fewer than 500 is probably a minority view if I'm to be fair.
00:08:00 Mayor Stewart: Right. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, just with regard to the attachments. I note that the attachment for the Noosaville business is open. The Noosaville Business Association and the Residents and Ratepayers Association have dates of December associated with them. The Hastings Street Association doesn't appear to have a date there. Can you, one, clarify when the response from the Hastings Street Association was received? And if since then, if they were December, there has been any additional correspondence from Hastings Street or the Noosaville Business Association with regards to their position on events and COVID safe events? Speaker 2: Through the Chair. Councillor, I went out in December to all three parties. All of the parties that I went out for here. The Hastings Street Association, from memory, came back a couple of weeks later than the other associations. And I think that reflected some internal, they were trying to come to a consensus view themselves.
00:09:00 So I do mention in there in the feedback that the Noosaville Business Association provided some subsequent feedback and provided that in italics. And I think that's as a result of them talking to the other business associations. But I haven't gone out formally. I've had some informal conversations. But the December when I went out was the formal request. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Did the reference group seek input from the members of the Noosa roundtable group and Tourism Noosa? Speaker 2: Through the Chair. Not specifically, but noting that we did have members on the reference group that were also involved with the roundtable as well. So we were getting feedback directly. Tourism Noosa, no, not directly. Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My question is to Sir Neil in his substantive role in terms of our environmental health.
00:10:00 Sir Neil, at one of the informal gatherings, we had to discuss this issue. I posited the view that it appears to me that risk increases. From when events attracting a local, maybe a regional, a statewide, a national and international. So there's sort of steps in risk as you go out of those boundaries. Do you believe that is still the case today? An event that attracted, say, a statewide audience would have a lower risk than an event that attracted a national participation? Sir Neil, can you just come out a bit closer to the table if you don't mind? Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: I'll just say it through you. I think given the current evidence in terms of how the disease is transmitting and spreading, we can now clearly say that the international visitors coming in is the highest risk. And anyone coming into the country, even returning travellers, pose that risk. And the reason there's no community transmission at present is because we all manage that well.
00:11:00 And there's no sustained community transmission. So I would say that regional, state, versus national, versus international, there's a difference in the risk assessment. And international travellers returning home pose the greatest risk. Councillor Lorentson: Sir Neil, a question for you. Has there been any transmissions or outbreaks that have occurred from any major events in either Queensland or Australia? Speaker 1: The evidence to date is suggesting that there's been no transmission. There's been no transmission or community transmission from large events and gatherings across the country, including Black Lives Matter, including the attendances at stadia across the country, large gatherings there for events that are taking place now, including half marathons, etc. There's been no evidence that there's any cases coming out of those events. Mayor Stewart: Sir Neil, just on that.
00:12:00 Is there any evidence to support that large mass gatherings under an approved COVID-safe plan pose any greater risk of an outbreak compared to movement of people around the Shire or our visitors in general? Speaker 1: Again, there's no evidence to suggest that this has evolved over time. If we assessed it last year, the risk would be different to assessing it now, given that we had cases in different parts of the country, including Greater Brisbane. But as it stands now, there's no suggestion that the risk would be greater. And we say this based on the events that have taken place in Noosa as well. The schoolies, we've had Christmas, we've had New Year's celebrations. We've increased the number of people that can go to house gatherings. We've entertained people from the rest of the country coming back home to their family, etc. So I think given the science and the evidence of that, we haven't seen any cases coming out of that. We also looked at the data and evidence for viral fragments in the wastewater systems.
00:13:00 And from that as well, it's suggestive that while people might have had the disease before and shedding the viral particles, there's been no cases in those communities either to date. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Sir Neil, can you just clarify something, please? A very important point. From what I thought I heard you say there, was that there's no evidence that there's a higher risk coming from mass events, of transmission from the mass events. How does that marry with all the other advice out there that the higher the numbers, the greater the risk? Because it sounds like it's too totally contradictory. Like evidence, I guess you're saying, evidence that is actual cases of transmission flying from a mass event. They don't have that evidence at the moment. Is that the same as saying that a mass event has the same risk profile
00:14:00 as any other people just moving about the Shire, as the Mayor asked? Speaker 1: It depends on the type of event and the type of activities that are taking place that determines the risk in those situations. But what we see now is that irrespective of we had 25,000 people in a stadium, for example, and they were all seated, compared to an event where people were moving around, like running and jogging, recent events, or the musical festival held over the weekend over the last five days, we're not getting any transmission from those cases. And I think the reason is, it's my opinion only, is that we don't have any transmission in the community. Or we don't have any cases moving around in the community. That's basically stabilised the risk between the two kinds of events, or the two types of events. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask why the advice seems to be that a risk-based approach is necessary when dealing
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 with mass events then, if there's no evidence that the risk is any greater than anywhere else? Speaker 1: And that's some of the areas that's still being tested in terms of what is it we see. And asymptomatic carriers, for example. Therefore, the COVID events plans or checklists that have evolved, it's a COVID events plan that's involved in terms of how they manage that specific event, that that's still being tested and worked through. But so far, we're not seeing, there's no evidence to suggest that those plans are not working. If the plans were not working, we'd likely to be at cases from those large events, which hasn't been the case to date. Councillor Wilkie: Generally speaking, is it true to say that there's a higher risk profile with mass events than otherwise? Speaker 1: There would be, and I think there would be. Theoretically, that would be the case with most diseases. It's because there's more people, and the density matters is that if there's more people in a group or gathering, the risk of any disease is greater than a smaller group of people.
00:16:00 I think with COVID-19, the suggestion is, or the evidence so far is that, yes, there will be a greater risk in terms of larger groups of people, and the question is how to mitigate those risks and what's the type of event. But it goes back to, I think, the question about each event, whether it's small or big, needs to be assessed on its own merits in terms of type of event, the type of mitigation strategies in place, and how this event is going to take place and how they're going to manage that, particularly in terms of the disease itself. Social distancing, hygiene, identification of people who might be ill, the screening of participants become really important from where they're coming. And I suspect that those plans are going to be in place for a long time, because this disease is still evolving, and it's likely to be around for a much greater period of time.
00:17:00 So whatever we're doing now with those plans, I suspect it will continue to do the same thing. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Yes, Sunil, don't run away too quick. With regard to events and outdoor transmission during sporting events and the like, what is the Queensland Health, Chief Health Officer's advice with regard to the likelihood of spread of something like COVID-19 in that environment, even in a mass gathering arrangement? Speaker 1: I think the restrictions speak to that in terms of them allowing those numbers at a state level. But outdoor events seem to be less of a risk than indoor events because of the transmission and also circulation of the virus. It's airborne transmission. And the open air environment seems to be producing less cases than the indoor environment is at this stage. So their position, I suppose, is based on evidence and science in that you have a lower
00:18:00 risk of transmission in outdoor events. Thank you. That's reflected in the restrictions. Thank you. That's fine. Councillor Lorentson: So back to evidence and science. I'm listening to what you're saying, Sunil. It sort of doesn't contradict, but it makes me question or concerned about decisions that have been made in New South Wales in regards to the Sydney Easter show. That's scheduled to run in April. And that's been given a green light. And they're anticipating something like that. I think it's about 150,000 visitors to go to the Sydney Easter show. Also concerning, or is it a matter of evidence and science, has assessed the five-day blues festival in Byron Bay is low risk because that's also been given a green light and that's proceeding over the Easter long weekend.
00:19:00 It's a question. Point of order. Are you confused with those decisions? Or do you agree that that's been given a green light and that's proceeding over the Easter Mayor Stewart: We all know Category 1 needs to be signed off by our Chief Medical Officer, Jeanette Young. Category 2, we need a COVID-safe event plan from a Queensland public health unit. In your opinion, we had a Category 2 event with 9,999 people, with a COVID-safe event plan from a Queensland public health unit. We had a Category 1 event with 10,100 people signed off by the Chief Health Officer. Is there a difference in risk? In your opinion. Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't comment really on the thresholds that they've set.
00:20:00 But they have set thresholds for that in terms of numbers. But I think the risk assessment tool that they would be using and the matrix they're using would be similar to assessing the same level of risk in terms of likelihood and consequence. I think they would both be using a similar risk assessment for that. Mayor Stewart: Would it be fair that the absolute platinum risk assessment is the Chief Health Officer's sign-off? That's the absolute gold star, the risk assessment. That Jeanette Young signs off on it personally. Speaker 1: I would say that my opinion, again, is that they have set that so that in terms of risk for large gatherings of people interstate or from outside their regions would be at the highest level, which is Chief Officer direction. And the Public Health Act basically gives them that power to approve things that are big. Councillor Lorentson: So, will a COVID-safe event plan sign off on the state to protect Council from any legal liability?
00:21:00 Speaker 4: That's a good question, Mr Neil. That's a good question, Bill. Yeah, the answer is I don't know. I don't know enough about it. We haven't had one before, so we'd have to look into it. Councillor Wilkie: If a lot of people place a lot of faith in the sign-off by the Queensland Health Officer and the Public Health Unit, why has the ultimate decision been placed in the hands of the Council then whether the event goes ahead or not? That lies at the heart. And the ultimate responsibility comes back to the local government. Speaker 2: Through the Chair, Councillor, there's two roles that I've identified in that report. The first one is around the health issues and the sign-off that's required depending on the category of event. Council still has its role. So, there's the health part that's taken care of by the state or their own framework. Council's role is still issuing permits and doing all the things that we would normally do. So, there are two distinct roles. Council's role is not to assess COVID-safe plans or how much rigour those have.
00:22:00 We stay within our lane and we do what we do. Councillor Wilkie: So, would it be fair to say that if a lockdown or a transmission should flow from a Council-approved event despite a COVID-safe plan signed off by the Health Officer, Council could only be held morally responsible, not necessarily legally responsible? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, I'm not really sure how to answer that. Councillor Wilkie: I withdraw the question. It's probably an unfair and grey area. Councillor Finzel: I have a question regarding the litigation. On page six of the report on the public liability insurance update on risk factors, you mentioned that Council takes on increased financial risk by allowing large events to proceed without adequate insurance coverage for COVID-19 due to the potential of incurring COVID-related litigation. Can you speak to us a little bit about those risks around the litigation possible? Speaker 2: Yeah, through the Chair.
00:23:00 Look, I think we have to acknowledge first off that it's a very small risk. So, our risk-based approach to this acknowledges that there is a very small risk. It's a very small risk that anything may happen. The events framework that the State has put together is a risk assessment tool and it definitely downgrades risk. So, that's the advice that we've had. There is still some outside chance, though, that litigation could flow as a result of lockdowns and whatever else. And we just merely make the point there that any litigation that comes against Council is rate-paid funded because there is no insurance coverage. So, it's as simple as that. Councillor Jurisevic: Excuse me, Madam Chair. I just noticed that one of the members of the audience is taking photography. I don't know that we have approval for photographs to be taken in the Chamber from that person. Mayor Stewart: I'll have to ask you to take a question and see. Speaker 4: Not without approval. Mayor Stewart: Not without approval. I'm sorry. Councillor Wegener: A question for Sunil.
00:24:00 We're dependent upon our governments controlling the influx of people coming in from overseas. The danger overseas seems to be increasing with the various mutations of the virus. Do you see fatigue coming in line with the government's overseeing of this? Because we're relaxing on this end, but the stakes will get higher on the government's end with people coming in overseas. Speaker 1: Through you, Madam Chair. Thank you. The situation now is that the critical control point for international travelers is a quarantine facility. And so far, the evidence and what's appearing is that the states and federal government are taking that really seriously in terms of how they're managing it because we've had cases that are only emanating out of those quarantine facilities for some reason.
00:25:00 And that's international travelers coming in. So I think from the evidence to date, what we're seeing is a ramp up in terms of how we're managing quarantine because of that risk. And that's the only risk it poses. My own opinion is that the states and the federal government are doing more and more each day and are concerned about a case emanating from the quarantine facility that shuts down places and has impact in terms of community transmission. I think the level of confidence we have in Queensland has increased over time in terms of how quickly we act when there's a case. And like we say, I think we've seen in the Northern Beaches, for example, and the north of Brisbane, or south of Brisbane, is that they're acting very quickly. And the states acting through the CHO, they locked down a city. Hypothetically, if there was a case in Noosa, we'd be, I suspect, we'd be locked down instantaneously.
00:26:00 And the controls for that is taking place at a state level. In other words, the CHO is issuing the directive to police and others to enforce those controls in terms of the lockdown. So there is a higher level of confidence now in terms of how we're managing. The evidence and results are also suggesting that. After those sharp, short lockdowns, five days, et cetera, it's working. There's no further transmission of the disease in high density areas like greater Brisbane and northern beaches, et cetera, where there's more population size than Noosa. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, Sunil, you're saying that the Queensland Health authorities generally response to even one case of COVID now has become far more dramatic, far more dramatic. And if there was one case of COVID detected in Noosa, the town could be shut down, like happened in Auckland?
00:27:00 Speaker 1: That's, in my opinion, and the evidence is suggesting the same, is that they're acting fairly quickly for single cases. And obviously, if there's an outbreak, but they're acting fairly quickly on assessment. What is the strain of the disease and where? So I think in terms of the infection itself and tracking it back through contact tracing is determining whether this is posing an additional risk that warrants that quick, sharp, sharp lockdown. And the comment for the Auckland situation is that because the strain of genotype test being that of the UK variant, they're concerned because the UK variant seems to be more transmissible. And I think similar to the cases in Brisbane and New South Wales and Victoria, where they suspected that the strains are, were the mutated strains, they acted fairly quickly because there's some unknowns about how it will transmit in our communities here.
00:28:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify also, what we're dealing with is something that's perhaps has a lower risk profile, but still a very high impact should occur. Speaker 1: Likelihood of cases is low, consequences high with COVID in terms of community transmission. And that's probably going to be there for time to come until we understand it better and until we modify the vaccinations and our other systems that we have in place to prevent spread of the disease. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I have a question, Sunil. Thank you for your information. With regards to the tracing, if we're shut down quickly with the state plan, and we have a huge number of spectators, and the impact is if we are shut down, can you tell me a little bit about the tracing and how long it would take? Does that impact how long the shutdown is while that is underway, the tracing?
00:29:00 Speaker 1: Again, I can comment. I'm not a virologist, but I can comment on what the contact tracing Queensland Health does or the health departments do. And their system seems to be ramped up at this point. And they're able to trace. There's a new app that's come out as well to identify people. I think the critical, my opinion is the critical control point for this would be is those event organizers having the details because what they're asking for is even through the app when you go to a restaurant or takeaway and you sign in is the ability for those organizers to supply the information within an hour to the health authorities so they can get on to the contact tracing. What we've seen now is they're declaring hotspots as well and they're going media and communicating. If anyone's been in the Woolworths, for example, then they're asking them to go and get tested
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 or to stay isolated until such time they have been tested. So I think from a systems point of view for managing those kinds of outbreaks, they're using everything at their disposal to try and identify those people that might have been in contact with someone. The immediate, the immediate contacts like immediate family, close contacts they call them, they seem to have a ring fence around that they know who they are in most cases and they get to them quite quickly. And in terms of secondary contacts or not so close contacts, they seem to be getting in touch with them through the media and through other places. The evidence to date is suggesting that that seems to be working because we're not getting sustained community transmission. With a virus like this, if you're getting sustained community transmission, it means we don't have it under control. And that ring fence has got some gaps in it with people. So suggesting also that people are responding quite well from the community to this disease,
00:31:00 given the implications it has on their livelihoods and economics and the rest of it. I think we've had enough questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move a motion. I'll read it out because it's different to the staff motion or recommendations. The Council note the report by the Director of Corporate Services and Property Manager to the Special Meeting dated 2nd of March 2021. And A, agree to accept the event applications for all Category 3 events as categorised by the Queensland Government and remove any local policy restrictions on the number of participants or the service of alcohol at these events. B, assess applications for Category 3 events against the Queensland Health COVID Event Framework and locally relevant factors. C, agree to accept event applications for all Category 2 events as categorised by the Queensland Government and remove any policy restrictions on the number of participants or the service of alcohol at these events, providing participants are residents of Queensland.
00:32:00 D, assess applications of Category 2 events against the Queensland Health COVID Event Framework and locally relevant factors. E, seek the following input from stakeholders in the community on the conduct of Category 1 events and permitting events that attract participants from outside Queensland, in particular in regard to 1. The acceptance or otherwise of any additional risk as a result of holding larger events. 2. The conditions under which individuals or organisations feel that it would be suitable to hold larger events or to attract interstate or overseas visitors. And 3. The concerns in regard to the social and economic impact of holding or not holding larger Category 1 events. And the results of this consultation will be reported at the April Round of Meetings. F, undertake a further review of its event policy should there be a significant change to the State's event framework. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Do you have a seconder for that motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, for the sake of argument, I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Chancellor. Chancellor Stewart.
00:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say, I think, while I appreciate the staff's recommendation, the decision environment we're in now is very different to August. And at the time when we did set our own locally relevant limits, Queensland Health was really still playing catch up on events and catching a very slippery virus. That's not, as we've heard, in response to questions. So it boils down to our risk appetite. The coordinator of our environmental health, when I asked the question, suggested that the World Health Organisation guidelines for risk assessment is probably the preeminent source to go to. So I've gone to that source. And as we've heard, the guiding principles for events in terms of risk assessment is that the more people and individual interacts with that gathering and the longer interaction lasts, the higher the individual's potential risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 and then spreading COVID-19 to others. The other one which we were testing the concept about is the higher the level of community
00:34:00 transmission in the area where the gathering is being held, the higher the risk of COVID-19 spreading at that gathering. So we've heard that Australia, Queensland and locally, that there isn't a great deal of community transmission. But we do know that interstate, we have had incidents where there has been community transition that has caused us to close the borders off and there's still that opportunity or that risk that that will occur in the future. And hence, while I suggest we do keep it just to Queensland for category two events, up to 10,000 people, is that I think if we seek community feedback, we've only got one event that goes over 10,000 people and that's the tri. If we do seek feedback on those issues and we get a broader input, we've had a lot of input from the triathlon community and the business community and a little bit of input from resident groups, but if we have a broader feedback from the community on those larger events and ones that are likely to attract both national and potentially international participants, then in my motion here by end of next month, we should have made a decision
00:35:00 on those as well. In the interim, obviously, people from Queensland can get their bookings for local accommodation houses and the local accommodation houses will probably have more confidence that there won't be an impact of state border closures. The risk assessment, and I'm going to show it to you soon because I think it's important to work out what is the level of risk according to the World Health Organisation. It suggests we should at local level and national and state authorities and event organisers should be based on the host country's existing regulations and we've heard a lot about the Queensland health guidelines and social measures, which reflects the intensity of transmission in the area. So we are very fortunate in the world context. Evaluation of risk assessment and appraisal of the likelihood that an event may contribute to the spread of COVID and that the health services capacity may be exceeded by such a spread. We're unlikely to be in that case that the health services capacity will be exceeded. And three.
00:36:00 The capacity to apply prevention and control measures. The ability to implement actions that can reduce the risk associated with the event. And I think that's the key in determining whether these large events are risky or not. So, Kylie, if you could bring up the copy of that book, that graphic. So this is the World Health Organisation event risk. It talks about, down here, the risk questions. Will the event take place in the host country? And I put slash state with documented active local transmission, community spread. We put a zero there. Will the event participants from countries that have documented active local transmission in this motion? Zero. If it was state, we'd still put zero at this stage, but that's something that may change over time. Will the event include a significant number of participants at higher risk of severe disease? It's unlikely. But if we were risk cautious in what we're saying in terms of these open outdoor activities and we have a significant number of people at higher risk in our community, we might put a one in that category. Will the event be primarily indoors or will it be in close contact with another period
00:37:00 of employment period? We put zero. So the highest score I can get to for an event in Noosa is one in that factor. So then if you look at the next assessment there, you see that with a score of zero, providing you're somewhat prepared to mitigate COVID-19, the risk is the lowest, very low. If you even get a score of one, provided you're prepared to mitigate COVID-19 impacts, and there's a whole different spreadsheet that goes and gives us all the score you see there between 76 to 100. And I've gone through and done a dummy run, and it's clear that if you've got a COVID safe approval from the Queensland Government, that you're going to get a score of 76 to 100. So even in areas, even if all the participants, you know, a significant number of participants were in the vulnerable category, the ALH people, the people with underlying health conditions, we could still run events in Queensland in Noosa under current conditions with a very low level of risk. So then that we can't exclude risk.
00:38:00 So we have to look at, is that very low level of risk warrants the social or economic benefits that flow to our community? And we must admit that these events are the hub of the social lives of many in our community. There is a public benefit from holding them. So you have to outweigh the risk of disease versus the risk of our impact on the wellbeing of our community by not holding them. My view is that the motion puts that risk in balance, and therefore I think it's something we should proceed along. I think the only other aspect is we did go out to the public and say that we were going to consult on larger events. So that's in the public domain. And so I think we should honour that. And I think we should be, I've tried to be fairly specific about the questions we should ask because we know there's going to be two different views from those particularly in the vulnerable category versus those who are young or who are very energetic and who get
00:39:00 involved in a lot of events. They're going to be two different world views. And so we really need to try and hone in. I've tried to do that in the motion with those three specific consultation questions. And as I said, there's only one event that goes over the category two limit. That is the Noosa Triathlon. They have given us an off-the-cuff result that they probably could operate as a category two. If you look at about 30% of their normal participants are interstate, if after the April findings we decide to go to category three, it still gives them about six months to attract interstate. Category one? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I break you? Category one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Category one, sorry. Yeah, category one. It still gives them five to six months to attract interstate competitors. I think that's a good risk reduction for our accommodation houses in that we know that board closures can occur very quickly. So it allows, obviously it reduces our risk by allowing the local and it's most likely mostly people from Brisbane to get in and book the accommodation first and get in the
00:40:00 events first. But it still leaves that door open for once we've heard from the broader community about larger events and that attract people from outside the state, that we can allow something bigger at a future date. Councillor Jurisevic: We've got a question, Madam Chair, and I'm not sure who it's directed to, possibly Sunil. With regard to point C in this motion, are category two events as categorised by the Queensland Government and approved by the Queensland Department of Health currently restricted to residents of Queensland only? Is anybody able to answer that question? Speaker 3: I'm comfortable to answer that question. No, they are not. Thank you. That's a restriction that the council has placed. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to test an amendment, please. Madam Chair. The amendment is that in section C that it, sorry, the whole management is restricted
00:41:00 to residents of Queensland. Councillor Wegener: So I second that motion. I second that motion. Council member. Councillor Wilkie: Council member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I was really, I was moved by Councillor Stockwell's risk assessment on this one. It's very effectively argued that the risk was quite low. For also for the ease of assessment of events. And also organisation of events. I would like that, I'm proposing that the restriction on, the limit on participants being limited to Queensland be removed. Also, I know there are a lot of events that the local community rely on for visitors from
00:42:00 Sydney and Melbourne. This would exclude them from that. The, for example, food and, food and drink. Any sporting events that may happen. I would like that, I'm proposing that the restriction on, the limit on participants Category 2 event would be an event such as the food, sorry, some of the eat and drink, the fusion festival, body art, for example. They're great tourism events and also enjoyed by the community and to give the event organisers some certainty and also accommodation providers something to look forward to. I would not like to see them miss out on visitors from Sydney and Melbourne on this occasion, given that the risk is very low. And I do acknowledge the precautionary approach is still a wise one to take.
00:43:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Jurisevic: A question for the CEO. I know section E of this refers to a level of consultation with the community and organisations to be reported back to the APRA. Is that a sufficient time frame for a round of meetings, given that March has begun, or is that a sufficient time frame for you to, or for staff to, deliver that level of consultation? Sorry, that's not related to this particular amendment. It's a question to you, one that's got to deal with this amendment, one that needs to be dealt with. Good point, good point. Tori? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Clare Russell, Councillor Swanson. In regards to the motion that's been, amendment that's been put forward by Councillor Wilkie, I support this motion. I think in this amendment, sorry, it recognises the state's being a leading authority in the area of public health, not council. It also, in my opinion, recognises the reporting that's required to stage an event in Queensland. It also considers the fact that events with mass gatherings have been successfully delivered since August 31.
00:44:00 And it considers the rollout of vaccinations. It makes no sense to me to condition an event to Queensland only participants that then allow supporters and visitors from anywhere to attend. I don't understand how that's going to work or how that's going to mitigate risk. I appreciate the intent of the original amendment, original motion, which is to protect the community from a COVID outbreak. But I remind councillors that restricting participants to Queensland only will not eradicate risk in its entirety. Nothing will. No crisis. No plan. Nothing. COVID's not going away. It's here to stay for some time. So rather than creating confusion and angst in our community by imposing locality restrictions, let's just be consistent and simplistic in our decision making and simply align with the Queensland Government and Queensland's Chief Health Officer approved framework for COVID safe events.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 In addition, I'd also like to just reiterate what Sunil said in regards to the Queensland State Government and their track record of acting from, quote, overabundance of caution. One case just recently caused a snap lockdown in Greater Brisbane just recently. To quote the State Premier, we're going to go hard and we are going to go early to do everything we can to stop the spread of the virus. Should widespread transmission occur or a local outbreak, then the State will negotiate with the organisers to postpone, downsize or adapt their events to the current circumstances. And finally, I approve this amendment put forward by Councillor Wilkie because it does recognise that professional event companies who, like Ironman, have already proven that they can deliver large events safely under an approved COVID safe event plan as audited by the Queensland
00:46:00 Health Officials. I'd like to also point out that the financial risk that are taken by event organisers are immense. They will be layering additional levels of risk management to these plans to ensure that the events are COVID safe. It is therefore, in my opinion, unreasonable to be imposing restrictions that exposes these organisers to more financial risk. We talk about the Noosa brand, and we talk a lot about reputational damage. I'd like to remind everyone in this room that the Noosa brand is not just a brand, it has in most part been created off the backs of such events as the Noosa Tri. And we can't forget this just because Noosa is full at the moment. Therefore, on the balance of risk based on facts and understanding that a vaccine rollout has already commenced and that by October 2021, almost all of the adult population will be vaccinated, the short term social and economic benefits outweigh the potential adverse health
00:47:00 and long term consequences if these mass events proceed. So I happily support the amendment put forward not to restrict participants to Queensland only. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: I also happily support the amendment. I don't think that C, as it stood, reflected the situation that Category 2 events had from the Queensland State Government and the sign off by the Queensland State Government. It would impose an additional level of risk management to these events. No, you've put the wrong word in my ear. An additional level of responsibility on the event managers, which is not in keeping with Category 2 events as they have stated by the Queensland State Government. I think that would be unfair. They would have to be advertising that, sorry, it's lovely, you can welcome, you can come to Noosa, but you can't come to our event. I think that's a bit of a stipulation.
00:48:00 That's one step too far. So I support the amendment by Councillor Lange. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I ask a question? Concerning E, when we put this out to community consultation and going down to- Speaker 1: We're talking about the amendment. Councillor Wegener: The amendment. Speaker 4: The amendment is about C. C. Which is whether or not residents outside of Queensland- Councillor Wegener: Oh, okay. Once we accept that, then we can go back up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I have the same problem. Yeah. Great. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think the points particularly raised by Councillor Wilkie, I suppose when I was thinking about this, I wasn't thinking of a smaller event between 1,500 and 5,000 that may attract interstate people. And it was, in my mind, made a couple of weeks ago that we were still saying that it is safer to hold it in Queensland. I'm quite happy. The majority of the people are likely to support it opening up. I think the arguments are there.
00:49:00 So I support the amendment as well. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Does anyone else like to speak? Did you pass your question, Caroline? Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, I've waived my right to speak, so we go to the motion. Yes. All right. Mayor Stewart: All in favour of the amendment? That's unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: May I move another amendment, please? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Sure. Councillor Wilkie: And that would be that to change the words under E, part three, and the results of this consultation reported to the May round of meetings. Mayor Stewart: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I support the motion as it stands, but there was a question earlier about whether that time would be sufficient for there to be meaningful public consultation to take place.
00:50:00 We've all received, and I've personally received about 150 emails specifically from triathletes on this particular events policy, and only three perhaps from community groups or their representatives. I think this is, we're talking about the future of Noosa here and the scale of the events. Are we ready for an event that's, at this stage, that's promoted as the world's largest event of its type? I'm not so sure. I really applaud going out to public consultation. We said we would. We've signalled to the community we would. It's what we do quite well here in Noosa. But it has to be meaningful. I've heard other councillors say the same thing on that. I agree. We, it's an opportunity to canvass more broadly and get a wider range of views in the feedback. As has been said before, we've just heard from the triathlete community and also the business
00:51:00 community on this. I'm very interested to hear, to get a more nuanced picture of how the community as a whole feel about category one events, that's events over 10,000, and how that fits with Noosa as a community and destination of our size and demographic. And I, if we're reporting to the May round of meetings, we have heard from one large event organiser that that would meet with their deadline. If they wanted to pursue a category one event, that would meet with their deadline of preparing for an event of that size later this year. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. That's a good statement. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Mr. CEO, I was getting ahead of myself earlier. I'll ask the same question. Yeah. With regard to the capacity of staff to deliver meaningful community consultation by the April round of meetings, given that it is now . Speaker 4: Let's just say the staff will be eminently more comfortable with May than April.
00:52:00 Councillor Wegener: With this, again, I'm going to kind of go back to the last comment and, you know, I'll go back if I'm out of place here, but for the public to understand it, I think it's very hard for them to divorce the COVID situation from whether they like or not the particular big events. And that's a very difficult thing to sit to. It's actually hard for us at this table to look at it, you know, you've got the event on one hand and you have the COVID restrictions and the safety on the other hand. By May, do you think we could actually get that message out that this is just a COVID thing and divorce it from talking about whether we want the big events and the much bigger strategy for Noosa? Because on one hand, it's a smaller issue, on the other hand, developing a strategy and
00:53:00 whether we want to consult about the bigger issues. Can we do that by May? Speaker 4: Yes. I can probably answer that. No, this consultation is particularly about the COVID scenario. It's not about events, which is what I said at the beginning. This is about the policy of events, which we will apply during the COVID period. That, under the current motion that's before Council, is all that we're being consulted on. It's not consulting on the broader question of we want big events or not big events. This is about the question of should category one events be held in this COVID environment? That's the only question that will be asked if we go through the consultation process under this proposed motion. Councillor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, Mr. Chair, we're talking about the amendment which includes all the conditions that Councillor Stockwell moved in his original motion about the risk related to COVID in category one events. We're not worried. Speaker 4: We can do... What we're consulting on... Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, the timing for the...
00:54:00 Yes. Speaker 4: What we're consulting on is what's set out in paragraph E. Yes. In relation to category one events. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. I'll speak to it, Madam Chair. Thank you. Given that this amendment is only in relation to item E, I'll support the motion given that the feedback from the CEO is that staff would be more comfortable with a bit more time and I think the opportunity to deliver a more meaningful level of consultation should consultation be the way that we progress once the full motion is put before us again. So, as far as the amendment goes, I'm happy to support the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Mr. Councillor. I'm a little bit concerned about this amendment. It's my opinion that I don't believe that what we're going to be putting to the community will actually constitute genuine and meaningful consultation. It's just I'm concerned that we can't be asking the community... Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, point of order. I believe the Councillor is talking towards the remainder of the motion and not the amendment
00:55:00 specifically. Mayor Stewart: We're talking towards the amendment between May and April. We're talking towards the amendment between May and April. Oh, okay. So, would anyone else like to talk to this in regard to April tomorrow? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do believe that the earlier we can make a decision in regard to category one, the better. I do understand that staff would be pressed within the timeframe if it was to go, for example, to a general meeting, general meeting meeting in April. I do, however, think that, of course, we are asking a limited set of questions and we're trying to get a broader perspective that whether we have a two-week or four-week consultation period to receive input is likely to have very little difference. The people who are committed to one position or another likely have adequate time, so I
00:56:00 actually still think that it would be possible. In April. But I'm happy to go with the majority of Council's view in that regard. Speaker 4: Just a question whether it's April or May. Mayor Stewart: April or May. Speaker 4: Come back. Mayor Stewart: So, the current motion on the amendment is to replace April with May, to open the reporting period for May. So, if you're not... Yes. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, the question before us is the April-May consideration for staff. The staff is already under GRS with the volume of infrastructure work and things coming through. I personally think that we should consider the whole question of going to community. The community has given extensive feedback. I've received hundreds of emails between all of us. We have received correspondence from all the bodies throughout the community.
00:57:00 So, I'm happy to go with that. I feel that the community has been consulted significantly. The impact against the staff at this time, I think, is unnecessary, but in order of what stands before us today, due to the significance of the pressure on the staff, I'll take it out to April. To May. May. May. May. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Question. So, going back to that, divorcing. The question before us today is about the COVID safety and events. We received a lot of emails, and they didn't really address that issue. The emails we received were all about the triathlon, you know, and changing the numbers. I still see an enormous confusion there. And so, I just... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll call the point of order again, Madam Chair. Councillor Wegener: I believe the council is not addressing the amendment before us. Yeah. Would you like to comment on your... You're on this.
00:58:00 Speaker 4: No, sorry. Councillor Wegener: That's not much of a... Speaker 4: Can I start with a comment on council debates? Yeah. I think the question, I'd be happy to answer that, but that's a matter for you guys to work out when you have your debates. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question, a couple of questions. What's the cost to rate-pays if we do go to consultation? And what will consultation look like? And what's involved in relation to human resources? What's the cost to human resources and conducting an online or telephone survey or however we're going to be performing this? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, the resources will probably be me or someone from another area of council. Look, typically, with this kind of doing phone surveys and online kind of surveys, there's going to be, you'd be up around probably between $6,000 and $10,000 to do it, to undertake
00:59:00 the consultation. And that doesn't include the staff time and putting reports together and what have you. Councillor Lorentson: From past experience, what sort of sample size have you received from past issues? What are you expecting to receive in regards to this engagement process? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, I literally have no idea. No. I don't know. I mean, it could be very targeted from select segments of the community. With regards to, for example, the triathlete community, you might get very active resident and rate-payer base that may activate on the issue. It's very hard to say. It's issue-specific. Councillor Lorentson: So will part of the questions be addressing or explaining the specific framework and the reporting that we're going to be doing? I think that's required to stage these events, so we won't be talking, I would say,
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 prevent plans, checklists. We're expecting an informed decision. We're expecting the community to provide an informed decision, and we've got to provide them with information. Speaker 2: Through the Chair, so typically you'd provide a background of the issue that we're seeking to address. And there would also be a pricey of the event framework. So it'd be category one, what is it? What's the requirements? Category two, category three. And then you'd get into the questions. They would have to be very carefully crafted, the questions. Otherwise, you will get people talking about a whole range of issues that are unconnected with COVID. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Sorry. Just on that. I need to take a consultation on category one. That requires the Chief Health Officer. That requires the Chief Health Officer. That requires the Chief Health Officer to sign up. So that would be very clearly stated and represented to the community.
01:01:00 Because that is what category one require. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But... Sorry, councillors. Mayor Stewart: Do you have television cameras in the chambers? Does anyone have any of those? Is there an issue about that? I need that. Speaker 4: I need to get your bed signed. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So Clint, over the last six days, we've had media coverage. This issue has hit the Courier Mail and social media. And we, as a council, have been inundated with submissions from volunteers, residents, athletes, organisers, tourist businesses, accommodation providers. If we're trying to engage... I'm sorry. If we're trying to engage risk appetite in the community, surely over the last six days, we as a council... Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Madam Chair. Again, the questions aren't relating to the amendment as they stand, which is the question
01:02:00 before us. They relate to the motion as a whole. And I respectfully request that the questions are related around the amendment at this point in time. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone have anything else? I think we've all spoken by myself to the... Anyone want to speak to the amendment in regard to changing from April to May? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I think a very important difference is that, yes, we have received feedback, but feedback to a council report on an agenda always attracts feedback from specific interest groups. It's been very specific. It's been businesses and the... I've had about three emails from representatives of community groups that are not their members. By no means is it considered broad community consultation on Category 1 events.
01:03:00 And that's what we're seeking to do with this change. So I'm asking that we seek to change feedback on the consultation from April to May to give staff adequate time not only to adjust to changes in the policy that may come from today, but also to construct a suitable public consultation questionnaire, invite comment on your say, use the media appropriately to get Ghana wide and broad community consultation and give us meaningful feedback so we can make informed decision, the best decision we can on this very important issue. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We will put the matter to a vote in regard to Amendment 2. All those in favour? That's Councillor Wilkie, Mayor Griswitch, Stewart. So that was to take it to May. So I'll call it again. All those in favour of the motion on the table is replacing consultation from April to May.
01:04:00 All those in favour? Councillor Finzel, Wilkie, Wegener, Jurisevic, Stewart against. Councillor Stockwell and Weinstein. I think the motion is carried. Now, the amendment is carried. We're back to the original motion of Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel: I want to make an amendment. I want to remove all of C, all of E. Councillor Wegener: So I'll second the motion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Sorry, just on... Yeah, can I just clarify that please? Can I ask a question, please? Can I say something? Speaker 4: What removing E does is leave silence at the council of dealing with Category 1. Councillor Finzel: What is Category 1?
01:05:00 What are the exceptions? The big ones. Speaker 4: The large ones. Councillor Finzel: The over 10,000. Speaker 4: So if you're removing Category... Sorry. Removing Paragraph E, what that does is form the position on council for Categories 3 and 2. But it leaves it silent at the Category 1. So if you're looking to remove E, you'd want to be then replacing it with something else to say what are we going to do in terms of Category 1. Does that make sense? Councillor Finzel: Okay. Okay. And I would like to replace that, that we take on board the State Government Industry Framework for COVID-safe events as listed on page five of the... Councillor Jurisevic: Category 1. Councillor Finzel: Category 1. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I clarify that, Councillor? You're referring to Category 1 events? Mayor Stewart: Yes. Over 10,000. Yes. Speaker 4: So just to clarify, the intent is therefore that you change E to effectively say, instead of doing consultation, I'm paraphrasing it, that we would accept applications in relation to Category 1? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Okay. Can I take... Can I take back my second on that one?
01:06:00 Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else second this amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I will. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you so much. I can't, sorry. I'm sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, I can't. I've seconded the reading. I can't. I'm sorry. I've seconded the original. I've seconded the original. My apologies. Mayor Stewart: I'll second it for the point. Councillor Finzel: To the staff with regards to getting timely information back and all the other issues that we have discussed and the concerns around the table today. What before us today is the decision to look at the category of events one, two and three in alignment with the state government industry framework COVID safe events. If we choose to agree with that, then that negates the other discussions or the need for consultation. Second to that is we have been the elected
01:07:00 officials of this community. I believe there has been significant feedback from individuals from the groups. We've heard from the staff and I believe that we are adequately informed as elected representatives in this community to make the decision today based on the information and the frameworks from the state government industry framework for COVID safe events. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can I just clarify something with regard to the amendment? Now that it's, Kylie has adjusted the elements there. Should it read, can you just go back up to the original motion please Kylie with regard to category one and category two. Are we looking at assess application for category one events in the same way that we are category three or in the same way that we are category two with the service of alcohol? I don't think that was clarified before the motion was fully put. That was why I understand
01:08:00 it. I was actually looking at a replication of C, not a replication of B in seconding this motion. Speaker 4: I think the question, I think the question, Councillor Drew is asking, and it's probably a very broad question, but I think it's a very broad question. I think it's a very broad Councillor Jurisevic: I realise after the motion, the motion wasn't clarified, Mr CEO. It did state that it was too weak along the lines of category one against, but again, it didn't clarify the position with regard to alcohol evidence. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I move that the amendment be ruled out of order because it was not agreed between the mover and the seconder and there were still words going up on the screen. I think we should start again. I concur with that. Speaker 4: I've not come across that before. It's always something new. Certainly part of the problem with the issue is that the mover of the motion hadn't clarified exactly the wording prior to speaking to that.
01:09:00 But what staff had done and put up correctly, in my view, the wording which reflected the intent of what the councillor was seeking to move, which was to, as I said before when I asked the question, which was to put or replace paragraph E with words that would effectively improve the motion. That was certainly the intent of the mover and that's what has been put there. My advice to councillors is that has been moved and spoken to and that I think should be then dealt with through that amendment process. If another councillor then wants to move a subsequent amendment to deal with the alcohol issue, you can do it that way, but I think that would be the appropriate process to do that. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 4: Mr Jurisevic was the second. I can't do the second.
01:10:00 I think that's the appropriate process is we work our way through this. Sorry, if this motion, amendment is successful, then someone else may wish to move additional wording that relates to the alcohol component for category 1. And conversely, if the amendment is unsuccessful, then it becomes an academic question. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I ask a question? Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. I'd like to support Councillor Finzel's motion not to go to community consultation. I believe that if we do go to community consultation, it's not going to be genuine nor meaningful. It's my opinion that we just can't ask the community for input without explaining the specific framework and the reporting that's required to stage an event in Queensland. And I fail to understand how this is going to be achieved. We as a council, we're struggling to understand the complexities and detail of the industry framework. We're struggling with the COVID safe checklists and checks and balances.
01:11:00 How is this going to be explained to our residents? And unless the community is properly informed, then in my opinion, they can't make an informed decision. Further, I'm concerned that we're consulting with the community on matters in public health that may be outside their area of expertise and knowledge. I'm concerned that fear and not fact will inform their input. I think we need to be reminded that the industry framework for COVID safe events has been developed by the Queensland Tourism Industry Council in partnership with Griffith University Mass Gathering Collaboration and the Queensland Government. Extensive consultation has already occurred with the Griffith University School of Nursing and Midwifery, the Griffith University School of Paramedicine, the Griffith Institution for Tourism, Gold Coast Hospital and Self Health Service. The Queensland Health and the Torrance Resilience Institute, which is a World Health Service Organisation collaboration centre for mass gatherings and global health security.
01:12:00 And this consultation led to the approval of the industry framework for COVID safe events for the delivery of Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 events within Queensland. By going to community consultation, we are failing to recognise the position of the Queensland Government and the Queensland's Chief Health Officer and the delivery of COVID safe events within an approved industry framework. Further, we are being inconsistent with our decision making. So, my issue is we just can't pick and choose. We can't say yes to follow Queensland Health in Category 2 and 3 and no to Category 1. We either align with Queensland's health industry framework for COVID safe events or we don't. We either recognise Queensland Health are the experts in pandemic management or we don't. And finally, we either make decisions that are based on fact or we make decisions based on fear.
01:13:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question either to Sunil or Kerry, I think it is. In terms of Category 1 and the Queensland Health COVID framework, they get the decision making authority. Is it the same as the other Categories where they still would request that the Council look at locally relevant factors before they go to a string of permits? Speaker 3: I'm going to answer that, Councillor Stockwell. So, the Chief Health Officer in the Queensland Government made it clear that it is the responsibility of all levels of Government to ensure that plans are locally relevant. So, while they would certainly put a lens on it, if that plan came to us and we saw that, perhaps, it hadn't fully taken into account locally relevant factors, we would ask for a reassessment. So, that's both for Category 2 and Category 3. Otherwise, also, if there was a specific, say it was a smaller item around a locally relevant factor and we thought, hang on, it doesn't need to go back to the State,
01:14:00 we could impose our own conditions for either Categories 1, 2 or 3. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the motion now. There's a couple of principles here. Firstly, and most relevantly, I think, is in setting up the original motion, I did so in a way to try and inform our decision about what should be the locally relevant factors. So, we can make assumptions and there's a range of assumptions in what Councillor Lorentson, in her opinion, that we wouldn't be doing it meaningfully and we wouldn't be getting a fair enough factor. I think that is downplaying the intelligence of this community and downplaying the knowledge and how we should be informing this decision. While I accept that there's a low level of risk between a change between Category 2 and 1, I believe we have made a public commitment and I do believe it is relevant to try and bring the community with us,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 not make decisions on their behalf in regard to this issue. I think it is one that will be difficult to keep people focused. On the COVID-safe nature of large events rather than the broader issues. But I don't think that's a reason not to do it. I keep on coming back to we did go out into the public domain and said we would. And there would be people who would have lobbied us during this period, like the triathletes did, if we hadn't gone out and said that. And so, to me, it's about keeping with our public commitment. And two, I do believe if constructed in a manner that will get factual feedback and in a way that people can identify both what they think would and wouldn't be acceptable to their local community, I think it will be a valuable process. And I don't think that doing it will unduly inhibit the conduct of any Category 1 event this year should the feedback be
01:16:00 that we gave feedback and we feel confident to go ahead. Councillor Wilkie: Look, it takes a certain sort of individual to run for Council. And we're here because we're prepared to make decisions on behalf of the community. I can make a decision on this today. But as a principle, public consultation is something I heard a lot about during the election campaign. And here we are at almost the first opportunity. It's the first time I've heard of Council shying away from an opportunity for public consultation. The benefit of public consultation is you may actually learn something you don't already know. That's why I'm open to the idea of public consultation on an issue like this. Councillor Stockwell made a very good point. Of course, consultation is going to be framed in a way that is expected.
01:17:00 And it's a framework that helps people understand the issues. Simple language can be used. We're not requiring respondents to become public health experts. That's an argument. You can't just dismiss getting feedback on that issue by saying we're not public health experts. It's about managing risk. We can also handle this. Queensland Health has a framework for managing events. But there seems to be, it's too easy just to say I will hand it over to Queensland Health. If it was that simple, we'd just do it. But the reason why this is not an easy issue is because ultimate responsibility for whether an event of this scale goes ahead in this community or not, the world's largest triathlon, while a global pandemic is still underway and there is still risk, low risk, but high impact if it is ever realised.
01:18:00 The reason why we're having this debate is because ultimate responsibility from any transmission and any snap lockdown that may come as a result of one transmission ultimately falls back on our shoulders. And I'm really glad to see councillors. I would get worried if a councillor didn't take this decision, didn't agonise a bit over it. Because ultimately, morally at least, we are responsible for anything that may flow in terms of a public health outcome or a shutdown of public health. We are responsible for anything that can be done in the business from an event where one transmission can occur. I'm not going to support this amendment because the previous amendments and motions talk about a graduated approach and increased risk for appetite under changing circumstances. This is saying, go straight back, you know, let's jump back to the world's largest triathlon here at this stage.
01:19:00 And it's, you know, it's like saying, yes, there is a risk some of you may get ill, some of you may even die, some of you may lose your livelihoods, that's a risk I'm prepared to take. Well, it's not. None of us would take that risk lightly. Yes, it is a low risk, but it's high impact if it does happen. Let's see. Noosa's brand and reputation has been dependent on, has also benefited from it, this being a COVID safe, a healthy and welcoming community and also a destination in the face of the pandemic and at a times when Brisbane has had shutdowns, Sydney and Melbourne have had shutdowns. We don't want that to happen here. Yes, the public response, health response has improved after an outbreak, but what we want to do, it's all well and good if there's a great public health response after an outbreak, but we don't want the outbreak or the shutdown that follows from it.
01:20:00 And by going straight to this, we're not entirely removing the risk that that could occur. Public consultation, as I said before, allows us to find out something we haven't found out before. We've received very specific feedback from interest groups on this specific report, but to go out to broader community consultation on big issues has been a good point about Noosa Council over the last many decades and I'd hate to see us suddenly shying away from it now, even though we could all make a decision today if we wanted to. Mayor Stewart: This is a very special time. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I thank my Loondah colleagues around the table for their opinions in this regard.
01:21:00 I'm prepared to support this amendment for one reason, one reason only, that we only have one category, one event, and it only relates to one event in our Shire. And my concern is that the going out to community consultation won't be an argument about the COVID safe level of an event being staged here. The community wants to see the triathlon continue or not, and it'll actually not bring, you talk about something we don't know, it may completely drive another level of derision within the community around the event itself and not around COVID safe events in category one. I think it becomes specifically around the one event and not around the health implications of the event. That's the only reason I'm a little sitting on the fence on this one, a little bit challenged by the elements of what was in Councillor Stockwell's original motion around category one events and the fact that we only have one category one event and where community consultation will lead on that.
01:22:00 I think that's certainly an argument we can have within the community in the long term, but not around the COVID health safe aspect. So I'm prepared to support this amendment as it stands. I think that a lot of the points that have been raised have been around the table, particularly from Councillor Morrison with regard to where we stand with Queensland health and health in general. The information provided by staff internally as to regard to the risk and the low level risk, and even Councillor Stockwell alluded to the low level of risk an event like this would bring. I understand. I understand the brand reputation and the risks associated associated with that. But we have had significant numbers of gatherings and collectives of various forms since since October and no no risk seems to have been provided to the community of events less managed than any of these events are likely to be the Noosa brand reputation.
01:23:00 Look, I appreciate that. But is is it going to stop me going to the city? Anybody's going to cities, north and beaches after an outbreak? In December, I don't believe so. Yes, if an outbreak occurred as a result of an event where there may be a shutdown, but an outbreak could occur at any stage for any reason. And the biggest element of outbreak that we have seen so far has been the mismanagement of hotel quarantine and international visitors arriving, not from local transmission, not from Queenslanders, not from interstates. As far as I can, as far as my understanding of this situation. So whilst I appreciate the desire to go to community consultation by some councils on this, my view is that the risk is sufficiently low, that the brand reputation has every chance of being risked just by normal everyday activity, that the gatherings and mass gatherings that have occurred have not created any issues so far, that events have been staged
01:24:00 of this nature, and events of another nature, i.e. stadium style events have been staged with far greater numbers than this, and I've attended one of those, and have not seen any outbreaks as a result of that. I live with a vulnerable person in this community that was susceptible to the impacts of COVID-19. So I am fully conversant and fully aware of the challenges that this presents to a vulnerable person in our community. And I think that the risk being presented to us is of significant level to not fear
01:25:00 the COVID, but to be aware of the safeguards that are in place, have an understanding of the pressures that are put upon our community, both from a health perspective, but also from an economic perspective, and are prepared to acknowledge that there's a low risk and only a low risk going forward. Councillor Wegener: A question. Could you help me walk through item E? And what does that mean? What does it exactly agree to accept event applications? Speaker 4: So what the amendment moved by Councillor Finzel does is effectively decide for the category one events, instead of the original proposal by Councillor Stockwell of going through a consultation process and reporting back now to May. So what the amendment moves by Councillor Finzel does is effectively decide for the category one events. The amendment is that instead of doing consultation, we'd apply the same as we're doing for category one and category two. That is that we would simply move to align our approach to category one events to the
01:26:00 state health framework. Councillor Wegener: And if we, when we approve this, do we approve the entire motion, or is this going to go Speaker 4: back? All this is doing, all this amendment is doing is effectively changing the framework of the approach of council in relation to the category one events. In other words, moving it from a consultation phase into we would accept applications for category one and deal with those. Councillor Wegener: And we have a, so far we have a grand total of one category, one event, which is the Noosa Tri. Correct. Are we, so Joe just, Joe just gave us a little bit of background on category one, you know, a beautiful soliloquy. Is this our time for our soliloquies? Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Everybody brace yourselves.
01:27:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So long as it's about the amendment of categories. Councillor Wegener: But okay, because this is following from, as you can see, you know, like I, as I said quite a few times so far, we were discussing the health aspects, you know, for category ones. There's one one, it's the tribe. So we're talking about the health aspect. We're talking about the triathlon. Really, we are, we're, we're, we're, if it goes out to community consultation, I do not believe that you can divorce a pure COVID safe response, you know, plan from wanting to try or not wanting to try. And so I'm in favor of not going out to community consultation on this one and that we should make the decision now. As when people would talk to me, I would, I would say the worst decision is to, is to waffle. A bad decision is worse than actually no decision at all. And there's probably not a great decision, not the right decision. When it comes to this, a lot of my colleagues were really going to shake their heads at
01:28:00 me and say, Tom, you got this really, really wrong. But we've been struggling so hard with this, with this question that I'm going to go back to my, my fundamental principles of why I ran for council. And that is I'm a stoic. And stoics believe in one, one, uh, one tenement of stoism is that each and every person has a divinity within them. And that divinity is, is shown through the ability to love, to hope, to desire, to, to be themselves and to be the best person that could possibly be. And as, as Socrates would say, your goal in life, the highest thing you can do is to be the best you can be and develop your character. Develop those parts of yourself. Develop those parts of yourself that nobody can take away from you, which is your soul, which is your character. And these big events, for example, the tri specifically, um, they, they actually help
01:29:00 people develop their character. That's, that's part of what, what they do. Uh, when, when I talk to people loving the tri, I don't, I don't like the tri, I personally, I would never go in the tri, but I see people and they are so absolutely emphatically in love with the tri. It means so much to them and it's the vast minority of the community, but still there's a lot of people that really, really love that. And I, as a stoic, don't want to take away their ability, their moment, that time where they can develop themselves, develop their inner divinity for the rest of their lives. And I see the people at the frontline, uh, on the, on the, I've never been there, but I have been on the beach at Waimea Bay when it's giant in the dark. And that's my time when I would, I have my board under my arm and I have been working years, my entire life for that moment to be able to, to, to, to embrace that moment that paddle out into that surf. The same, I believe goes for those people on the starting line of the Newston Triathlon. So I, I find, um, going, going on a completely different level, um, that, that I, I do,
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 I really, really, really don't want to take that opportunity for somebody to develop themselves as a stoic from them, uh, unless there is a real emergency when it comes to COVID. In the past there was, but it seems though we are as, as we were, we're going past that we're, we're, we're getting a control of the COVID situation here. And people ask me, what, what is a stoic? Well, there's one sentence that really captures what it is to be a stoic and it's, um, from the Declaration of Independence from America, but I'm reading this not as an American, but as, as a stoic, it says, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with a certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights and governments are instituted among men.
01:31:00 And so what that's saying is that as a government, we, we want to recognize the divinity and part of democracy is to, um, help people find that divinity. Kings and kings and dictators, they don't do that, but democracies, it's very important for each person to develop. To the, to the best of their potential. And because we're, we are talking about the triathlon in a category one event, there are, I, I, I, I can't, don't have the reasoning, I, I, there's not a good enough reason to cancel those people's stoic basically from being there and, and feeling the love and, and, and developing themselves in the tri. So I will on that long soliloquy, I will, I will, um, support the amendment. Mayor Stewart: So this is, uh, this isn't an easy issue. It's one which is incredibly important to our Shire.
01:32:00 It's one which we made a decision on six months ago and promised to the community that we would revisit our decision now. So here we are. We find ourselves in a different time and under different circumstances. Over the past few days, it would not be unreasonable to suggest, to suggest that collectively we have received more than we deserve. Personally, I have received hundreds. Out of only all of those hundreds, three favoured the staff recommendation. The remainder I received favoured following the state's industry framework for COVID safe events. Similarly, we have received letters as part of this report. And I thank community groups, some of which are here today, as well as our associations for their feedback. It's appreciated and it is valued. The report that is before us isn't unanimous among staff. There are differing views from differing staff members. Indeed, we've heard the reference group for events right here in Council have differing opinions. Of this there is no doubt. Page 3 of the report makes mention of this very fact.
01:33:00 As Councillors, we can only make decisions on the evidence that is faced before us. And what we do and what we don't know. We know this. Nothing in life is guaranteed. We can never fully eradicate risk. We can mitigate and we can manage. Yet we can't provide certainty. No one can. Ongoing safe quarantine of international borders puts Australia and indeed Queensland in a good position going forward. Different environment to where we were last August when we had to make this difficult decision. We have been told since the inception of COVID that we must swim in our lane. Take health advice and directives from the lead agency, the state government. We have continued to follow through on that advice. Taking direction from Queensland Health and the Chief Medical Officer. We must continue to do so. Health is not our area of expertise. It is the state's. And it is them to whom we must look to for direction. They are the recognised and credentialed experts in pandemic management.
01:34:00 The motion before us is in line with the state framework. We have to bear in mind four and a half thousand of our community are on JobKeeper. That is more than potentially as percentage wise than most areas in Queensland. In a few weeks, this will be final. It will be severely reduced if not finished. Events will help those businesses and people get through, get by. Events eject millions into our economy. We all know how much we have suffered. We have lost 1,200 jobs on Hastings Street alone at the heart of COVID. Events eject visitors, tourism and money into our economy and support and help our local businesses. Businesses which are owned and run and worked at by our own residents, our own people. Mental health. We've heard a lot about it over the last few days. We've had email upon email about people's mental health and their need to get back to normal, to do exercise, to feel as though they are moving forward as a community, as a collective.
01:35:00 The vaccine rollout has begun. This wasn't available and not on the radar when we last decided upon events. We know the vaccine will reduce potential risk for our most vulnerable and our elderly. We know the rollout has started and is likely to be completed by the end of the year. Large-scale events successfully held across Queensland since 2020. With Queensland Health approved, COVID event plans include 30,000 for the AFL grand final. The State of Origin had 50,000. And just down the road, the NRL game at Stockland held 6,000. Over Easter, a five-day Byron Blues Fest with a reduced capacity will now have around 50,000 people attending. This weekend, Brisbane is staging the International Women's Fun Run with 10,000 participants to raise funds for breast cancer. The Toowoomba Show with the new COVID-safe plan negotiated with Queensland Health will allow numbers through the gates to increase from 10,000 to 15,000 people per day over three days from April the 16th to the 18th. And the list goes on.
01:36:00 Just down the road, we have the Moolool by Try coming up. And this weekend, the Tweed Enduro is being held. We have received no evidence to support the large mass gathering delivered under an approved COVID-safe event plan poses any greater risk of an outbreak compared to unregulated movement of people and residents alike across our Shire. What is the difference between an event with 9,999 people with Queensland Health signing off versus an event with 10,000 and one person with the Chief Health Officer, the Platinum Gold Standard, having to sign off? What is, when you look at risk management, less risky? No, there is no evidence that justifies a break from state guidelines. We must swim in our lanes. We must listen to our constituents. Now, I know we've talked about community consultation in this, but we have community consultation in this. We've heard from our residents and ratepayers. And those people who are very invested in this issue, who are likely to provide to
01:37:00 community consultation. And we've heard from thousands of them. There is no evidence that the cluster outbreak last year at Sayles has caused material damage to Noosa's brand. As Councillor Jurisevic said, I'm not stopped from going to the Northern Beaches because they had an outbreak. There are no unknown cases or examples in the world of a COVID outbreak resulting in a lawsuit against the community for following state and or federal health directors. Indeed, we've heard that the risk in that regard is very small. In fact, if we have an outbreak, it is likely the state will order a lockdown if localised COVID risk develops at or about the same time as an event. The order would override the permit and no cancellation issue for council would arrive. This is actually noted on page 13 of our report. Similarly, Ironman have said to all of us in writing, and let's be honest, this is the, as we've all noted, this is the tribe we're talking about. They are happy to consent to any conditions, amendments to usual council rules so that council could revoke an event permit on much shorter notice should a local COVID outbreak
01:38:00 pose risks to the community. We've all received that letter. In regard to public liability insurance, Noosa Council is not unique in being unable to get insurance coverage. However, it has not stopped other councils hosting large scale events, nor has it stopped the Queensland government hosting such large scale events, such as football ground finals. We must put our community first, taking into account a myriad of factors, medical evidence, feedback from our community, planned vaccination rollouts, benefits to our community, our tourism operators, our small businesses, appreciation of other events in other areas, and most importantly, advice from the state, the lead health agency. We must look to them for direction as we always have. We should not deviate now. For these reasons, I do support Councillor Finzel's amendment. Thank you.
01:39:00 Councillor Finzel: I would just like to say that in response to Councillor Wilkie's comments with regard to community consultation, I ran on a platform of openness and responsiveness and being outward facing to community. The decision was made by Councillor Finzel. The decision before us today is about recommendations regarding temporary event permit approvals during COVID-19 pandemic. I am more than happy to support a recommendation if people choose to take out to community at another time a consultation regarding the specifics of the tri-vent in the community. Hope is action. And today, through careful planning, decision making between our communities, we have made
01:40:00 The support of moving forward, if we get the vote on that today, to align ourselves with the framework from state government enables our community to have confidence to proceed forward with hope and courage to a new future where everyone is recognised as an essential component of our community and as such they are valued. Decision makers have worked hard, including this council that came in at the end of a campaign with COVID-19 pandemic. This council has made good decisions, including the staff, to provide frameworks to bring us where we are and I am sure if you asked anyone in our community they would be grateful for that. So as we step forward today on the road map to recovery, I'm confident that if any outbreaks
01:41:00 occur and nothing can be assured, we've heard today that the framework says that we are set up, are well able to respond to outbreaks, we've seen Councillor Stockwell bring forth the matrix which showed us there was zero to possibly one risk. The risks have been, as far as people are able, have been mitigated, it cannot be completely stopped, it's a pandemic, it is what it is. Anyway, thank you for listening. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We'll be back with Councillor Finzel's amendment to the vote. All those in favour? Councillor Finzel, Wegener, Jurisevic, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stewart against? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Walke, amendment passed. Thank you. Speaker 4: Councillor, to have that amendment passed, I'll just wait for that debate because I
01:42:00 think it would make sense to have another amendment just to tie up consistency with the other proceedings in terms of the category two and three. And so, my advice would be that you just add the words and remove any quality restrictions on the number of participants or the service of alcohol at these events. And that would make it consistent with the other wording in your current categories two and three. Councillor Jurisevic: Unfortunately, I can't move it. No. Speaker 4: My advice would be that would be appropriate to move that amendment. Councillor Lorentson: I'll move it. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Finzel? Seconder? Seconder. Speaker 2: Thank you. No seconder. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wegener, thank you very much. Councillor Finzel: To remain consistent with the amendment to number three, the item number E, I put forward this amendment.
01:43:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone else like to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wilkie: Because the debate's been had substantially on this particular point, and this does clarify the situation going forward. It does make it tidier. I'm prepared to support the amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Does anyone else like to speak to the amendment or vote? No, just to concur with the comments by Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson? No. Okay. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I move an amendment also and add that temporary event organisers must engage on a monthly basis with Councillor Stark to consult and inform on all aspects of the delivery of the temporary events? Can I ask a question? Mayor Stewart: Can I ask a question? In regard to that Clinton month, has that already happened? Or is that something new? Speaker 2: Through the Chair. In the lead up to an event, our offices are liaising constantly because we have stakeholder
01:44:00 feedback that we receive this constant refining of event applications and whatever else. So that is happening irrespective. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say that happens more frequently than once a month in that period Speaker 2: as well? Through the Chair, it can happen three times a month or once every six weeks. Just clarifying. It depends on the nature of the event. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Yes. Can I ask a question? Yes, you can. Speaker 4: Sorry. Can I just ask a question before I propose an amendment? If I could just get you to read it out again, so the colleagues can capture that if you want. Councillor Lorentson: The temporary event organisers must engage on a monthly basis with Councillor Stark to consult and inform on all aspects, including the delivery of the temporary events, and
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. For example, let's take the Fusion Festival. They have an annual event. Does that mean they must have an annual event? It's a temporary event. Do they need then to catch up with the Council staff monthly? Is that the intent of the... Councillor Lorentson: It is in relation to Category 2 and Category 1 events. That's my intention, that just anything that... I think the Council needs to reasonably satisfy itself that there is going to be compliance and enforcement of a COVID-safe event plan. And this is an opportunity for us to engage with the event organisers and also to communicate to community that we haven't stepped away from our lane, which is not to regulate or conduct. Compliance, but enforce compliance. Councillor Wilkie: Just on that, there are hundreds of temporary event organisers. They must engage on a monthly
01:46:00 basis with Council staff. So is that overly cumbersome? A hundred event organisers meeting on a monthly basis, 12 times a year, and does must engage exclude them if they don't? I want to know how it works. Councillor Lorentson: What you're saying, Councillor Wilkie, I'd like to restrict that to Category 1 events only. So we're really referring to the needs of trying in this instance. Mayor Stewart: So in a Category 1 event, would you talk more than or engage more regularly than on a monthly basis in the lead up to a Category 1 event? Speaker 2: Yes, we would. And it depends on how far out the event's occurring too. I mean, it can be a ramp up. Three or four weeks out, it ramps up. Jill might be in contact three times a week in getting it right. So look, I can assure you that that engagement is happening,
01:47:00 but it is very fluid and depends on the nature of the event. It just depends on the circumstances. But in regards to Category 1 and the trial, I mean, there's a ramp up that happens. It's happening anyway. Councillor Wegener: So could this be interpreted by an organiser to hide behind and say, oh, look, we talked with you two weeks ago. Just wait for the next two weeks instead of actually putting a barrier to that fluidity that you're talking about? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, look, I think one of the things we've got to consider here is that the... We're talking about the TRI. They're a very experienced and skilled event organiser. So from their point of view, they'll engage with us as well when they've got something to talk about. They've got a lot of experience. They're very good at what they do. So I do go back
01:48:00 to my previous statement about I think it needs to be very, very fluid. And I think that kind of obstacle, or not obstacle, that amendment could tie us into a process. Councillor Lorentson: I accept what's been said. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kylie. That brings us back to the original motion of Councillor Stockwell, who has been the only person to have spoken to that motion. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to speak to it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: You might have a look at it, maybe. There's been quite a few amendments to it. I'm not going to summarise. Yes. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Sorry. Is it possible to see the final resolution with all the amendments? Speaker 1: Just let me get it to you. Speaker 4: I can effectively summarise where we've got to, and I'll work my way through the different categories. So effectively, Category 3, the recommendation or motion that is agreed now is that Category 3 events proceed without limitation of numbers and alcohol. Similarly, in terms
01:49:00 of Category 2, they proceed without limitation in terms of alcohol. And the original proposal has been removed, so it's now not that restriction. And based on Councillor Finzel's series of amendments, in terms of Category 1, the current wording of the motion is that they proceed again without limits as to numbers and alcohol. And the original F remains that we ought to take a further review if circumstances change. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Chair. The approach to date has served this community very well. Combined with regular hard border closures, rapid response lockdowns and COVID-aware practices, the events policy has contributed to preserving and consolidating Noosa's brand and reputation as a self and welcoming community and holiday destination.
01:50:00 The social and economic life of this community has continued during this difficult time, and 45 sporting, cultural, business and community events have been approved and staged since the COVID-19 approach to events was introduced last year. With our largest scale events, Noosa businesses reported having the best Christmas ever, and our residents and visitors have been safe, healthy and COVID-free. With this review, there have been calls to allow all categories of events, including those over 10,000 people. The staff recommendation is to keep the cap at 500. I was going to say the answer lies possibly somewhere in between, but that's a moot point now. It's still been essentially a question of risk and risk appetite. Those who want the category or one events to proceed, that's over 10,000 people, believe a COVID-safe checklist approved by Queensland Health will create the safe event. What had been missing from the debate is that there's no such thing as an entirely COVID-safe
01:51:00 event. Queensland Health advises such plans do not eradicate risk. They minimise it, and they reserve the right to shut down a town if transmission occurs as a result. And we have covered that, so I won't labour that point. Queensland Health also advises the final say as to whether the event proceeds is up to the local government. All of us want to minimise the still present risk of a transmission, and the Queensland Health lockdown for businesses, and avoid the damage to Noosa's brand and reputation as a safe destination should illness for lockdown occur, and I believe we all feel that around this table. From what I could find, since the outbreak of COVID-19, the World Health Organisation, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and the medical journal Lancet all suggest that despite there being no longitudinal studies definitively linking COVID outbreaks to mass events, they all recommend a risk-based approach to mass gatherings as a source of increased risk, as does Queensland Health. And since August last year, when the policy was ratified, the risk profile has changed.
01:52:00 Numbers of new COVID cases around Australia have dramatically fallen. When we introduced the event policy on August 31 last year, there was an average of 119 new cases per day, Australia-wide. As of yesterday, this figure had dropped to about six cases per day. Mass events have been hosted around this country, without any spikes, as a result. This suggests we can responsibly shift towards hosting new cases. The health authorities are now taking a more drastic approach when cases are detected, and introducing snap lockdowns, as has just happened in Auckland after just one case of COVID was detected. The lockdown itself in response to even one transmission also represents a risk we all want to avoid, as a shutdown to businesses and communities would also be damaging. It's a question of risk. It's a question of risk. Permitting up to Category 2 events, up to 10,000, would enable events of the scale of
01:53:00 the Cooroy Fusion Festival to go ahead. It would also permit sporting events the size of the Mooloobah Triathlon, with 4,000 competitors, and the Ironman Sunshine Coast to go ahead. They're both Category 2 events. Then the question was, do we have the appetite for entertaining the Noosa Triathlon with 13,000 competitors? And 30,000 spectators billed as the world's largest Olympic distance triathlon, if not the world's largest outright? Well, apparently we do. And we've had the debate, and the decision is to approve events of that scale. So all we can do is make fact-based, risk-aware judgement calls such as this. And I believe that's what we've done here today. We've had the debate. So I'll be supporting the motion in its entirety. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Mr CEO, I might make one small... Speaker 4: My suggestion, Councillors, and I do it as well, we always talk about our COVID policy
01:54:00 if it stands at the moment. It's not actually a policy per se. My suggestion would be that in paragraph F, we change the wording to refer to review of its COVID event position. So through the position we've taken today will be what that is. It's not a policy we're adopting per se. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As far as clarification, if the mover and seconder are happy, do we have to go through a debate? I think given the number of events, you're probably sure today. Councillor Jurisevic: Let's reject this letter and go all over again. Speaker 4: Instead of reading, undertake a further review of its events policy, that's the current wording, and say undertake a further review of its COVID event position, should there be any change to the state's events framework. I don't think it's tied yet. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't move it, so... Mayor Stewart: All in favour? Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you not have got a debate to issue? Mayor Stewart: So in regard to the original motion put forward by Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Corkier have spoken to the original motion.
01:55:00 Would anyone else like to speak to the original motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. You go first. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Corkier. All right. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, Councillor Wilkie alluded to a number of issues there, and I concur with a lot of your thoughts. I mean, when we first went through limiting our COVID events to 500, COVID was an unknown. We had no certainty with regard to where we stood. We had no idea of the level of outbreaks. We had no idea of the impact upon this country at that stage. We have moved on, thankfully, and we understand the situation a lot better. Health authorities around the nation understand the situation a lot better, and have reacted accordingly over that space of time to mitigate the risks around COVID outbreaks. Most of those, as I alluded to earlier, have occurred around hotel quarantine. Where outbreaks have occurred within the community, health authorities have moved swiftly and rapidly to shut down any risk and manage the situation as best they can.
01:56:00 We're now finding that an outbreak seems to last no more than about five days a week, and a shutdown seems to last no more than about five days. They managed to do the following up of who around that central location or that central person are the risk factors, and manage that situation far better than we have in the past. Again, our... Councillor Wilkie also alluded to our safety. We've had a lot of social and economic life having been impacted over this time, but one of the things that hasn't been mentioned is the impact on community organisations and their ability to hold events, and the impact that has on those community organisations' ability to raise funds and to continue to operate. Without those, the health and wellbeing, the mental health and wellbeing, and the physical
01:57:00 health and wellbeing of our community are severely impacted. So the opportunity to return events to COVID... Under COVID safety. The safety guidelines is essential. We've learned so much in that regard. We now have social distancing. We now have a greater appreciation of health and hygiene, and those things have to stay. Those things will stay for a long, long time in our community. And in fact, good hygiene practices are something we should practise every day. It shouldn't be a COVID issue. So that if we continue to do that, we'll not only restrict COVID, but we'll restrict a number of those other health issues, like colds and flus, and things that impact upon the population through winter. Our major COVID-1 event is over six months away, but large-scale events like this take time to plan logistically, and even more so with COVID-safe parameters around them. So giving certainty to the triathlon, I think, has been essential here today.
01:58:00 A number of other measures are in place. One of them is that we'll, I believe, mitigate that risk and minimise that risk far more by the time October and November roll around this year. And those guys have shown they can run a COVID-safe event with the events that they've run. As far as Category 2 and 3 versus Category 1 that we've debated through this, I think we would have been consistent to allow a Category 2 or 3 event, or Category 2 event, particularly after 10,000 people, and an event beyond that to not be held and have to go out to some other form of . So that's why I was supportive of COVID-1 and COVID-2 events being at the same level of acceptance by Council. There was mention of lawsuits through here, but the lawsuits that I've heard have been suggested by businesses that have been impacted by lockdowns, or those that have had loved ones affected by aged care. I haven't heard of community transmission being thrown to a lawsuit.
01:59:00 So I think the level of risk with regard to a lawsuit against Council in that regard of an outbreak is minimal, if not negligible. Again, we were talking about accepting Category 2 and 3 events. What would have happened if an outbreak occurs in a Category 2 event? We'd still be in the same position. I believe there's a greater risk of attending such events. At least in an event, we know who's there. When you attend a shopping centre of that scale, do we know who we're coming in contact with? Potentially not. Or an expo of some nature. So I believe that the risks that we're talking about here with events is no greater, possibly even less so, than the general populace is exposed to in other areas of the community. So I'm very supportive of the resolution as it stands. In this vein, and to the rest of the councillors to support the resolution as it stands.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Councillor Wegener: When this first came out, I was very in favour of supporting the staff recommendation. And my thinking was, well, enter the biosphere. We're so excited about people coming to Noosa because it's a very safe place. And that's how we marketed ourselves. And it was the most successful campaign. So people resonated with people around the country. But then as you begin to think about it, you think, well, actually, it's an advertising campaign where our brand is really important. But we're still hoping that people come from every corner of Australia to Noosa. And then I think, what's the difference between the triathlon inviting people from every corner of Australia to come to Noosa for a slightly different branding? And the effect is the same. We're still inviting people from every corner to come to Australia. Except the difference, in a way, is that under the tri, because we're all talking about that, we tried not to talk about it, but it is, is that there's a massive COVID safe plan.
02:01:00 And so when you're inviting, in this case, from people from every corner of Australia to come, they're coming with a whole COVID mental framework that this is going to be a COVID safe. And that's actually different from tourists coming from every corner and not coming into this field of COVID awareness. So in that, in that way, I really, again, I couldn't, I started moving more towards what we ended up with today because of that, because we still want people to come to Australia and it's best that they can come from with the COVID in their mind. And most importantly, we made a decision today of certainty. And as I said, it's the best decision. The best decision is certainty one way or the other way. But in this case of going out to community consultation and the, the miasma that would
02:02:00 be out there and, and trying, and God, it would be, it would take three clints to get that through, I think, to do it properly. So I support the motion. 10 points. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to just read. I'm going to read it. I've got a couple of letters. One, you know, a couple of very many letters I think that we've all received from residents and volunteers. But I'm just going to sort of just pick out some bits and pieces out of it. This one's just from a resident and it is about the Noosa Tri and essentially that was the big decision today. The Noosa Tri ensures inclusiveness and accessibility for a range of Noosa residents and visitors. All of which is something that the Noosa Council should be proud of achieving over the years. I therefore implore you to consider the benefits of the Tri, that the Tri brings to the community,
02:03:00 both financially for local businesses, branding for Noosa, and most importantly, the overall enjoyment, camaraderie, and the team spirit that the event brings. To this end, my highlights will always be the kindness that I've experienced during the event from other competitors, the encouraging words from volunteers to keep me going and seeing the children participate in the special triathlon, the smiles on their faces showing the pure happiness they experience. I feel confident with the correct protocols in place, aligned with the position of the Queensland Government and Queensland's Chief Health Officer in the delivery of COVID safe events with an approved industry framework, that the Noosa Triathlon 2021 should go ahead. So I stand here proud, just so that, you know, we've understood that, you know, we've understood that we should be swimming in our lane, that we should be aligning with Queensland State on public health issues, and that we should let our people swim, run, run and cycle.
02:04:00 Mayor Stewart: I think it's all being said. I'd like to thank staff. This has been a really a motive issue across all councillors, but also the community. I'd like to also thank all the staff who have been involved in this. I'd like to thank all the councillors here today. This has not been an easy decision for any of us. And we, you know, and we've listened to the voices of our community from the emails we've received. We've looked at the staff recommendation and we've debated it to no end today. So thank you very much to all councillors. I'm really proud of this. This provides certainty and clarity to our community. And we have done what we've always done. We've stayed in our lane and we're following Queensland health recommendations, which is what we need to do. So thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, councillors. So I think the big picture is everyone sort of came to today with a preparedness to realise
02:05:00 that events can occur safely, that they're an important part of our community, the larger the events, the greater the impact. And I don't want to drag the economic flow on, but in terms of where I thought we needed to make a decision sooner rather than later at the beginning of last week was to get those community events going. And I don't want to lose sight that the impact of this resolution on tens of different events run by our community and by volunteers to bring a sense of social connectivity and wellbeing to this community and the hardest part of the decision is in regard to one event, which is historically category one. And it was interesting during the course of that long debate and many amendments, how people's willingness to listen and to change occurred. So Councillor Wegener said quite rightly at the beginning he supported the staff recommendation.
02:06:00 At the beginning of the staff recommendation, there were no more than 500 people. And over the last two weeks, we've gone from that being a majority vote to a majority vote. And we've seen the councillors have come into grips with a complex decision. I think this time last week, I was one of the more liberal in terms of what I was saying should be allowed. And by last Thursday even, I was still in that case. But we've seen the effect of lobbying. And lobbying is a good part of the democratic process. I still would have preferred to get broader. I don't think we've done that. I do think that that would have had some difficulties getting it to be accurate. And I think Councillor Wegener's argument probably proved it when he debated that point in this motion
02:07:00 that why you didn't go to public consultation was people couldn't separate between COVID issues and events. He then went and based his whole argument on everything but COVID. We will have to go down the record as I'll call it the Major Tom Soliloquy about the meaning of life. And yes, I think you forgot to add the answer is 42. In the debate against this substantive motion, Councillor Wilkie said something that I need to correct. Nothing in this motion says that we will approve a Category 1. That's the role of staff. What this motion says, we agree to accept event applications for all Category 1 events. And it goes on. It's really important and I think this is where we could have got more valuable input from our community about locally relevant factors.
02:08:00 And what we won't do by going out is, we still don't. People can still say I think you should consider this and staff can still consider it. However, we haven't given that. We haven't given that formal process because everyone's talking about all the larger events have been approved. Not one of those is outside an area like a stadium or a concert venue where all the participants are fenced. In essence, what we've approved is a category of event that takes up public space between Noosa Main Beach and Cooroy. There are a lot of locally relevant factors that have to be considered and extent and scale of concentrating into small areas. These are some of the locally relevant factors that have to be considered. So there's no guarantee that the TRI can attract more than 10,000 participants, supporters and staff, etc. volunteers. Because there may be locally relevant factors that will keep it to that 10,000 limit.
02:09:00 But it's important to understand that we haven't approved anything. We've opened Council up to accepting event permits and be guided by the TRI. It's important to understand what is acceptable through that framework for events to occur. I think there's no doubt that even though the risk is small, the more people, the larger the event, the higher the risk. The other one is about the length of time of interaction. And this is where you see varied levels of risk. If you're a top level athlete in triathlon, you'd be passing people very quickly. But if you were like me doing it, it would be a very long time. It would be a very long interaction as I jogged past you in that last leg. So I think overall, I think it does send a message to the community that we do understand the need for events. And I suppose the reassurance for those who would have preferred us to have a more conservative
02:10:00 approach is that we're not approving anything. It's still up to staff to make sure that as far as is possible under the Queensland Health Framework, that any event that does take place takes place in as safe a manner as possible. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. So we'll put this motion to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Clare. We have one more item. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillors, as we've just carried resolution agreeing to accept Category 3 event applications in line with the Queensland Government's industry framework for COVIDSafe event, the two applications in line with the Queensland Government's industry framework for COVIDSafe event, the I would therefore like to move that Council make the report by the property officer to the special meeting dated 2nd of March 2021 and note that as a result of Council's resolution agreeing to accept event applications for all category 3 events with the removal of any local policy restrictions on the number of participants or the service of alcohol, these events will now be assessed in accordance with Council's normal permit application and approval process.
02:11:00 Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a quick question, if I may. Perhaps the CEO, in that regard, the normal event permit application process will include a COVID safe element within. Just to clarify. Yeah, through the Chair, that's the whole thing. Speaker 2: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll speak to this motion. I think we've all spoken on that one. Anyone else want to speak to this motion? All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That was going to be my question. There are no other items on the agenda. Thank you very much.