Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 5: Constable Rachel McCrove and Alan Dare, who all lost their lives in the most tragic of circumstances this week. The constables lost their lives in a siege at a property at Wyanbella. They were simply doing their job and Alan, a neighbour, came to assist and in the process lost his. Tonight we send our love, our thoughts and our prayers to the family of those who lost their lives. We send our support to Mayor Paul McVeigh and all those in the Western Downs community. This tragedy is a reminder that our servicemen and women risk their lives each and every day for our protection and this week two exemplary young people lost their lives because they were doing their job, they were protecting their community. I would like to extend further condolences to the Queensland Police in what has been one of their darkest weeks. We would like to take this opportunity to thank our police right across Queensland and indeed Australia for the sacrifices that they make each and every day on our behalf. They face what we fear. In honour, they served.
00:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'd just like to reiterate the words of Mayor Stewart. We all know police officers, they're part of our community, they're our neighbours, they're our friends. It's only right that we reiterate, take this opportunity to reiterate the deep respect and thanks we have for the work that they do every day on our behalf. Speaker 5: Thank you. I move that we resume standing orders. Thank you. Councillor Pitchell, all in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Minutes. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes? I'm happy to move that. Councillor Warraston. Second. Councillor, if you'd just sign that when you put it. Yeah, sure. You've done it twice before. Second of Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Carried unanimously. There are no mayoral minutes. Petitions. I'd like to present a petition from Hibiscus Retirement Committee.
00:02:00 I move that the petition with 87 signatures submitted by the Residence Committee, Hibiscus Retirement Resort at 71 St Andrews Drive, Tewantin, requesting Council facilitate the removal of blind boxes encroaching on the retirement village, section 2-3, be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Thank you, Mr CEO. We have one notified motion. This was included in the agenda. And that is... Second. Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Item five. We have one notified motion which was included in the agenda and that is independent review of Burgess Creek. Councillor Warraston, would you like to move your motion? Councillor Lorentson: I... OK. I hereby... Sorry. I move my motion. I'll second it. Thank you. That Council authorise this Chief Executive Officer
00:03:00 to seek an independent review of Burgess Creek wastewater treatment plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment by suitable engineering and environmental firm and provide a report to Council detailing at a minimum a, a review of historical water quality data including water quality volumes, b, a review of the permit and equivalent person capacity of the plant, c, environmental impact of wastewater treatment plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment against the historical environmental impact statement, and d, any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting by the appointed firm. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Warraston. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to that. As a councillor at Noosa Shire Council, my primary role is to listen to our community and bring matters of concern to this Council table for discussion, debate and decision.
00:04:00 Over the past year, I've become increasingly concerned in learning the history of the Burgess Creek catchment and when engaging with our community, understanding that my concern is matched. I've provided this notice of motion to seek an independent review of the Burgess Creek catchment and when engaging with our community, understanding that my concern is matched. I want to reiterate that I have the utmost respect for our staff and Unity Water but am just seeking plain and simple answers to assist in future decision making. And ensure that our local government area has best practice wastewater treatment through best practice infrastructure. Councillor Wilkie: I have some questions. Thank you Madam Mayor.
00:05:00 Question to the CEO. At the last month's meeting we ratified a motion to do with the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Program. Which was to investigate the feasibility of developing a citizen science water quality. A monitoring program designed to measure and manage the environmental health of the Burgess Creek and Cooroy Six Mile Creek catchments. As well as the impact of Unity Water wastewater discharge and outflow of the SEQ water treatment plant discharge. I understand this is on top of some monitoring that the council staff and environmental health staff are already doing. And on top of the monitoring work that Unity Water is also doing. I just want to understand. What looks like three levels of reporting that's already occurring in Burgess Creek. Is that, I'm just trying to get some perspective on that.
00:06:00 Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you Chair. Thank you Deputy Mayor for your question. The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring report that was put before the council and resolved upon is ongoing. Burgess Creek is one part of the very big picture when we look at our water quality monitoring and reporting regime. That's coming through. From not just our environmental health officers. But also members of our environment team that are very much focused on our ridden systems and our catchments overall. So we're starting to create some baseline data for our council to be able to really understand what is the water quality. Not just waiting for events to occur and us doing that monitoring that's required. But it gives us more oversight of the entire catchment. There's other work that's been undertaken by request over recent times in relation to Burgess Creek as well too. And that is due to concerns that have been raised, not just from councillors at this table, but then also members of the community as well.
00:07:00 In working with Councillor Lorentson, it's really about trying to understand what is the picture for Burgess Creek and what impact does the Unity Water Wastewater Treatment Plant have, not just on that catchment, but also infrastructure as well too. And that are appropriately qualified engineering. And that are appropriately qualified engineering. Environmental firm, and there are a number of those available to us, has the ability to provide all of the information all at once. Our integrated water quality monitoring reporting will continue. We're now resolved upon that. And that's looking at a number of different points across the local government area. And looking at Burgess Creek, really working, and there is unfortunately some misinformation in the community about Burgess Creek. And what we want to be able to achieve is the factual baseline details around that, where we've been, where we are, what does the future look like. And Unity Water are very supportive of this.
00:08:00 In a recent meeting that myself, our mayor, and Councillor Lorentson attended, the CEO said, this is great. They're very supportive of this type of an action being undertaken. Not a question that we've posed, but I'm sure councillors may be thinking along the lines of, how will we do this? How will we fund something like this? There's funding within the CEO's consultancy budget. And given that it is an extremely important point and topic for our community, I'm happy to be able to fund that. Work with Councillor Lorentson or other councils on the scope. Get that to market. Get the information back to this council to be able to digest. But then also work with Unity Water and the community overall. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify. The environmental health staff are doing monitoring to establish a baseline. And they will report that back to council within six months. Is it six months? Have you finished your question? And I'll respond through the mayor.
00:09:00 Speaker 3: Deputy Mayor, yes, that's what we're working towards. So for us to be able to really establish what's occurring with an attachment, we need to be able to have that data that's flowed through. Understood. So that will take some time. But know that from the resolution that the council's passed, that's been enacted. And the council officers are working through that process. And that reporting will now come through the council. And we really start to understand the quality and the health of our waterways in a way that we haven't before. Citizen science is one part. But we really need to, from a council perspective, utilise the resources we have to be able to get the data and make better decisions with the information that we receive. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councillor Wilkie: And through the mayor. Another question for the CEO. So the citizen science monitoring that we're going to be investigating the feasibility of developing the citizen science water quality monitoring program for Burgess Creek, that will be on top of the work that the staff are already doing?
00:10:00 Speaker 3: Through the mayor, Deputy Mayor, yes, it would. Citizen science is something that we absolutely need. It is welcome here at a council. However, we do need to have some very clear parameters about how samples are taken, where they're taken from. We know that if we don't have that right and we're trying to compare data, we're not comparing life to life. So it's working with all of our groups that we have here at Noosa, that there are numerous groups that want to be able to work with council. Our university, Sunshine Coast University as well, they want to work with us. But we need to have the right parameters in place to ensure that this is a success. Because a water sample that's taken from somewhere that's separate to where we've been taking the water samples from is not going to give us the real baseline data that we're looking for and that comparability.
00:11:00 If it's taken incorrectly in the wrong way, that's going to cause issues and not have us have a trust. It's going to be a true reflection of what we're dealing with. So that will continue. But getting those parameters in place, they do take time. But our environment team are working through that. And our environmental health team continue to be able to monitor the outfalls, not just the likes of Burgess Creek, but then also under the Noosa River as well, too. And particularly during significant rainfall events. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: And further questions from now. That's all right. So if the Council were to approve this motion tonight, the findings from this monitoring could then be compared to the results of the citizen science monitoring and also the monitoring done by the environmental health staff and also the Inverney Waters monitoring. Speaker 3: Absolutely, Deputy Mayor Wilkie. This really does provide something extra.
00:12:00 But what it does provide is it's away from our Council. It's away from us. It's away from Unity Water. It gives those in the community that for various reasons are unsure of the data that's being provided or really want to be able to understand better how government is managing this waterway at the varying levels, whether it's a government authority or whether it's a local government. An independent review is just that. It's independent. It takes it away from the government sphere. And while we'll put the scope together, it does give that independent overview and oversight and we then hope that the community members that are heavily engaged in this particular topic will be able to review that document and know that it has been delivered on an independent basis and gives us a great way to move forward as well. Councillor Wilkie: And final question, if I may. If we were to approve this motion tonight, when would be a realistic timeframe for the independent review of water monitor reviewers to establish their bench?
00:13:00 Baseline data and report to the Council? Speaker 3: To the Mayor, Deputy Mayor Wilkie. Within this particular motion, what the Council wants us to put forward is that we'd be reviewing very much the historical data. Historical data meet against the data at the point in time that the successful tenderer is undertaking that work. And that would then inform from there. So historical data, that's openly and readily available. That's what we're doing. That would then be reviewed. Unity Water are very happy to participate and provide that information. We then would request that the tenderer take the samples that are required at that point in time. Talk to us at the different parts of Burgess Creek where things are going well and where things could be a little bit better. We'd also like to be able to truth check some of the discussions that have been happening around infrastructure within that particular area as well, too. So it really is one that captures a lot of the ongoing issues that we've seen within
00:14:00 the local media. Local associations have been talking about for a period of time. We can put that into an independent review and then on the findings of that, work forward and implement. But it doesn't take away from the work that we're currently doing as a Council, nor from the statutory and legislative requirements that Unity Water have to meet their licence and permit requirements as well. I did lie. Councillor Wilkie: That was not my answer. So, through the Mayor, CEO, is it likely that Councillors are going to be able to see the results of the environmental health staff's monitoring investigations before the independent consultant, given that they've been working on this for some time? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Council, we'll be very happy that once we start to be able to see a trend with information and its meaning for the information, that we provide that to the Council. And, you know, I think it's really important that we do that. Yes, I would believe it would be prior to the completion of this type of work.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 But I may take that further on notice, speak with the Department a little bit more fully to be able to give you a definitive answer. But my view would be is, yes, we would. We would have a few months of monitoring that we've been able to then start to look at analysis and trends and see what the impact has been. But, yeah, I would expect that we would be able to deliver that earlier than what an independent would be able to do from there. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to talk to the motion. It's wonderful that we bring concerns about water quality to the table. We know that water quality is really essential for our environment and it's really important to get it right. It's wonderful to hear the Chief Executive Officer is willing to spend his discretionary funds on water quality analysis. It's really good. Thank you. Thank you. There's an inherent conflict between motions we've moved and this one.
00:16:00 You can't say we're going to do an integrated catchment management approach. You can't say we're going to develop an integrated water monitoring moat. And then we'll come from the top and say, but we think this is what we need to spend the money on first. You can't do it. They're two different things. One's a political process that says we know best based on what people have been talking to us. The other one is you come up from the bottom, you learn what's there. Five minutes before this meeting, I've got a report on Burgess Creek water quality that looks at results from 2010 to 2018. And if you can bring up the baseline situation analysis, which was driven out of the Community Environment Forum in about 2018, and was produced in 2021, and I've taken an excerpt, and it does look at a number of parameters and it rates from A to F. Okay, so if you go to the next page, you'll see that Murderin' Creek at Clarendon Road C, Eany Creek Industrial, Eany Creek at the Industrial, a ranking of F. Next page. Castaways Creek, Downstream Devil's Way, C, Burgess Creek, only a C, Eany Creek's F, keep going.
00:17:00 B, in Peregian Creek, keep going. F, at Cranks Creek. Now that was data that our community and the Mary's River Catchment Committee, who have got over 30 years' experience in doing this, they're one of the most qualified water quality analysis. They look through every bit of water quality data that the Shire's ever had. We used to have a chemist who sat down in a little donger near the sewage treatment plant, doing water quality testing, and they got David Heery's results. So we know, let's see, on the parameters they looked at, whereas we've got bigger water quality problems elsewhere. Now it's a really common misconception that point sources are the biggest source of water problems. Most people, when they think of, say, oil in the ocean, think about the big oil platforms that go wrong, or the crash of the boats, but in fact, the biggest contribution of oil to the ocean is from the diffused sources on the land.
00:18:00 And the data that we've got around our catchments says diffused sources are probably a bigger problem than the point source. I'm not saying it's not a problem. What I'm saying is, you can't jump in after having some concerns and say, this is where we need it, it's the highest priority for our investment, it's not in the budget, okay? I think if we're going to adopt an integrated catchment approach, then we ask the people that we've brought in. So I'm going to move an amendment. And if you could bring up what I said to you earlier. The amendment is... That the matter be referred to budget deliberations, and that staff convene another meeting of the Combined Integrated Water Quality Program stakeholder network, and seek their recommendations as to the priorities for water quality investigations and investment in the Shire in the next financial year.
00:19:00 Councillor Lorentson: Do you need a seconder? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like me to open it? I'd do so. We've said after, you know, this is about 30 minutes. Three years, four years maybe I've been on this process of building this. We've finally got a really good little network happening. We've had two meetings. We've got people there from Healthy Waterways. We've got people there from NICA. We've got people there from the Department of Environment, I understand. We've got people there who are involved in the citizen science, but also people with expertise as well as their staff, looking at integrated water monitoring. We've already got some of the community groups that are quite advanced and do work for the state government on this, giving us a loan of their monitoring equipment during this summit so we get a better handle on it. We've spent a fair bit of time trying to work out where to monitor so that we can look at where the impacts are.
00:20:00 And that's probably where the priority for investment is. It's so we get a better understanding of our impacts above and below development, or above and below a particular point source. As I said, I'm not... I'm not saying it's not an issue that we can't investigate. But what I'm saying is if we've got money to invest in water quality, it should be informed both by bottom-up and expert opinion. It shouldn't be just investing in what is generally state government business. It talks specifically about the regulatory requirements of the state government. It talks specifically about water quality, which is a requirement of the state government. Because it is a licensed point source. It may be that everyone does agree. But this is a water quality treatment plant that's been in operation for many decades.
00:21:00 And going through a good process. Going through so that people who are informed and people can come up with their own solutions. To say, well this is the priorities for next year. And just see how much we've got to invest. It may be that one consultancy, if we didn't do that, we could invest in everything that we need in terms of increased data logs throughout the whole Shire. And then we can make the decision which is better. Is it better to do Unity Water and the state government's job for them? Or is it better to actually build the capacity so we have a better understanding across both the Noosa and the Mary River catchment and the eastern beaches? So I applaud Councillor Lorentson for bringing this light to the attention. If you're putting in, no matter how low the concentration after the treatment process of the water going in. And all the evidence is that it is very low concentration of nutrients.
00:22:00 If you're putting additional volume in there, there is always a chance of bioaccumulation. And while we do have good water quality data. It probably, we're not the ones that have the responsibility of collecting E. coli for example. I know that's one thing that Unity Water does have. So to me, yes, we can say we're concerned about it. Yes, we can say that some people in the community think it's a really big problem. Okay. It would be wrong to say we have the answers without doing what we said we've done. What we said we'd do in the environment strategy. And what we've said we'd have done recently. And that is we're going to partner with the community and bring both expert and citizen science programs together. So we get a very good picture of where the water quality issues are. Speaker 5: Just a quick question for you Brian. With Mattaby referred, so it would make sense, are you looking to put an E in for the amendment?
00:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I'm replacing everything. Speaker 5: So it's an alternative option? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Now it's an amendment through the motion saying it should be referred to. Mattaby referred too. Councillor Wegener: Careful Tom. Wait a minute, doesn't that just nullify the first motion? Speaker 5: I'm wondering if it's not an alternative motion because the amendment, I mean that is asking for a specific review and that's actually saying well I'm actually not wanting that, I'm wanting to refer it to budget. So is that an alternative? It's either. Councillor Lorentson: I'll turn it on to you. It's not a negative of it. Speaker 3: It's either and through the Mayor for Councillor Stockwell to just confirm the intent that Councillor Lorentson's motion is the motion that you're amending. So isn't it put forward as an amendment to the motion? Yep. And that you're amending Councillor Lorentson's motion that the matter be referred to budget deliberations. That's it. So it is an amendment that what Councillor Lorentson has put forward you're amending
00:24:00 to refer what Councillor Lorentson has put to budget deliberations. And you've added some other elements in there as well too. Which would then be part of those budget deliberations is through the members of the intent. Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: It raises a number of questions with regard to what Councillor Lorentson has brought before us. And what the CEO has alluded to and Ms CEO, the questions that that raises for me are if there is statutory obligation by Unity Water. What information have we requested from Unity Water in regard to water quality and water quality monitoring downstream of Burgess Creek? What information is available for the general public? If that's a statutory obligation, is that available? Is that information available to the general public in any way, shape, or form? And what information does Council receive on a regular basis?
00:25:00 And this is a question that I've been asked a number of times. It's against the historical environmental impact statement. I'm not sure. I don't think I've ever read the environmental impact, historical environmental impact, or heard of an environmental impact statement with regard to Burgess Creek. So I'm not really sure where some of this request and information comes from. And how it differs from what is already supplied by statutory obligation. Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic. These are requests coming from the City of Burgess Creek. These are requests coming through constituents to Councillor Lorentson, which Councillor Lawrenson brings to the table. There seemingly is ongoing concern in the community. And without speaking on behalf of Councillor Lorentson or entering the debate at all in any way, what is trying to be achieved through the substantive motion that was put is that there are questions that the community is asking. This is a way to be able to have them answered, but not from a council, not from a government.
00:26:00 Not from an authority that has authority over that. On an independent basis. Through that, Councillor Lorentson and discussions that Councillor Lorentson had with me, is believing that that will satisfy some of the requests that are coming from our community at the moment. The other element within there, and while you didn't ask me this question, I think it is important to clarify, that there's concerns with infrastructure. So that what is being put before the council is not just, you know, what is being put before us in relation to water quality. There's also the infrastructure around the Burgess Creek catchment as well, Steve. There is information that's provided and updated on the Unity Water website. Our council has also asked for additional information that relates to the permit and the licensing for Unity Water and that discharge from the outfall into the Burgess Creek catchment. Unity Water has been very happy to be able to supply that and reiterated through that Chief Executive Officer in a meeting last week.
00:27:00 So that's something that we're looking at. So that's something that we can provide more information. But what's being put forward is a remedy for members of the community that for a reason which is answerable to those members of the community. I can't speak on their behalf. That they're unsure about the information that Unity Water and council officers are providing. That we're more than happy to be able to work through a process to help answer those questions on an independent basis. That's something that we're looking at. That's what's being put forward there. But the reporting against permits, against licences, Unity Water does that and they ensure that that's done to the highest possible level. But there are concerns and working with our community and with what Councillor Lorentson has put forward trying to address those. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there any way from the motion put before us, the original motion put before us, of knowing what sort of a cost that that would be?
00:28:00 Is there any way that there may be associated with undertaking this sort of an independent review? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Councillor Jurisevic and in my experience for an environmental and engineering review of the infrastructure around that, I think it would be in the vicinity of around about $20,000. And we would be expecting a top tier engineering and environmental firm to be able to undertake that. But I wouldn't expect there would be an engineering firm to be able to undertake that. Councillor Jurisevic: And given the constraints on Council's spending and the added expenses that we currently undertake, where would that funding potentially come from? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic and as I advised Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wilkie, that there is funding in our budget. And I'm sure of the constraints that you speak of in relation to budgeted funds. Budgets are budgets.
00:29:00 They're there to be utilised. And if this is a resolution of the Council, we'll utilise existing budgets that are not constrained. Speaker 5: I've got a question. And time frame wise, if we did refer it, I mean I know this is an issue that is pressing, if we did refer it as Councillor Stockwell is wanting to do, how quickly would the independent review, would the, I guess the response be back from that? And then the time frame for the budget review, when would we begin to look at that? I guess my question goes to, if time is the essence, does this potentially delay important information? And what are the time frames we're looking at? Speaker 3: Mayor, should this become a resolution of the Council, it would be dealt with within the new year. We've worked with Councillor Lorentson and any other Council that would like to be part of it to help put the scope together. We'd take that to the market for a reasonable period of time, maybe three to four weeks. We then accept what has come back from the market, look through an appointment process,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 and then once appointed, I would believe probably three to four months would be an adequate time frame. We could shorten that somewhat, should it be. But given that our scope has limited definition at this point in time, there would be some work that's required with the scope. And we would also need to make sure that the data that's being requested is easily accessible as well, and some other elements that sit around that. Councillor Stockwell does demonstrate where there is easily accessible data already for that particular catchment. So given that that's there already, I think a scoping exercise could be done. Three to four months would be reasonable. And then we'd have the ability to be able to talk to our community on an independent basis in relation to their discretion. Speaker 5: So within three to four months, we're probably looking at as many for the year. January, we're probably not looking. So probably say February, get something. So we're looking at maybe June, July to get some answers back based on that.
00:31:00 Speaker 3: Mayor, absolutely. That would be an outlying date. If we were to accelerate it, May at the absolute earliest. But bring it before council, analysing a final report, workshopping to the council, then putting that through a committee, and then ultimately a council process. That is in June, July. Another question, if I may. Councillor Wilkie: Through you, Madam Mayor. For the CEO. The notice of motion contains some very good questions about the sort of data required. Could it be that the work being done by the environmental health team, the council's team, provide answers to those questions to the council group and the community in a report in a timeframe that's going to be shorter than when these external consultants are able to provide this information to you? Thank you. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Deputy Mayor. That's actually a very good question. I believe that we could. But the view that Councillor Lorentson was taking was that independency would be better
00:32:00 in this case. But I believe that we have the data available. We can answer the questions. We can work through a process. And our team are ready to deliver. But it is working with members of the community through Councillor Lorentson that are maybe unsure in relation to council and what we hold. So to take away any concerns, there could be an independent delivery, which has been put before the council. But I believe we could absolutely answer these as a council. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to speak to the motion. Speaker 5: To the amendment? Councillor Wegener: Well, to the amendment. Yes. Overall, you may answer these through. First of all, I'm always in favour of increasing scrutiny of Unity Water. That's something that we always do. And I'm happy to do that. I've supported Councillor Lorentson all the, the whole time so far. But when, I'm just going to pull out some, some questions I have. We, we don't want council to be, to do this.
00:33:00 But on the other hand, if council paid for it, it's still a council report. So we want an independent report paid for and organized by council. So I don't, I don't see it as an independent resort, resort report. If the, I understand there's a new Burgess Creek Community Group that's only about two months old. And, you know, in my mind, the way with thinking is, well, if this community group is very, you know, wants to know the truth, well, they are free to go out and get a report as well. Do their own testing, hire somebody, raise the money, and say, this is, we think that, that council's wrong. It seems to me, this is a bit of an ad hoc approach because we want an integrated way of looking at all of the water catchments or all the, all the discharges. And as we all know that, that Uni Creek is probably the most polluted of all. It's a bit scary. Uni Creek, and there's, there's plenty of others. And we just had Peter Hoonen with his report that came up, which is, you know, an independent
00:34:00 report. I have all respect to that. And he used to say, you know, our problem is, is, you know, pollution runoff from all ports, all points across the river, up here, down there. We know that that's a big problem. We know that silt coming out of the Kin Kin Creek is an ongoing problem. When we, we distrust Unity Water, what about the Cooroy? You know, we've got the Cooroy treatment plant, and we drink that water. That goes right into Lake McDonald. So if there's, is it, yeah, so, so if we have, yeah, yeah, yeah, is that a secret? No. Yeah. It, anyways, so that, you know, if we don't trust Unity Water, I would suspect we should be really looking, you know, pinning down the Cooroy treatment plant. So I'm, I'm just not sold on that because I, I really believe that, that the community group can, can do, is doing a good job, that we've got our council doing a really good
00:35:00 job. We just, just a year ago, we, we had the review of environmental values and water quality objectives for Noosa River Basin, and we had a report that came to council that we all voted on, and it basically says this, that we are definitely going in this direction on a planned, integrated way, and we're all moving in that direction. So I, I don't, I'm not sold on to why we need this when we have the whole system working to get, to get, to do, to make, to do the best water quality we have, we can get. Those are my questions. So you're not supporting the amendment? I, I can't support it because I just, I'm not, I'm not sure that, I don't, I don't quite understand it. I don't understand, yeah, I don't understand the amendment, I don't, not, not quite sure what's happening. Councillor Lorentson: Um, I, I think there's just a really big misunderstanding around this table, the, the, the motion doesn't focus just on water quality or water quality monitoring, um, there are issues which I brought
00:36:00 to council six months ago, and the concerns are risk, impacts, and volume, the amount of water that's running. Running through Burgess Creek catchment. Um, so what's requested in the motion, in, in the motion, and oh, sorry, I should be just speaking to the amendment, um, is that the amendment, um, I think just misses the point. It's not about an, um, about priorities for water quality investigations, um, what's been requested is historical data on water volume, um, our catchment, Burgess Creek catchment, it's shared with other land use activities. Um, and part of the independent review is to actually understand what those shared land use activities are. Um, Unity Water executive responded to, um, to council, um, in the newspaper and, and
00:37:00 actually said, Burgess Creek catchment is shared with existing and historical land uses, including storm water runoff, night soil trenches, including, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, So, part of this motion is to understand what are the risks, what are the impacts. Six months ago, I asked for data. I'm standing here with this motion because I still don't have that data. I've asked for the data from Council, I've asked for the data from Unity Water. I'm not challenging Unity Water, I met with the CEO, I have, as I said in the motion, utmost respect for both our staff and for the staff of Unity Water. The main issue is the volume of water. This is a creek that is not supposed to be constantly flowing. There is too much going through.
00:38:00 So what I'm asking is the question I've been asking for six months. Show me the data. What's being discharged? How much water is being discharged? Not the water quality, how much? What volume is being discharged? Where is it coming from? Where is it going? And what's the data over the last 20 years? What's the impact and what are the risks? And simply, is there a better option? Is there a better way of doing this? So I'm not going to support the amendment. Because I think it's just taken us on the wrong track. You know, we've been sitting in Council for the last two months putting together our corporate plan. We've consulted with community. You know, I'm going to say what we all know, Noosa has a long history of protecting the natural environment and doing things in a balanced way. We adopted in 2015 a set of sustainability principles which we're discussing around
00:39:00 the table during our corporate plan discussions. Number one of a sustainability principle states that our resources, and I'm talking our natural resources, I'm talking about our infrastructure, our asset management, that they're sustainably managed so that the lifestyle of the community is preserved without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We've got our own Council risk policy states that Council aims to make a significant sustainable and socially responsible contribution to the community and is very protective of its environment. And that Council will not tolerate activities and practices that knowingly compromise the environment are reasonably foreseeable and preventable. Today, Councillors, all I'm asking is that we make good on that promise. And I'm asking that we make good on that promise.
00:40:00 And I'm asking that we make good on that promise. $20,000 to me is not a lot of money to spend on our future, to plan for the future and to help facilitate potentially, not potentially, to help facilitate environmental improvements. There is no downside, there are risk associated if we do nothing. And to help facilitate potentially, not potentially, to help facilitate environmental improvements. We had the David Lowe way, that highway, the road was at risk at one stage. So again, what is the data? That's all I'm asking. I've been asking this for six months. What is the data? Where is it? How much is going through? Where is it going? And what are the impact and risk?
00:41:00 Well, you know, we need to be a council that walks the talk. We need to be a council that listens to our community. You know, I pulled out, I had one resident at Sunrise Beach who pulled out a letter that she wrote to the Noosa today, and I wish I had it with me, but I think it was dated back about 10 years ago. It's the same issues. I've got people reaching out to me from all throughout Sunrise Beach that... have just said, thank you. Thank you for raising these concerns. I'm not raising anything that hasn't been spoken about. But I just think that, you know, we are different by nature. Let's just, $20,000, we've got a community that's waiting for answers, have been waiting for answers for six months. And to me, when we talk about risk, you know, we're planning on a risk with a coastal hazard adaptation plan. We're spending a ton of money on a risk that may happen in 100 years.
00:42:00 I'm telling you... and I think for many councillors today, there is a risk. There is a risk that our David Lowe Way road system are at risk. There's a risk that's more immediate. And we're not addressing it. This is a risk assessment. This is risk plus community. I don't know how much I can say. I've come to council with a notified motion. Everyone knows I want to close what I've been trying to convey on behalf of concerned residents in Noosa. This data won't go to waste and I just think the essence of independence is a critical part of this. It will go through a proper procurement process. You know, you mentioned how can it be independent if council are engaging in a consultant. It will go through a proper procurement process. There will be probity, so it will be arm's length.
00:43:00 We're going to be determining the scope but not determining the outcomes or the results. And we've also got the CEO of Unity Water who supports this. Again, there is misinformation. We need to just get the facts right. We need to understand that in 1996 council owned the facility. In 1996 the state gave council a permit. I want to understand and the community want to understand what was the environmental impact statement. What were the conditions of that permit in 1996? We are now in 2022. Why are we still adhering to those conditions and criteria, you know, of 1996? And this is not a Unity Water matter and it's not a council matter. It's a high policy matter. It's a state environmental, you know, our legislations need to be overhauled. But an independent review are going to just lay all the facts out.
00:44:00 You know, how many households are we servicing? What was the population in 1996? What is the population now? How many extra households are now using that sewer pipe? Are we... Are the residents in Peregian Springs, are they using our sewer pipe? There are all these unanswered questions. And this is our opportunity to get the facts. To get the facts, understand the facts. And then again, from where I sit is understand the impacts and risk. And simply, is this an opportunity for us to do things better? Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Munster. So if I would like to speak to the amendment, but Brian, Tom and Amelia, would anyone else like to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, come on. Look, we're all passionate about the environment, liveability and data.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 The original modified motion is asking for data that is already being researched and is on the way. It's already available. Councillor Stockwell demonstrated how readily available a lot of this data is for people who are interested in finding it. What councillors haven't had is have this data presented to them and brought to them in a presentation so all of us can unpack it, have it presented to us in a way that's understandable and all questions answered. My understanding, and the CEO has just explained that, that the environmental health team are doing monitoring, using the existing historical health data, doing some other monitoring to bring all that information to us. There's been a commitment. All those questions in the modified motion, the review of the historical water quality data, including water quality volumes, review of the permanent and equivalent personal capacity of the plant, the environmental impact of wastewater treatment, plant outflows and the Burgess Creek catchment
00:46:00 against the historical environmental impact statement and any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting are on, can be presented to the council by the council staff. Based on historical data and the benchmarking that's being done. I'm going to support this amendment because by the time we've had this data presented to us, we'll then be able to make the decision whether an independent review is warranted and worth investing more ratepayer funds in ascertaining that information. We can share that information with the community. If the community members that are still unhappy, then we as a group consider whether an independent review of all the data provided is warranted at that point. I'm not supporting the modified motion at this point. I'm supporting the amendment to the motion which will put it to one side until we review all that data and then decide whether it's warranted.
00:47:00 The notified motion, in my view, is premature at this stage because we've not had a chance to ascertain the veracity of the data that's already underway. It's already funded by ratepayers and is coming to this Council. So I love the questions and I love what's being sought. I'm being assured that we can have access to the answers to those questions in a presentation to Council, in a report that we can share with the community. Then is the time to decide whether we go independent and whether we trust what data is coming before the Council. And I... I feel very aggrieved that I have to say that because I do trust the data that comes before this Council and this community needs to have that confidence and I'm sure that they do. But it does give that extra level of assurance if it's an independent review. But any independent review will be funded by the Council, so you'll still have that link.
00:48:00 Councillor Wegener makes a good point that there are already community groups doing their own independent studies of qualified... credible people doing independent studies of our waterways and providing that information for the community consumption and also for our staff to assess. So I applaud where the notified motion is going. I just think it's premature at the moment. I want to see what information comes before us, how well those questions are answered first before we jump to an independent review because ratepayer resources are already being dedicated to this work. Important work, this work. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. A question to the CEO. So part of the scope... So any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting by the appointed folks. So part of the scope which will be developed by CEO and Council, all available information on water monitoring
00:49:00 will be made available to the appointed engineering or environmental firm for... to independently analyse and report back to Council. That's what I've understood. So the question I'm asking, is there duplication or does that work feed into what we would be presenting as part of a package and scope to an independent reviewer? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor and Council, that information is available. It can be presented to the Council. It can be reviewed on an independent basis. I wouldn't say duplication is what's been spoken about, but ultimately it's a decision for the Council to make that whether Council officers and the review that they've undertaken is sufficient or if the third party to review that information and provide value of that
00:50:00 is what is additionally required. All right. Thank you. Speaker 3: Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Stryk. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Wilkie. Like Councillor Wilkie, I'm a little perplexed and a little uncertain as to where we are with, and Councillor Wegener, where we are with this. I support the amendment to refer to a budget deliberation. I think that's the pertinent way to go. My concern is that what's been requested of us, That information should be readily available. The water quantity that is flowing out of Burgess Creek should be subject to their environmental approvals through the state and through DES, one would think. And that information, what they're permitted to do, is a state decision. What they're permitted to discharge is a state decision
00:51:00 and the volumes that go come from the state. So, one would think that that is a question that we could readily ask of Unity Water and of the state to find out what goes there and that information supply. Now, I understand the councillor has asked Unity Water for that information, that information has been forthcoming. The question for me is, why that information hasn't been forthcoming and whether we need to raise the advocacy at the CEO level to ensure that that information does come through as part of a report so that we understand what is, what is currently approved and what volumes of water are going through there. There is an element of water quality data, as Councillor Stockwell has alluded to, and other testing being done. Again, we don't have all of that, as Councillor Wilkie has alluded to, we haven't had all that information gathered and combined before us so that we know whether an independent review is necessary. I mean, what are the, are they discharging more
00:52:00 than they're allowed to? Is the quality of the water, what happens when the quality of the water doesn't meet the standards? What do Unity Water do? What is, what is the process going through? So there's a lot of information here that I believe that we can gather just with a more open conversation with Unity Water so that the public do understand better what their obligations are and what their discharges are and the process goes there. Part of the discharge of Unity Water sewage treatment plant is water at a treated level that's able to be used on our sporting fields that are nearby. In fact, it has been done in the past, although there have been some challenges with the pumping system, as I recall, and the cost of the water available. So that, maybe in talking with Unity Water and being at their annual meetings, they're looking at options to redirect that water to other areas always. So they are in the, in the process of facilitating changes
00:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: to their discharge from the waste treatment plant. Councillor Jurisevic: The other elements within Burgess Creek in specifically is that this is not the only point of discharge or point of water, sorry, the only water source that flows into Burgess Creek. There is water that flows from other areas, such as from Noosa Junction. And that's why we've talked about a hole of catchment, understanding of that, that I believe we're already in place and implementing so that we know the Burgess Creek catchment as a whole and not just as a part. So I would, yeah, I would support the amendment at this point in time, because I'm unsure as to why we haven't had a response from Unity Water. And I would suggest that what we do is that we advocate at a much higher level through you, Mr. CEO, and through you, Madam Mayor, to Unity Water, to provide the information that Councillor Lorentson has requested with regard to water quality volumes.
00:54:00 Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Turek. Councillor Finzel. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Well, yeah, there's a lot going on. I definitely support the work Amelia's done in listening to the community and bringing this before us tonight. There's a lot of questions I would like answered before I even move forward, and I just don't think in the timeframe we've got that. Because we're looking at a lot of different things. First off, the community's concerns about the discharge. We get that across the Shire, just not down at Burgess Creek. Each of us at the table could contest the fact that we are hearing these things across the Shire. And I guess, for me, then, that is about, you know, what is the process around equity? What is the process to ensure that how the decision is reached, who gets the, you know,
00:55:00 gets the most attention to the issues they're raising? When we look at liveability surveying, what's come out of that, and what is informing even our placemaking, is all a big process around how local government decides where those priorities lie. You know, I'm all for the environment. I'm all for the water. I'm all for supporting this council in giving voice to our communities and raising this awareness. But it's how do we prioritise the promise and the obligation? You know, I, I don't understand all the, you know, water quality data, the quality volumes. I don't understand what this permanent permit and equivalent person capacity of a plant is. I haven't had, I don't believe I have enough information before me. I don't understand, I don't think I have enough information before me. The council comment also says it's looking for best practice for the infrastructure. You know, where's the gap analysis to inform the decision that this is what is required to
00:56:00 actually address best practice infrastructure? You know. So at one level, as I really want to see these issues addressed across the Shire, in, Councillor Wilkie: you know, I don't think I have enough information before me. Councillor Finzel: I, I don't understand, like, the process around the discretionary budget. Where's the equity? They're then looking at how we determine how the funds are looked at. We've also got the issues and the impacts on the staff, given that every, you know, we've got feedback saying that all the windows are open. How much staff time is going to be taken up with this? The time taken already to deliver reports that's come to our attention today, that's come through other people. I really support what Amelia's done here. I support the idea of how she's trying to find answers for the community. I just feel that before us today, the information to, I don't know, seek the answers, where's the gap analysis?
00:57:00 So I guess this is a question through the chair to the CEO. Has gap analysis been identified to the extent that we need to have $20,000 and four months' time to look at this to fill the gaps that have been identified when perhaps Unity Water or someone else could do it? And if so, is it a question of advocacy to fill those gaps before we commit to spending that amount of money? Speaker 3: Through the chair, thank you for your question, Councillor Finzel. Gap analysis. I think in working with Councillor Lorentson around this, the gap is the independence of a review. Council has information that's readily available that can be analysed and be provided. Unity Water has the same. However, what residents are requesting through Councillor Lorentson is that can this be,
00:58:00 can this be fact-checked, can this be truth-checked, can this have another independent lens to review that information so that those members of the community that are asking these questions then have 100% surety that it's not just Council information, it's not just Unity Water information, it's being reviewed independently. So the gap that sits around this is that independence is the way that I would answer your question because we do have that information. We do have that information available and it's something that we can work very closely with if this is a resolution of the Council in the future, work with whoever is appointed to be able to deliver a review of information that we have available and so does Unity Water. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you.
00:59:00 Councillor Wegener: Quick question to Councillor Stockwell. If the original motion is solely about water volumes, is there a reason for that? Then why is the amendment questioning water quality investigations? They're two wildly different things. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know you're probably responding to what Councillor Lorentson said, but how many times is water quality mentioned in the first A? Councillor Jurisevic: Twice. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Twice. The answer is, what Councillor Lorentson is requesting is a hydrogeomorphic ecological environment. of the Burgess Creek catchment, which she would like to include some hydrogeological and engineering requirements around infrastructure, which you would probably get no change out of $200,000 to complete.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Councillor Finzel: Question to the CEO via the Chair, can you confirm or deny that amount of money? And the need for that geotechnical? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Finzel, as CEO, I'm not going to enter into Councillor's debate. At the end of the day, the Councillor has put forward a point of view, it's the Councillor's point of view. It's a matter for the Council to decide overall. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 3: I have a question for Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, is part of the intention of your amendment to give Councillors an opportunity to perhaps approve an independent roof? I'm not saying we don't do the review at a time after they've had an opportunity to assess this information coming to the Council and to be appropriately funded in other ways, if we decide to go that track. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly I'm not saying don't do the review. What I'm saying is we have to be really clear on what we want to know and what we can do with it. Because I have a feeling that what Councillor Lorentson wants is for action to be taken to reduce the impacts on a highly degraded stream called Burgess Creek.
01:01:00 What my motion does is, A, put it into budget deliberation, so staff, but also asking staff to get that big volume of knowledge that's in the community to say, is this our priority? Is this where we best spend the money? Because I want to be informed. If we're going to adopt integrated catch-up management's approach, it has a very specific philosophy and it says that you listen to all the stakeholders before you make your decisions. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for the CEO. Is it possible, if we did get this independent review, that if the funds were in the arena that Councillor Stockwell's talking about, that we could have an opportunity to bring it back to the table? Or does this then couple onto authorisers to do it whatever the cost may be? Speaker 3: Mayor, that's a very good question. My estimate on what's been put by Councillor Lorentson is around about $20,000.
01:02:00 I do understand exactly what Councillor Stockwell wants. I understand what Councillor Stockwell is saying, to really look at every single aspect of that particular catchment. That is a very lengthy piece of work to do. This would be very much reviewing readily available data that we have, looking at our infrastructure and the impact as such. So if it was to be sitting over the $20,000 mark, which we've spoken about at the table today, I would need to come back to the council somewhat. And have a discussion with the council. We do need to be mindful of our budgets, while there is the ability to access the CEO's consultancy budget, which is largely untied for matters such as this or many other matters that come before the council and ultimately discussion and consideration. It would be one, though, that if it was starting to look at being out of the realms of what we've discussed, that I need to talk to the council about it.
01:03:00 So that would be my response to your question, Mayor, that if we were sitting in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, my recommendation would be to continue the work that we're doing and not undertake. That if we're able to do it within what I think is feasible and manageable, I would recommend that we undertake. And by undertaking this particular work, we're able to have a very clear, single source of truth for those in the community that are unsure as to what council is delivering and unsure as to what Unity Ward is delivering. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jurisevic: So that raises a couple of questions, Mr CEO. And I think we alluded to it earlier. Do we not have a piece of work already being processed by staff with regard to a whole of catchment?
01:04:00 With regards to the Burgess Creek catchment? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic, yes, we do. The integrated water quality monitoring. It's not just for Burgess Creek, though. It is for our catchments on an integrated basis. But in response, yes, we do. Councillor Jurisevic: And when is that work due to commence? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic, I understand it's already underway. The resolution of the council has been enacted. It will take time to start to be able to have the data flowing into council for analysis. And then over time, that data needs to be reviewed to ensure that we start to understand the trends and what that information is telling us. So just by starting the process won't give us the answer. We'll understand what the start is. We need to know how this progresses for us in the future. So that type of work does take time. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question there.
01:05:00 So if this review is undertaken to the cost of $20,000, and I don't know if this is a question to Amelia or the CEO, what are you proposing will be done with the report and the data? What are you wanting to inform or what use are you proposing with the outcome from this review Councillor Lorentson: in the future? I'll speak to that. We need to understand. So I'm speaking on behalf of concerned residents. Councillor, you're answering the question. I'm answering the question. So what we're seeking to understand is what are the risks? What are the risks? And are there any risks? And what's council's responsibility and liability in regards to those risks?
01:06:00 The other thing that we're seeking to understand with this volume is that we need to understand the impact. What is the impact of the volume of water on the receiving environment? The Burgess Creek catchment. We've got bush care volunteers that lead Burgess Creek. My question is, you know, I'd like the report to say, is that a waste of time? Is there too much phosphorus or nitrate that's coming out of the treated wastelands? Is there too much wastewater that makes that task impossible to achieve? That you can never take the weeds out? What are the impacts on the soil acidity levels of the soils around Burgess Creek? Just understanding impact and risk to answer that question really quickly. And I think that data and information, it doesn't.
01:07:00 It then feeds into our internal groups, our internal Burgess Creek catchment groups. It then feeds into infrastructure and provides information whether our stormwater systems and pipes, whether they're adequate, whether they're outdated, whether they need to be upgraded. I think that the information will just feed into lots of departments and work that we are already doing. It'll complement not to duplicate reports. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So, I just have another question then. So, the CEO confirmed that there was no identified gaps. So, are you wanting the review to, I don't know, question, I guess, the quality of the reports that we've already seen from key stakeholders here? I just did a bit of a loss there.
01:08:00 So, I mean, I don't know. If there's no identified gaps, why do we need the review? Councillor Lorentson: I don't believe, and I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe we've actually done the gap analysis. And I think from where I sit is, I'll defer to the CEO to answer, but I think, again, everyone's missing the value of having an independent review. Okay. And they, again, just check, verify, analyse and identify opportunities and risk. Speaker 3: Thank you. Through the Mayor and Councillor Morrison, thank you for your referral. Councillor Finzel, what I actually said was, if there is a gap, it's the independence.
01:09:00 Speaker 5: I'm the only one who's got this. Look, it's not only, it's not the first time that we've actually sought to have an independent review. I'm just, remember, July 2020, 16th of July 2020, we sought to have a independent scientific expert to provide a review of the project. This is the Oyster Reef project. The project's monitoring, evaluation, reporting plan. The review is to conclude. And it went on. So, we have had independent review. We've had independent reviews before. And we have used them. So, in this instance, this wouldn't be a first to have an independent review. Look, I'm happy to support Councillor Morrison's initial motion, which means I won't be supporting the amendment. But Councillor Stockwell, I think what you brought to the table is incredibly important. And I think looking at that integrated system for the budget review is really important. And we should put it on our list of high priorities for when we go into those budget discussions. Because some of those Fs are certainly not acceptable. And we need to do more.
01:10:00 But in the meantime, look, an independent review will provide a level of comfort to the community. We will get the information. I agree with Councillor Morrison that it won't be. It will be complimentary. We can never have too much data. We can never have too much information. And yes, there is a cost to the community. If it is excessive, the CEO has advised us that he will come back to this table. So, in that instance, we're not at risk of this being a huge expense. There is certainly an expense. Absolutely. But in that hundreds of thousands, we will certainly be able to debate that and be informed of that prior to that actually occurring. So, in that instance, we're looking at an independent review that will give comfort to the community. It will provide data, much-needed data. And it will work in a complimentary fashion to other groups. And our environmental team here at Council are doing a terrific job. And it will compliment what they are doing. So, I will support the initial motion of Councillor Livingstone. Thank you.
01:11:00 I am against the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. So, I'll finish up. I want to, once again, repeat, I think it's great to bring these issues to the table. When Councillor Lorentson spoke to the amendment, she outlined a very valuable body of work that could be done. It is what generally underpins sub-Catharine River care planning, or it's looking at the quality, it's looking at the quantity, it's looking at why you're doing it. Are we going to base it on the risk priorities, or are we going to base it on the value? So, I heard yesterday that there's a vulnerable species called jungle perks for living birds. Do we look at that? Do we know exactly what the water quality we want for what? Is it really about recreational swimming quality at the receiving waters, or is it about the fact that we've got acid frog populations in one of the arms that's affected by too much lime and dolomite in the household gardens?
01:12:00 For those things to make, for us to make decisions to invest ratepayers funds wisely, we probably need a whole of catchment water quality and water vitality. We've actually got a staff member doing high degree research on this, because I refused to give him money to get a water model until we knew it would tell us something about five years ago. Okay? It's not a simple process. And then, I appreciate the desire to try and get a consultant and independence, but I've been in this game for a few decades. What $20,000 gets you is between one or two weeks' work of a reasonable water quality science and a junior engineer. It's seven to 12 days' work in billing hours, market rates. Not at the high level. Okay? That's what it gets you. And if, I think you'd be disappointed if we went down this path.
01:13:00 I think you'd get something that if we said to our staff, can you spend seven to 10 days on getting that information together, we'd get it for their wages. Because you won't get the analysis of impacts. You might get some highly caveated, well, this could lead to this. We could probably say, it's quite easy to find out how many megs of water are going down, because it's all monitored. We know how much. And is that perhaps leading to the fact that the coastal goo never closes over anymore? But there's a deeper issue which I've put in there. Because when I did my research in this in the 90s, it was about the new way of prioritising. It was prioritising on value, rather than problems. Because you invest in what's good and keeping it good, it's generally a lot cheaper than investing in the more degraded. Now Burgess Creek has to be one, you know, without any doubt, it has to be one of the most degraded, because it's been having all the water pumped in that we've been consuming from the Mary catchment through a tiny little coastal creek system.
01:14:00 There is no way it's not degraded, because we've been pumping, we've been interbasin transfer, which is an impact, we've been putting it into a sub-acid coastal stream for decades. No matter how good the treatment, how much nutrients taken out, it has to have an impact. What we have to decide before we invest is what we want out of this. Do we want, you know, what are the qualities we want to look for? Now, I'm not saying that any one of those questions aren't good ones to answer. What I'm saying is, there's no urgency. If we're looking at the big picture to fix this, it's either a major, you know, what are we going to do? Are we going to re-put the effluent into a total water cycle management system? You know, that's hundreds of millions of dollars, ten years down the track. That's the only way to take volume out, is to redirect it to something else. So just saying, yeah, we know there's a risk, we don't need consultants.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Common sense will tell us there's a risk. Is it an exceptional risk from whether it's four to six mega, mega, mega litres of water extra going down the creek? Maybe a good engineering consultant will give you some assessment. But if you really want to know, as Councillor Lorentson has said, where does the water go, then you do need a fluvial geomorphologist as well. And what does that mean in terms of the styles of the creek and whether it's a, there's probably multi-disciplinary approach. And as I said, they're all really good things to do, but they come at a cost and there's no way that a $20,000 project is going to answer all the questions that Councillor Lorentson imposed. For $20,000, you're going to get a desktop review of information that's easily available. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We'll put the amendment to a rightful in favour. Councillor Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wilkie against. Finzel, Wegener. I say against. Lawrence and Stewart.
01:16:00 Amendment is lost. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The amendment is that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to bring forward to Council a report. Thank you. On water quality issues affecting the Burgess Creek catchment. Detailing at a minimum.
01:17:00 A, B, C and D as, as written. Speaker 5: So as, as was it? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: With the exception of by the appointed firm in D. Speaker 5: Sorry. No Dean? Councillor Wilkie: No. With the exception of the clause by the appointed firm in D. So any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
01:18:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: If councillors believe, after review of the information,
01:19:00 that another source of truth is required, that an independent review of Burgess Creek wastewater treatment plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment be done by a suitable engineering and environmental firm.
01:20:00 Water treatment plant, Burgess Creek water treatment plant outflows. If councillors believe that an independent review of Burgess Creek waste water treatment plant outflows. It's the wording from the original. Into the Burgess Creek catchment.
01:21:00 Be done by a suitable engineering and environmental firm. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Are you happy with that? Councillor Lorentson: So you're going to cancel the meeting? Councillor Jurisevic: Before I, Before I consider seconding it, can I just ask, and I may have to go back to Councillor
01:22:00 Lawrenston with regard to A. I've been sitting in my craw and I don't quite understand A, because water quality data and water quality volumes, water quality and water volume are two different parameters. What does the councillor mean by water quality volumes and are we using the correct term in what we're seeking in A? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to that. Quality, water quality volumes omit the word quality. It should be just water volumes. That's what I suspected. I've been reading it and going water quality twice. No, it's a mistake. Water discharge volume? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Thank you. That's just a mistake. Thank you. Can I, so councillor, in keeping with what Councillor Lorentson was trying to iterate earlier, if the second water quality in A. were changed to water discharge, I think it would more accurately reflect what councillor
01:23:00 Lawrenston was trying to achieve in the first place. Councillor Wilkie: If you'd be happy to accept that change. Water quality data. Water discharge volume. Councillor Jurisevic: Discharge, the second quality was a mistake. Water discharge volume. Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. Councillor, was she seconding that? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I believe you just said you'd second that. No, I seconded the original. Oh, did you? Yep. Yeah. Now that I've clarified that point, and I said it was just a stupid point, I couldn't get my head around anything else, but. Excuse me. Speaker 5: Order. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to do that. Thank you. Speaker 5: So it's been on the original. Can we do a little more change up there? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'd still like to change the original. Yeah. Yeah, it can change the original. Leave the original where it was. Leave the original where it was. Speaker 3: Before us, it is. Speaker 5: Did we have a seconder? Councillor Jurisevic: Reading, just, sorry, just reading the last of everything that's done. I have a choice, which is a seconder. Not yet. Not yet? Not yet.
01:24:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you get that? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I will see. Yes, I will see. Speaker 5: Thank you, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. There was nothing else there. I should, I should. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillors, I'm doing this to put things in the right order. None of us has had an opportunity, apart from Councillor Stockwell, to review the comprehensive range of data available. We've heard that the staff are already doing, getting that data for us together, and also doing additional testing. In that catchment, I think it's only right that we have an opportunity to see that data first, to review its veracity, before we leap and second guess staff and spend more of rate payers' money in doing a review that may not be needed. If after a review of all this data that Councillor Lorentson seeks through the notice of motion,
01:25:00 if after that review we are still unsatisfied, then it would be appropriate and the right use of resources, then it could be justified to go to another source of truth, that being an independent review by a suitable engineering and environmental firm. I'm not saying we don't get the information sought by Councillor Lorentson, I fully support that, but I think it's only right we have an opportunity to see it presented to us first by the, from the people that are already working on it. Then we assess its veracity, and then we're either satisfied with that, we share that with the community, or we then go to an independent review, otherwise it would, it's, an independent review is premature on my point. We also have heard that even if the notice of motion was to succeed, the staff are working on that sort of report anyway, and we're likely to, we're, we're going to have a doubling
01:26:00 up. But I think we need to have, see the quality of the, the information coming before us first, and then decide whether we need to go to an independent review. That's all I'm saying. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question to the CEO. In terms of a review of the permanent and equivalent person capacity, and in terms of the environmental impact, and in terms of the review of historical water quality data, and water discharge volumes, what are your thoughts on that? Who will be interpreting that data? I understand that Council staff have the data, but interpreting that data, I believe, I'm not sure, I'm asking the question, have we got the expertise within Council to interpret the monitoring data? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Lorentson, yes, I absolutely believe that we do, and even
01:27:00 with my experience around EP persons, and you being able to, you know, be able to, you know, review the efficacy of water treatments, sewage treatment plants, we can, we can absolutely do that. And I think the way that Council will do it is now put the second amendment to the Council as if the Council is somewhat dissatisfied with the work that's undertaken, you do have that option to be able to then review an independent, or take an independent view of what's being delivered. So yes, we do, and we can work with Union Water on that as well. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of D, any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting, will there be an opportunity for our Audit and Risk Committee to also undertake a review of the risk, potential risk, that may be posed as a result of, you know, interpretation of that data? Or just to understand Council's liability in terms of any identified risk? Yeah, just to get a risk assessment.
01:28:00 Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Lorentson, in terms of providing to the Audit Committee any work that our staff undertake, as we've discussed though, there needs to be an understanding of risk in relation to this matter, and that there is also risk that's on other parties as opposed to the Council. Sure. So very happy to be able to, again, talk through those, work with Council around that. But identified risk is not necessarily a risk on the part of the Council. Yep. It may be a risk of other authorities or other levels of government, and that's something that we can identify. Providing the Audit Committee, absolutely. Risk to be identified, but there does need to be a degree of understanding as to what is Noosa Shire Council risk. Yep. And then what is risk of other parts of government or other entities. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, in terms of risk, can we pose the question to the Audit and Risk Committee? So we're looking at reputational risk on top of environmental risk.
01:29:00 So can we ask the question to the Audit and Risk Committee whether they recommend an independent review and just get some commentary provided as part of this amendment? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Lorentson, yes, we could. I think what needs to be understood though is that the Audit Committee would review the work that is being undertaken. I think that the Audit Committee would review the work that is being undertaken by Council officers as a report, and it's for the Audit Committee to be able to make recommendations for the Council's consideration. Council is the decision maker, not the Audit Committee. And any risk that is assessed would follow our risk framework. In relation to reputational risk, we did have a discussion as to how we would define that reputational risk, specifically when some matters that are being raised are not within Council's remit. So we need to be really clear in relation to what is a true risk to our Council, and
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 so very happy to be able to work through that at the point in time that we need to. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CEO, the review of historical water data, including water discharge volumes, I assume would require input from Unity Water, and seeing as that is the information that Councillor Lawrence hasn't been able to attain, would this be an opportunity to bring Unity Water to the table to provide the information that has been requested? Speaker 3: To the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic, we have an undertaking from the CEO of Unity Water to assist in this process, and also have been providing, if not the information that has already been provided to Councillor Lorentson. If it hasn't already, there was an undertaking at last Friday's meeting to be able to provide that information. It was in a raw data format, so the advice is that that does need to then be put into a format that is readable. So there is work being done by the water scientists at Unity Water to provide the information
01:31:00 that Councillor Lorentson has been asking. And absolutely, there is a commitment to work together, and we'll continue to do so. Councillor Jurisevic: Would there also be an opportunity to have DES officers, or the appropriate state authority, that provides the use permit to offer their information with regard to water discharge volumes and the outputs? Speaker 3: This is Mayor Councillor Jurisevic. If that's a request of the council, we'll work to facilitate that. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Mine's a process question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I agree with the method that Councillor Wilkie's intending. My query is, are you happy, considering there's only one real way to gauge whether if all councils believe is at a meeting, if this was done in a workshop format, that it would be a procedural operational matter to implement a straw poll? Or how would you, if we had to go to that last step in the last clause?
01:32:00 Speaker 3: Stephen O'Hare, I'm the Councillor of Stockwell. If there were other matters that were then raised, depending on the workload and what was then required, it would be one where we would be able to deliver against. However, if it would require further information and further decision of the council, we would bring that as a report to the council, absolutely. However, what we would always work towards is the enactment of the resolution of the council that we have before us, to deliver that resolution. If there's further work that comes from the back of enacting that resolution, we'll make a decision as to what is the most appropriate way forward. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Sir, through the Mayor, if this report comes to council with that information in it, is there an opportunity then, after it's gone through the meeting processes,
01:33:00 that if councillors, any councillors, are unhappy with what's been provided, they can move an amendment to that motion to require an independent review? Speaker 3: One potential way. Absolutely. Through the Mayor, Deputy Mayor Wilkie, absolutely. There is that. The majority of the council, if the council views that that next step's required, then we'll undertake that as officers, however, if that amendment was lost, that wouldn't be a way that we would undertake it. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll talk to the amendment. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I believe this is the correct way to go. But first and foremost, let's gather data. I appreciate that Councillor Lorentson has been trying to gather this information. The information has been forthcoming. Let's gather that data and let's have an informed discussion on the elements of the information that is provided so that we can then move forward. And if needed be, if we find any discrepancies or any reasons to challenge or question that
01:34:00 data, by all means, let's look at an independent review. I also see that what's being requested here fits in with the overall catchment management plan that was being proposed with regard to Burgess Creek as a whole and that would be ultimately undertaken as part of that water catchment management review. So, I see this in keeping with the work that council has already requested staff to discharge with regard to catchment management, a whole of catchment management that will incorporate Burgess Creek as one of those catchments. And the fact that Burgess Creek has a sewage treatment plant associated with it, I also bring to mind those, as Councillor Wegener did earlier, the fact that we have another sewage treatment plant at Cooroy that discharges in a similar fashion and that we perhaps should look at including both in regard to that.
01:35:00 But the one that has had concerns raised by Councillor Lorentson and is the one of Burgess Creek. So, I'm happy for it to be the first. And if we find any issues there, then perhaps we might undertake a further study with regard to Six Mile Creek and the Mary River catchment as a whole, which is part of the previous resolution of council from last month. The Councillor Wilkie alluded to, with regard to citizen science for the whole, where we were originally only talking about Burgess Creek, that Councillor Lorentson and I added the elements of looking at the Six Mile Creek catchment management plan. Councillor Wegener: I'm Mr Joe, concerned with the difference between water volume and water quality. If we're talking about water volumes, then this is really part of the Easter Beaches management
01:36:00 plan. And then if we're talking volumes, well then we should be looking at the other, the six other creeks that go into the ocean as far as the amount of volumes that go in and how it affects the beaches and how that, so how they affect the beaches. Once you get into analyzing the water quality, well then you're in a wildly different realm and I concur with Councillor Stockwell that if you're going to go in there and start testing and get guys with the white suits in there and testing, you know, Burgess Creek, that's an enormous body of work that needs to be done. So I'm all in favour of looking at water volume and that should be very quick and at $20,000 we'll probably get you a report up, you know, a desktop report, you know, in seven or eight days, as Councillor Stockwell said. But if you're going to start looking at quality of water, then you're opening up Pandora's box and you actually, you just go right back to what we're already doing, because we're
01:37:00 already doing that well. We have lots of procedures, lots of water. We've got water workers, fantastic programs in place already to look at water quality. So yeah, I'll support this, but I'm not quite sure yet. I'm actually, I'm just, I'm asking, is this really the volumes or does it have a water quality element to it? Councillor Lorentson: Would you like to? I think you're right, Tom. I think it's predominantly volume. Which is the risk that it's posing to the environment and in terms of water quality data, more an understanding in the request with the independent review was to actually understand by past licence that, you know, when there is heavy rains and there's this
01:38:00 big rush of water. The treatment plan. And I defer to the CEO to correct me, but it's like the treatment plant can't hold that water and it's got a licence just to open up its gates and rainwater flushes through. So it's more understanding just to dispel misinformation and community. What does that actually mean? So it's a combination of both, you know, water quality, but predominantly water volumes at the moment. What the community have been raising is that it's an ephemeral creek. It's not natural that it is constantly flowing. And that's been the underlying issue. So thank you for addressing that. So again, any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting, that's also part of the original motion. So when the scope is determined, maybe you're right.
01:39:00 If there's, if funding is restricted, maybe you're right. Maybe we look at within the scope. What is the underlying, what is the number one question that the community is asking? And then let's restrict the scope rather than water quality. Because you're right. I spoke to the CEO Anna Jackson from Unity Water. I am so not questioning the water quality. They have more regulations than, you know, I can even comprehend. So, and their reputation is based on water quality. They have more regulations than, you know, I can even comprehend. So I don't dispute that. I think you're right. The issue here is volume and risk. What are the risks? And I think that needs to be properly understood. And where is all this water coming from? So that's why independent review. And that's why I respect Council Wilkie to try finding the middle ground. But I am not going to support this amendment because I think an independent review and
01:40:00 as the Mayor said before, when we requested an independent review on the Oyster Reef project, my gosh, it did not go through this type of conversation. You know, I'm dumbfounded that $20,000 for the environment, the only outcome is a positive outcome. The only outcome is... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. I believe Councillor Lorentson was answering a question that's now going into debate. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: That's all right. Speaker 3: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 5: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I've responded. Sorry. Responded. Yes. Speaker 5: Has that answered your question? Yes. Councillor Wegener: I have another question for the CEO. But you might not be able to answer this because you weren't here. But with the review... Oh, I want to stay out of this. With the review of the Oyster Reef project, the review was really procedural in that method.
01:41:00 Was that right? Speaker 5: The CEO wasn't here at the time. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Yes. July 2020, I can get it up. Speaker 5: I had it up in my notes. I'm happy to defer to that. Tom, I'll come back to you on that one because I can get it up in the notes. Councillor Wegener: It was to review the monitoring and evaluation system. Speaker 5: I'll get it up for you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the amendment. I support the amendment. I think one thing's clear by the debate is there is a range of different information, understanding, and before you make a good decision, it should be an informed decision. I'm not picking on Councillor Wegener, but Councillor Wegener reminded me, he made the comment earlier on about the Cooroy sewage treatment outfall going into Lake Macdonald. That doesn't occur. It's a different tributary of Six Mile Creek. Gympie residents do get the benefit of it. They get the benefit of the Kenilworth sewage treatment plant and the Malady sewage treatment
01:42:00 plant, so they've got lots of good things going in there. But it's really important to make our decisions on an informed basis. I think you'll find that our staff are way ahead of where we think they are in terms of an integrated water monitoring network, and I think you'll find that the ease of which some of this information is available will probably answer a lot of questions as well. I quite agree. If we can boil down to what's one key missing bit of information that we do need to go out to consultants, that's what this motion will facilitate. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr Stockwell. I'll just refer to your answer. The exact wording was approve the project management plan as meeting the requirements for the project implementation plan outlined in the alliance and funding agreement subject to Council appointing an independent scientific expert to provide a review of the project's monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan. The review is to include an assessment of the effectiveness of the methodology, project goals, measures, outputs and outcomes within the context of ecological restoration and
01:43:00 the terms of the three-year contract, and recommendations, if any, for improvement to be included in the monitoring and evaluation plan. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question for Kim Rawlings. As the Mayor pointed out, there's a lot of work to be done. The independent review was of information already provided? Of a report that had already been provided to Council, wasn't it? Speaker 4: Yes, through the Mayor. That's correct, Councillor Wilkie. The monitoring and evaluation report, a very significant report, was provided to Council. And on providing it to Council, Council then requested an independent expert review. Councillor Wilkie: And are you understanding this amendment to be suggesting that there's a need for an independent review that we get an independent review of once this report comes to Council? Speaker 4: That's my understanding of what's on the table at the moment. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So the difference is, with what's happening in this process and the Orchard Reefs process,
01:44:00 with the Orchard Reefs process, the report had already, full of information, had already come to Council. And then we saw an independent review. Speaker 4: That's correct. Speaker 5: I guess my concerns lay around, Councillor Wilkie, you made the point of an independent review. It's actually funded full by Council. It's really an independent review. And I guess the correlation with the oysters is, we did have an independent review and no one questioned it, even though it was funded. But that report, Kim, was funded by Council? That independent report of the evaluation? Speaker 4: That's correct. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you. That was the point. Councillor Wegener: Okay. It just seems to me that, quick question, that there was a narrower scope with the Oyster Reefs. With this, we don't have a report to Council to independently assess yet. Speaker 4: There was definitely a very clear scope for the independent review that was, that was done. Yes. I'm sorry I brought up the oysters. It seems to me you're thinking about that. Speaker 5: Merry Christmas. Right on Christmas. But the point was, Councillor Wegener, that you said, if it's funded by Council, can
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 it be considered an independent? And I'm saying, in this instance, we have an independent review, even though it was looking at the report on the table. It was still independent and no one questioned it. Because it's funded it, no one questioned the independence of that. Councillor Wegener: You're exactly right. Thank you very much. Speaker 5: Thank you. Sorry to bring up that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Two million dollar project. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Wegener. Well, I've got a couple of questions. Firstly to Amelia. Okay, so the CEO has identified the gap is independence. How do you see another source of truth informing the final outcomes you are seeking on behalf of addressing community concerns around the history of Burgess Creek? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Lorentson: Can you speak? Can you speak? Sorry, Karen. Can you repeat the question? I'm unsure what you're asking.
01:46:00 Councillor Finzel: Given we have been... It's been confirmed that the gap is independence. So that's why we need a review. How do you see another source of truth or an independent review informing the final outcomes that you are seeking, that you've noticed in your Council comment, on behalf of addressing the community concerns? Because I don't know what all the concerns are. I mean, since learning the history of Burgess Creek, which you agree with, how do you see that independent source of truth addressing community concerns around the history of Burgess Creek? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wegener. Again, a little bit confused of what's been asked, but an independence. So I think need to clarify that what's presented, so the original motion actually says that the scope at this point hasn't been put together. So any other matters deemed appropriate for reporting by the appointed firm.
01:47:00 So discussions around this table will be considered as part of the scope. Councillors will be asked to help put together the scope of the report. So the gap is the independence. So we've got he says, she says. We've got Council giving us... We've got Council giving us data. We've got... Well, not getting any data there. Unity Water that I'm still waiting for data from. So we've got an independent person that's actually analysing and interpreting that data. And again, dispelling any misinformation that, you know, Council Wagner, just to get the facts and the truth out there. But again, I stress it's not duplication. If there is already existing information and reports, that'll be fed to... If that's, if that's, you know, if that's a proper Council report, it's proper water quality data.
01:48:00 Of course, that's going to be fitting to as part of the brief to the independent reviewer. There will not be duplication. It's interpretation and assessment and understanding impacts of all that data. And I'm asking, again, arm's length so that the community don't think, well, if Council's doing the assessment or... Or the reporting, you know, do pollutants... And I'm not saying pollutants, but my question is, okay, how am I saying this, that impartiality, it just dispels any issues of a biased report. That's the purpose of the independent review. So we just put to bed, these are the facts, these are the issues. And what are the opportunities? What are the risks? But more importantly, this is an opportunity. This is such an opportunity for Council and to me...
01:49:00 We're all going there. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Please clarify, and I don't know who's going to ask the question. What is this review of the permit and equivalent person capacity of the plant? I don't know who's going to ask the question. What is that? What is this permit and what does it lead, the equivalent person capacity of the plant? Speaker 3: It's through the Mayor and Response Council of Finzel. So each wastewater treatment plant that operates is delivered to an equivalent person's level. What that means is how many humans can get into the water? How many people can have waste deposited into that wastewater treatment plant and be treated at an effective level? So that's what an EP is, equivalent persons.
01:50:00 And then each wastewater treatment plant in Queensland is permitted to undertake activities to an equivalent person's level. And they're also licensed to be able to then undertake a number of different actions as to how that waste is dealt with. Because while there is waste in the wastewater treatment plant, there is also an equivalent person that will come out that is going to be treated. There's also solids as well that need to be dealt with in another way as well too. So there's a number of elements as to how the wastewater treatment plants and that those systems work overall. And this has been a concern that Council Lawrenston has raised and that their community is saying there's some degree of ambiguity between the permitting of the wastewater treatment plant and the equivalent persons. So I think it's a good question. So that particular element is designed there to address. It's been answered. But however, there's a view to be able to have some independency around that.
01:51:00 So equivalent persons is ultimately how many people that the wastewater treatment plant can service. And the permits that that really comes down to is what's been approved for the wastewater treatment plant. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Mr. CEO. I'll just harp on that point that you raised there. I mean, surely if a wastewater treatment plant has a permit, there is a state entity that is responsible for ensuring that permit is not exceeded. Wouldn't that rely down to the State Department and the reporting of Unity Water to that State Department and the integrity of that data, not only from Unity Water here, but all wastewater treatment plants across the state? Speaker 3: It's not the country's fault. It's the Council of the Jurisdiction. Absolutely. 100% agree. I can't tell you how many times it's been reiterated. And I'll reiterate it again. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And just through this, Mayor to CEO.
01:52:00 Councillor Finzel's question about a review of the permit and equivalent person capacity of the plant. That information is available and will be readily provided to Councillors and the public through the report that this amendment seeks to provide. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. So that capacity of the plant, is that, are we able to, as a Council, address that through the planning scheme? Where's the Council come to inform us? Where does that come from? Or is that all from Unity Water? I don't know. I don't know what it is. Speaker 3: Councillor Finzel. This is a historical wastewater treatment plant that was commissioned in 1996. Built to a standard to be able to deal with the future growth of Noosa Shire Council. There's no question as to the capacity or the capability of the wastewater treatment plant. Councillor Finzel: So are you saying capacity of the wastewater treatment plant has reached capacity?
01:53:00 Or is that one of the independent review? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Finzel. Not at all. Not at all. And through numerous discussions that have been had with Councillor Lorentson and those members of the community that are concerned. And not speaking on behalf of Unity Water, we have advised on numerous occasions that there is more than ample capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. However, those community members have wanted to be able to have that independently verified, of which we are absolutely happy to be able to do it. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, through the Chair. Can I also add, it's also just understanding that there's a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure that the water is in the right conditions. So again, it's not questioning the EP or the equivalent person capacity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now I'm going to rise to a procedural motion. It's nearly two hours, we're on the first item of business. I move the amendment be put. Councillor Wilkie: I think I have a vote to close.
01:54:00 Councillors, I implore you to do the right thing. It is not the right thing to have a water plant in the water. Knowing that staff are working on something, to suggest and infer that what they're going to present is somehow not satisfactory or not verifiable and not the truth. That's inferred if we do not give them at least the courtesy and the professional respect to provide the report that contains all the information that was sought in the original notice of motion before we make a decision about whether an independent review goes ahead. To my knowledge it's unprecedented that Council would undercut the staff in this way, circumvent proper process, go to an independent review before the staff have even been able to provide the report that you want an independent review of. In all other cases where independent reviews have been provided, there's been a report that Council has sought an independent review of.
01:55:00 Please, let's extend the professional courtesy to our staff to allow them to at least provide that information, to satisfy ourselves as to its veracity, before we go to an independent review. This doesn't take away in one bit from what Council, the information that Councilor Lorentzen is seeking. She's done well to champion this information seeking exercise. And I commend you for that. I just respectfully request we do this in the right way. Please. That's what this amendment is all about. Speaker 5: Yeah. Councilor, if you would put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? You know, stop. Music. All right. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: No one was against it.
01:56:00 All right. Councillor Wilkie: Item two on the agenda. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, no, we haven't. It now becomes a motion. It becomes the motion. Councillor Finzel: Can we have this to 10 minute break, please? Speaker 3: No, we've got about 15 minutes. This is an ordinary meeting. It's not a meeting about breaks. We need to manage and work to an ordinary meeting. Speaker 5: Yeah. So that now forms part of the original motion. So it becomes a motion. Councillor Wilkie: It becomes the motion. It's a motion that's been moved by Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Sheehan. Speaker 5: Yes, and the only person who's spoken to the original is Councillor Lorentson. Would anyone else like to talk to this? No? Would you like to close, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: No, I just would like to thank Councillor Wilkie, voice of reason, appreciate the support around the council table. I think this is the perfect way for us to move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 5: Thank you. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour?
01:57:00 In advance? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. All right. There are no presentations and there are no deputations. We're now up to item eight on page six of the agenda, which is consideration of committee reports. Firstly, the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. And I'll run through these quickly. MCU 2022-0060 Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number BD2147-2022 Application for dual-optimacy at 6-9 at the present Sunrise Beach. Item two, SSL22-0815 Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D136-2022 Application for short-stay letting at the Local Law Number 1 and supportment of Local Law Number 1 Administration 2015-365 David Lowe-Waite Region Beach. Item three, SSL22-1774 Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D156-2022 Application for short-stay letting under Local Law Number 1 and supportment of Local Law Number 1 Administration
01:58:00 2015-41-18 Edward Street, Noosaville. Item four, Climate Change Response Grants Round 2-2022-23. Councillor Wilkie. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, Frank Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. To investigate community views on paid visit parking, cycling and walking strategy priorities and shade tree planting, this is a range of organisations that's been in support, including the not-for-profit volunteer organisation, the Bridgeton Beach Community Association. In early 2020, I received a $750 electoral donation from Susan Francis, partner of PBCA President Barry Cottrell. Although this grant is not recommended for approval, even if it were approved, no fair or reasonable person would perceive that I, Ms Francis, or Mr Cottrell could gain any personal or material benefit from this project grant being awarded to Zen Inc., or that I could not make a decision in the public interest in this matter. Therefore, I will choose.
01:59:00 Yeah. Actually, I'm happy to leave that to the meeting to decide. So, therefore, I will respect the decision on the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 5: Okay. Very much. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Just noting, I've got a... Yes, you can. Sorry. Would anyone like to move a recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: I, um, Councillor Wilkie, I recommend that Councillor Wilkie participates, sorry, stays in the room, and that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wilkie and determined, sorry, that he stays... Speaker 5: And participates. So, he should not stay and participate. Stay and participate. So... Councillor Lorentson: That he stays and participates on this matter because Council believes that neither Councillor Wilkie, Ms Francis or Mr Cottrell could gain any personal material benefit from this project grant being awarded to Zen Inc., and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 decision is made in the public interest. I second that, Madam Chair. Speaker 5: Do you have a seconder? Do you have a seconder? Would you like to speak to that, Councillor Lorentson? No. I will put the vote all in favour. That is unanimous, noting that Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell did not vote. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, um, I have, if you take it as read, the same, um, declaration that Councillor Wilkie just read with the change of $750 to $500. Um, the wording's up there, but it's an identical situation. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone like to move a resolution here? Councillor? Councillor Woodman? I'll move that. Councillor Wegener: Council of Stockwell, Ms. Francis, or Mr. Cotterwell, to gain any personal material benefit from this project grant being awarded to Zen Inc., and therefore a reasonable person with trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
02:01:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a further declaration to make and that which I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by the Korean Community Garden, which is auspiced by Noosa District Landcare due to my long-standing connection with the organisation as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Who may not have paid his fees. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest in this grant is not recommended for funding, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however, I will respect the decision in the meeting on whether I can remain and participate. Speaker 5: All votes on this matter because Councillor Leeson, Councillor Stockwell, or the Curran Community Guard, or Councillor Stockwell, have not gained any personal or material benefit from this project or are not being awarded by Zen Inc. and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest of the City of Leeson.
02:02:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second the third one. Speaker 5: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, it's being awarded, it's Curran Earth Rights Worthy Applicants. No, that's why they got auspiced by Landcare. Speaker 5: So Curran Earth Rights, okay. No, Curran Earth Rights were the, sorry, Curran Community Guards. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just put Noosa District Landcare. They were the auspicing agents, technically they were the applicants. Speaker 5: Okay. I'll put to a vote. All in favour? Managers unanimous? No. No, it's unanimous.
02:03:00 Would someone like to move the recommendation on page 6 of the agenda? Councillor Wegener, thank you. I'll second it. All in favour? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, this is this one here. The Council's resolution about the climate change grants. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. Report October 2022. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in regards to item 27 of the delegated authority report due to my personal relationship with the applicant Mark Bain and the Bain family, who are family and friends. We have attended social events together and our children have attended school together. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you.
02:04:00 Speaker 5: I'll second it. I'll put to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Belinda. Thank you, Mr CEO. Councillor Lorentson. Next, I'll say this is an organisation committee. Sorry. I'll say it. Sorry, Mr. I'll say it. I'll say it. I'll say it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Here was the individual item. Oh, I see. Here was the item. Speaker 5: Here was the volume. I'm sorry. Can I have a move for the, Councillor Clarty? So moved. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Can we now move to the community recommendations, service and organisation committee recommendations on page eight. Item one is referred to general committee. The next item is for maintenance and maintenance services. Item 3 was referred to general community.
02:05:00 Item 4, 2022-2023 community grants program community project grants round 2. Item 5, 2022-2023 community program funding community project grants round 2. Item 6, 2022-2023 community program funding community project grants round 2 events. Item 7, 2022-2023 community program funding community project grants round 2 infrastructure. My Councillor Stewart informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to Toronto Noosa Cricket Club. My son plays at the Toronto Noosa Cricket Club and he is a member of the club. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision in the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll move that Council will note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart.
02:06:00 Determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter. Because Council believes, because Council believes that, take out believe. Councillor Stewart does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Therefore, a reasonable person. We trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Jurisevic: On my roll. Second is. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Any discussion? Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's carried. Councillor Stewart to model. Councillor Wegener: I didn't vote. I didn't vote on that because I've got a conflict of interest. Councillor Wilkie: That's fine, Tom. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart resumes the chair. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to my application by permaculture nature as I am the president of this association. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered as voter's fund.
02:07:00 Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the resolution. Oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a moment. Speaker 5: Thank you. That's moved. I'll move it. Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Lonerston. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got to move my own councillor. I move the recommendation. Speaker 5: Item number eight. 2022-2023 Community Programme, Finding Community Projects, Round 2 Programme Projects. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest In relation to the funding recommendation to the U-Turn Limited, I am a patron of the not-for-profit U-Turn Limited, which works in the area of child safety, homelessness and mental health and suicide prevention. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I have no decision-making role at U-Turn. The role of patron is to promote and highlight the valuable work they do, and I do not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding.
02:08:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, for whether I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. I move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart, determined that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter, because Council believes that Councillor Stewart does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Therefore, a reasonable person will trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Second. Any discussion? All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Speaker 5: Thank you. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the grant application by Noosa Australian Football Club, Inc., No. 5 of Attachment 1, which was not recommended by staff for funding. For complete transparency and prudence, I declare that President of the Noosa Australian Football Club, Inc., Bruce Davidson, assisted me on my 2020 campaign. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person can have a perception of bias because I believe I do not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this application,
02:09:00 particularly as there was no funding recommended. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in the meeting room and participate in the decision. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Again, I will move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart, determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter, because Council believes that, remove belief, Councillor Stewart does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this application, particularly as the grant was not recommended for funding, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? All in favour? Carried unanimously. Speaker 5: Number nine. Regional Ice Development Fund RADF Grant Recommendation 2022-2023.
02:10:00 Can I have a mover and a seconder? Can I have a mover and a seconder? Councillor Wilkie: No, sorry. We still have to move. Where are you at? You're at RADF, aren't you? We still have to move and second this one. I'll move the motion to approve that grant round. Speaker 5: I'll second it. No, you can't. I can't. I'll second it. Yeah, you can. She's in the room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once she's got approval. Councillor Jurisevic: If you want to remove the conflict, I'm happy to second it. Speaker 5: If you want to remove the conflict, I'm happy to second it. To a vote, all in favour? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item number nine. Regional Arts Development Fund RADF Grant Recommendation 2022-2023. I'll move these services and organisation committee recommendations. I'll second it. Councillor Beazle?
02:11:00 Yes. Thank you. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Now to general committee recommendations, which start on page 11 of the agenda. Free Weekend Bus Trial Extension 2 was deferred to the ordinary meeting for a further three days to deal with later in this meeting. Item three. NCU 21-0154.01. Application for a minor change to development and approval for home-based business small-scale net processing at 82 Paterson Drive, Timbewar. Item four. OPW 21-0133. Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D68 of 2022. Application for operational works. Prescribed title works at 10-12 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads. Item five. Noosa Reef Health Monitoring System. Item six. Noosa North Shore Aircraft Landing Ground Reserve Request to Relinquish Council Trustee Issue. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as Mr David Cookman, Vice President of the Sunshine Coast School Aviators,
02:12:00 who are submitters to this issue, donated $500 on 17 March 2020 to my 2020 election campaign and also put up corflutes for me during this campaign. Mr Cookman receives a small financial benefit from the club's use of the field in his capacity as one of their paid part-time flight trainers for club members. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Stewart. Any other conflicts? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I, Councillor Jurisevic, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest
02:13:00 Councillor Lorentson: in this matter in relation to David Cookman, Vice President of the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators, who are submitters to this report. Mr Cookman approached me after I met the candidates tonight and asked for some election campaign posters throughout the meeting. I did not know Mr Cookman or have any relation with him prior to meeting him that night. However, as a matter of complete transparency and prudence, I will leave the meeting while this matter is considered and voted upon, given the information that was brought to Council on Monday that Mr David Cookman does derive a benefit or loss as a result of this decision. As a matter of complete transparency and prudence, I will now leave the meeting room
02:14:00 as Mr Cookman receives a small financial benefit from the club's use of the fields in his capacity as one of their paid part-time flight trainers for club members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Morrison. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Councillor Wegener: Yes, question. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you can bring up page 31, the executive summary of the report to General Committee, please, Elinda.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Councils, I'm going to read it out from the word despite. Despite Council's longstanding trusteeship of the Reserve, this report recommends Council supports the Department of Environment's request as outlined in option 2 in this report. The option is preferred because it recognises the environmental benefits of the trusteeship transferring to the Department of Environment and Science, while acknowledging the State proposal to undertake consultation with community and existing resident user groups regarding future sport and recreational use of the Reserve. Councillor Wilkie: Is there a question that's coming? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the question is, to the CEO, the report clearly says it's going to recommend support, yet the recommendation does not lie. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, thank you, Councillor Stockwell. If we could just bring the recommendation back up from this.
02:16:00 Through the Chair, Councillor Stockwell, it will not unreasonably withhold. Doesn't speak against the report. The report's very well written by the Council officer that put this together. The history that has been put in place, and numerous resolutions of this Council over a long period of time have demonstrated the view of the Council. However, as we can see, we've just had three Councils leave the room on this particular matter. The two workshops that were put before the Council gave no clear indication from the Council. As to what the Council's view may or may not be. The three Councils leaving the room have only, over the last week, made the decision to be able to leave the room on these matters.
02:17:00 Noting that the Mayor was there within the workshop, so was Councillor Lorentson, so was Councillor Jurisevic, and there were different points of view that were added. As Council officers, we had numerous discussions in relation to this particular matter. And what we're deciding on at this point in time is what our response will be to the State Government. That's what we have before us. It's the State Government's land. The State Government will ultimately make the decision as to what this land will and won't do into the future. Whether we support or don't support, ultimately it's the State Government that will make the decision. So what's been put forward there for Council's consideration is that we will not unreasonably withhold. Our support to relinquish the ownership. It's not against what officers have put forward. What it provides is a way to be able to have open discussion. And that's the intent. Providing that open discussion is really a matter for the Council. Council makes the decision, not Council officers.
02:18:00 So at the end of the day, this is a matter, and we have seen in the General Committee, extensive amendments that were made to that recommendation of which Council officers absolutely are of the view that, if that's a majority view of the Council, we will deliver against that. So decisions are made by the Council at the Council table. However, this decision will ultimately be made by the State Government. We're not speaking for, we're not speaking against, but the report is very clear in what it provides overall. I hope that answers the question that you have, Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So basically, from your perspective, it was ensuring that the Councillors made the decision about what Council's position is rather than staff. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Councillor Stockwell, absolutely. This comes in terms of the decision of the Council as to how this is put forward. Noting that there was a lot of divergent views about this particular matter, that it is for the Council table to ultimately decide.
02:19:00 And that's the, ultimately the recommendation is all we have for what is the Council's decision to be put forward into the future. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Perhaps it's, probably at this point, just to, for anyone who may be listening for the first time, give a bit of an overview of what we're looking at here, please. Speaker 1: Happy to do so, Councillor. So the Department of Resources wrote to Council in July advising the Department of Environment and Science is seeking to acquire the Noosa North Shore Aircraft Land and Ground Reserve for inclusion in the Great Sandy National Park. And it was asking, asking Council whether it would be prepared to relinquish trusteeship of the reserve to allow the Department of Environment and Science to be appointed as a new trustee. And along with that, Department of Environment and Science provided a summary of natural values and risk report to support the request.
02:20:00 And the report notes the reserve has been of interest to the State for over 30 years. And it's been recognised by successive parliaments as being of significant value. Council did notify the resident user groups of the proposal to transfer trusteeship of the reserve. And that feedback's noted in the report. Both groups are in favour of the trusteeship remaining with Council. Mostly underpinned by the unfamiliarity with the Department of Environment and Science and concerns over the future use of the reserve. Mostly underpinned by the unfamiliarity with the Department of Environment and Science and concerns over the future use of the reserve. Despite Council's long-standing trusteeship of the reserve, this report recommends Council supports the Department of Environment's request as outlined in option 2. We're also proposing in the report as well to provide the feedback from the groups to support the letter to the State, I should say, if Council decides that's their preferred option.
02:21:00 Councillor Wilkie: We're also proposing in the report as well to provide the feedback from the groups to support the letter to the State, I should say, if Council decides that's their preferred option. Thank you, Queensland. Karen. Councillor Finzel: I'll raise a motion supporting the staff recommendation and I'm also wanting to raise an amendment. Councillor Wilkie: That's the alteration in red, is it? Yes it is. Could you read out how to in total with the changes please? Councillor Finzel: Okay. Note the form of request from the Department Resources regarding the Department of Environment and Sciences' desire to follow what Seaman. I'm at MCH 4578. I have a question to the CEO through the chair this information with regards to
02:22:00 the planning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry I have a point of order. The mover can't ask a question until after she's talked to a motion by the standing orders. Councillor Wilkie: I do have to give a ruling on that. Councillor Stockwell is quite correct. You have the floor Councillor Finzel but then you're free to ask questions at any stage you want to make after that. Sure. Councillor Finzel: I've included, I support the amendment based on the report from the staff. The reason I've included the amendment is because this relation to the Nooses Planning Scheme and the intent came before us only through the raising of the amendment at the previous meeting. So that's why I included that. And then I have a question to you.
02:23:00 Councillor Wilkie: You're free to ask a question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. You've got to keep the process right. So when we had the workshops, given the matter before us was in relation to properties, I understand that the part of the workshops would have been great if was included something around the planning. My question to the CEO is what measures will you put in place to limit this happening in the future? Thank you. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Councillor Finzel. Thanks very much for your question. Yes, absolutely. The information that's now being provided is that the intent of the planning scheme is to return this landing area back to what will be environmental conservation land into the future. The Council Officer's report does note that somewhat as well too. However, during the workshop process, what we would like to see in the future with our
02:24:00 organisational realignment is that Australia's land will be returned back to what it was Noting though that this was a letter in relation to a lease, the most appropriate area for this to be dealt with is within the property team, within corporate services, who deal with all lease matters. They're coordinating an approach and a workshop with details to be put to the Council to provide their input and understanding. But as we move into the future and we have some realignment of our structure, the strategic planning team can provide further input and insight into how this can be done. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not going to repeat anything I said on Monday. I'm going to make a really clear point about why staff were right in their report.
02:25:00 The really clear point is, within the report and within the attachments to it, is a clear statement that officers of the Department of Environmental Science think this land is of international conservation significance. You don't say you're looking at renominating it or continuing the nomination for World Heritage if you don't think the site's got international conservation significance. That's the decision we're making. We're making a decision whether we support the protection of, once again, I'll list it, 406 hectares, 95% of remnant regional ecosystem providing strong connectivity to adjoining section, clueless section of the Great Sandy National Park. 363 hectares, or 84% of the subject area, is listed as high ecological significant wetlands on maps of referable wetlands, a matter of state significance.
02:26:00 401 hectares, 94% of subject areas recognised essential for threatened, endangered or vulnerable wildlife. Over a dozen endangered, vulnerable and near threatened species are known to be found in the area. 188 hectares of the subject area's life is listed koala habitat. An additional 191 hectares is subject to an area as listed koala habitat, locally refined. And 380 hectares of the subject area's life is listed koala habitat. And 380 hectares is listed as regulated vegetation essential habitat. The lot contains a significant portion, 380 hectares, having state conservation systems and critical habitat for the eastern ground parrot. Do you get what I'm getting at, councillors? It would be an abomination for this council to say anything else but what I'm about to move. And that's the amendment to be one which will say council, city council, city council,
02:27:00 city council says nothing and nobody says anything else. So, one. Take out the words will not unreasonably withhold. Sir Humphrey is actually dead. And will go to support the relinquishment of. That's the only change we're going to make to councillor Finzel's motion. Better off starting with councillor Finzel's motion. And just be one. Take out, will not unreasonably withhold. It's support. And just say. Supports the relinquishment of trusteeship of Lot 7 on MCH 4562. So take out every word before trusteeship.
02:28:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, Councillor Stockwell, are you talking to the original motion or the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm amending Councillor Finzel's motion. Councillor Wilkie: So is this, are you speaking, is this... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have spoken now to the original motion and I've moved the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Now, Councillor Wegener, are you the only one who can second this amendment for the purpose of debate? Are you willing to do that? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will do so. What did the community say was the highest priority for this council? In the liveability survey, by a large margin. Answer, the environment. What did the community say when we asked them in our corporate plan what was the most significant priority for this council?
02:29:00 By a large margin, the environment. We can't say we're listening to you if we haven't got the guts to put our money where the mouth is. We can't say we're an environmental council if we're not willing to make the hard, long-term decisions. The motion that I've amended provided absolutely no response to the state government. Said nothing. Told them what our planning scheme said. They could have done that by looking up on the web. It said this council wants to abrogate its decision and responsibilities about this block of land. Of course, it said nothing. We have to. To honour this council's reputation. To honour what our community thinks of us. We have to have a policy position and that policy position, I believe, is to support the relinquishment. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. The council's wish to speak to the amendment which contains that change to B1.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Councillor Finzel: Well, I'd like to speak to that because I think the intent is to recognise that where the council has stood and we have listened to the community, I feel that it was reasonable to give opportunities. We have an opportunity to liaise with state, as we've done through the River Advisory Group when state has engaged with community consultation with the broader user groups. Councillor Wilkie: And just a question of clarification through the CEO, the amendment that Councillor Stockwell has moved, still in the, what we're sending to the state is a request that their consultation with the user groups occur. There's no change in that amendment? None. None. None. No change. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: That the state taking over this, they're doing it for environmental reasons, I mean that's the exact reason why they're doing it because they're seeing this as a World Heritage listing.
02:31:00 Um, so there's, they're not doing it to develop it. They're doing it because they want to preserve this area. I am interested, because it's a state, and also the state is involved with fire protection and so forth, and we have John McDermott's letter there stating that they actually use this area for very important firefighting work and training work, that we'll just leave that to the state as well. This doesn't preclude the state from using the area for fire emergency preparation and training, does it? No, I don't think so. Speaker 1: Through the Chair, Councillor Wegener, that's the case. The state will go on and most likely still implement the same regime with the helicopters,
02:32:00 the firefighters and whatever else. But there's nothing in this report that says that that's not going to happen. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak to the amendment, I'll support the amendment because it is exactly the same as the original motion moved by Councillor Finzel, except it's more firm in its language about allowing the state to take over trust issue of this land. And it still requires the state to do consultation with the relevant stakeholders. It's only right that the rightful landowner should take responsibility for and fund this consultation and all the work that goes into maintaining and looking after that lot. I'm in favour of the amendment. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there any word? Councillor Wilkie: I think you've spoke. Councillor Finzel, you had a question about the amendment? No. Okay. Right.
02:33:00 Councillor Scott, will you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. Councillor Finzel, you had a question about the amendment? I think I outlined the policy position. The other one is what I had on Monday. It is the most efficient body, the state, to manage the property and the most effective form of protection of those assets. And reiterating, there's nothing in this motion, either as amended or before, that says anything about outside of those values that I outlined. It's about protecting the property. It's about what, in the long term, for five generations' time, is the best tenure for that lot. And it's about having it in a protected area of conservation so that my great-great-grandchildren can enjoy World Heritage-listed Noosa North Shore, which will be a huge benefit to this community going forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour?
02:34:00 That's unanimous. The amendment becomes the motion, the original motion, for which Councillor Finzel and Councillor Stockwell have spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel, do you wish to close? No. Okay. I put the motion. That was a failure. It was carried unanimously. Thank you, Councillor Clinkton. We'll have the other councillors back in the room. Thank you, Mr Cedio. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think they've eaten the Christmas dinner. When the first time the door opened, you could smell it. Councillor Wegener: Is there any dinner left? Not much. Speaker 5: I don't know if you're having the dinner. We've had ours.
02:35:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks for the dinner break. Councillor Wilkie: Age 16. I'm sorry? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'm seven. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. I'm seven, 15. Yep. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Financial Performance Report November 2022. Can I have a mover and a seconder for that? Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: So, seconder. Speaker 5: Thank you. We have one report directed to the ordinary meeting. Trent. Further report, contract award, CN00271, Microsoft Enterprise Agreement software licensing. Trent, our Acting Director of Corporate Services here. Thanks, Trent. Speaker 2: Sure. Through the Chair, Councillors, on the 6th of December, previous Council meeting, tender award proposal was put through regarding our Microsoft Enterprise Licence Agreement. We took a number of questions on notice and have come back with a further report to clarify the difference in price that was originally stated in the report.
02:36:00 The difference in price versus what was stated in the report of services and organisation. And now clarified, it was $3,390 different. It was due to a number of factors. One was clarifying our number of licences that were under the contract for Microsoft. Two was the phasing in of the security component of that licence. Three was also in relation to a number of our specialised software applications such as Microsoft Project. So, that resulted through working with our ICT team and Data3, the self-services provider. We clarified that difference to the tender. The only other matter to note is also that this isn't a fixed price contract over a three-year term. It's actually a schedule rate which is dependent on the number of licences we have, the answer to the number of staff, the number of servers, and specialised software requirements for the staff in the organisation.
02:37:00 Speaker 5: Thanks, Trent. Any questions? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I've just got one. I just looked at that and it says note that the cost is calculated based on the current domain and schedule and rates with a typical cost of $866 per user or device. So, it's actually not per user, it's actually per device. If a user has computer at home, computer, sorry, computer work, computer at home, and a mobile device, there are three licences for that user? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, what that's referring to is, for example, our civil operations and works crews are transitioning to what we call mobility, so within their trucks they will have a tablet, which enables them to schedule work whilst out in the field and to go paperless. So, it's referring to those separate devices that they have in terms of an officer that may work from their computer at home and computer in the office. It doesn't relate to that. It also has some nuances around where we have a server, and a server computer might have multiple processing units in it, interestingly enough, and each one of those requires a separate licence. So, there are some nuances and some complexities around that.
02:38:00 Speaker 5: Thank you, Ben. Any further questions for Trent? Councillor Jurisevic: No, that's all right. The figure's actually, the figure's made more sense. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move it. I, oh, I'll do the second one. Speaker 5: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second it. I went out and looked for an alternate supplier, and I did find one that could provide each staff member 568 Brother Daisy Wheel electronic typewriters, 243,672, one four-door filing cabinet each, that's 290,816, and we'd get two million reams of recycled paper, and we'd save $30,000. That's all.
02:39:00 Well, it is Christmas. Councillor Wilkie: The 70s were a good time. Speaker 5: So I'm tired of that. That was my interview speech. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Traynor. Thanks, Traynor. Thank you. There are no confirmations. There are no confidential items. We have no public question time. The next ordinary meeting will be held on the 19th of January, 2022, and as this is our last meeting for the year, I would like to wish all our staff a very Merry Christmas, and every blessing for 2023. I hope you take a break. It's incredibly well deserved, and you've worked so hard this year, and we're really grateful and appreciative of all that you do. And to all councillors, Merry Christmas. Same applies if you all need a bit of a break. Thank you, Madam Chair. And enjoy the Christmas break.
02:40:00 Thank you, Mr CEO. This is your first Christmas with us, and it's wonderful to have you at the table. Thank you. And to all our listeners, wishing our community a very Merry Christmas, and a very safe, happy and peaceful New Year.