Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, welcome everybody to the ordinary meeting of Thursday 18th of December 2025. Declare the meeting open at 10.02am. Acknowledge we are meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people. Pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging. And reiterate their invitation for us to join them as joint custodians. Respecting and caring for this beautiful place we all love. And respecting and caring for each other. I also note that the Noosa community, like many around Australia, are deeply affected by the Bondi tragedy. And people in our community, including people in this organisation, are feeling that strongly and deeply. So if we can be respectful and kind in our deliberations today, that will help. We have an apology from Councillor Phillips, who's on leave. And that all other councillors are in attendance. Item 4 is confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move and a seconder of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 20th of November 2025, please?
1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
00:01:00 Happy to move. Councillor Lorentson, seconded. Councillor Finzel: Happy to second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, any discussion? No. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. Can I have a move and a seconder for the minutes of the special meeting held on 11th of December 2025? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy to move. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Weipner, any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. There are no petitions, there are no presentations. We have one deputation, 15 minutes for the deputation. The applicant is Willie Oswald, Jill Brownlee, Friends of the Noosa Botanic Gardens. The topic is Master Plan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think they've arrived. Director Walsh: Yeah, they're not in the tentative gallery. Do you want me to see if they're downstairs? No, they're outside, or downstairs. Mayor Wilkie: Oh, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: They haven't made themselves known to us. Mayor Wilkie: It could still be downstairs, yes. Well, in the meantime, we'll move on to question time, if that's okay.
5 PETITIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7 DEPUTATIONS ¶
00:02:00 The first application is from Mr. Bruce Muland, who couldn't be here today. Our CEO, Larry Sengstock, will read Mr. Muland's question, which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure Services. Mr. Sengstock. Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. So the question from Mr. Muland. Question one, can Council point to an implementation anywhere in Australia that is similar to implementation of over two kilometres of four consecutive active streets, to validate Council's assertion that the design is practical, evidence-based, and suitable for a coastal residential area? Director Walsh: Thank you. Speaker 3: Director Walsh. Director Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Muland, for the question. The most directly comparable example is the Whitfield Street Safe Active Street in Bassideen, Western Australia. A 2.3 kilometre continuous corridor. Through a residential area with bends, hills, and multiple intersections. Okay. It uses the same design principles as Peregian Beach, a 30 kilometre hour zone, traffic calming,
7.1 Applicant: WILLY OSTWALD, FRIENDS OF NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS Topic: MASTERPLAN FOR NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS Speakers: WILLY OSTWALD, JILL BROWNLEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 BRUCE MOULAND ¶
00:03:00 coloured surface treatments, and strong links to schools, parks, and the river. Independent evaluation showed increasing walking and cycling, reduced vehicle speeds, lower traffic volumes, and positive community feedback. Other Australian examples that provide good references include Pear Street in Toowoomba, Queensland. Active Streets for Schools Program in the ACT. Mackay Cross City Link, Queensland. Leibig Street Pedestrian Priority Project, Victoria. And the Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway. Council has profiled many of these case studies on its Cycling and Walking Projects website, and publicly available. The design has also been framed by the Active Transport Envermestment Program technical guidance, prepared by the Queensland Government Department of Transport, and available on their website. This technical guidance is available on the website. Council references 14 different supporting standards to substantiate the design approach. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Walsh. The next is two questions from Ms Mary Perry, who also couldn't be here today, so our CEO
8.2 MARY PERRY ¶
00:04:00 will read Ms Perry's questions, which will both be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure Services. Okay. Speaker 3: Question one from Mary Perry. Can Council please explain the rationale for unexpectedly prioritising the pre-season beach active street projects, which weren't identified as named initiatives in the Council's five- or ten-year walking or cycling plans over other initiatives throughout Noosa that were previously assessed as higher priorities? That's question one. Shaun. Director Walsh: Thank you, Ms Perry, for the question. The route along Lorikeet Drive is identified as a principal recreation route under Noosa Council's Cycling and Walking Strategy. Whilst it's acknowledged that the improvements to the identified route were not noted in the five- to ten-year implementation plan, it directly delivers the core priorities in these strategies, safer routes, better coastal connectivity and improved access to schools, parks and public transport. Importantly, this project was eligible for 100 per cent state and federal funding due
00:05:00 to its connection to the adjacent Sunshine Coast coastal pathway and providing demonstrated long-term regional collaboration benefits, unlike many previously identified priorities with a solely Noosa focus. This meant Council could deliver a major network upgrade at no cost to ratepayers, including improvements to footpaths and drainage, while still progressing other initiatives as funding and opportunities arise. In short, the project matches current strategic priorities, responds to strong community feedback, closes a critical network gap and was fully fundable now, making it a responsible and timely choice for delivery. Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms Walsh. Mr Sengstock. Okay, question number two from Mary Perry. How does Council plan to implement a new three-metre-wide shared off-road pathway through the Parisian Beach village, PID 358, and what impact will it have on the foreshore reserve amenities and parking?
00:06:00 Director Walsh: It is agreed that the Noosa Council cycling and walking strategy project prioritisation plan identifies a three-metre shared pathway on the eastern side of the Parisian Beach village. Council's approach to any new shared pathway, including the proposed three-metre wide shared pathway, is guided by the principles of safety, accessibility and environmental care. At this stage, the project is in early planning and detailed design will consider, first dot point, the role of Parisian Beach village as a destination and node, rather than primarily a thoroughfare, and will require a specific design language and approach. Dot point two. Avoidance of sensitive dune and vegetation areas where possible, and incorporating measures to maintain environmental values. Dot point three. Ensuring shared pathways complement existing facilities and improve access for people walking and cycling without reducing amenity. Dot point four. Assessing current parking arrangements and identifying options to prevent loss of spaces, such as formalising or reconfiguring parking where needed.
00:07:00 The design will be subject to community consultation. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Walsh. Thank you, Mr Sengstock. The next application, two questions, is from Ms Denise Phipps, and the same process will apply. Speaker 3: Okay. So question one from Ms Phipps. Can Council please explain in detail how this recreationally focused pathway, in inverted commas, will address core community needs detailed in feedback in 2021 through Council's walking and cycling strategy, especially those aimed at improving safe connectivity, genuine cycle safety, everyday usage. Director Walsh: Thank you, Ms Phipps, for the question. The active street directly responds to the core community needs identified in the 2021 walking and cycling strategy feedback, particularly around safety, everyday use, connectivity, congestion, and emissions reduction. The project delivers a safe, continuous link between key destinations, including homes,
8.3 DENISE PHIPPS ¶
00:08:00 beaches, parks, bus stops, schools, and the Bridgham Village. By curating a safe, continuous link between key destinations, including homes, beaches, schools, parks, bus stops, schools, and the Bridgham Village, and by creating a low-speed, low-stress street environment with traffic calming, safer crossings, clear priority for people walking and riding, and dedicated pathway for less confident users, it provides genuine cycling safety rather than the narrow on-road shoulders or unsafe mixed traffic environments residents identified as concerns. This kind of safe local street corridor supports everyday trips to school, the beach, local shops and bus stops, rather than being limited to recreational use. The coastal pathway study and liveability feedback showed strong demand for short, local, safe walking and cycling routes that reduce reliance on cars. The active street directly meets this need. By encouraging more people to walk or ride for the short local journeys, the project also contributes to reduce local traffic, fewer short car trips, and consequently lower transport emissions, aligning with the community's state of priorities and Council's long-term
00:09:00 transport and sustainability goals. In short, the active street improves safety, improves mobility, and improves mobility safety, creates everyday connectivity, encourages modal shift away from cars, and supports lower congestion emissions, exactly the outcomes the community asked for. Speaker 3: Thank you. The final one from Ms Phipps. Second question from Ms Phipps. Will Council halt the current ill-conceived, unproven, and unwanted active street project planning, consult with all impacted residents, and, based on feedback, proceed with route and design changes that address local community needs, and do not compromise local and regional residential character, amenity, and safety as requested in the petition presented before Council and signed by over 140 local residents and ratepayers. Director Walsh: Council has received diverse feedback about the proposal. As well as the petition, other requests include residents seeking supply of a footpath, resolution of parking problems, concern for speeding vehicles, as well as advocacy from stakeholders
00:10:00 seeking safer cycling routes. All of which this project seeks to address. Council is committed to listening and working with the community. Council has made changes based on feedback during the preliminary design phase, and will continue to consult with all interested residents and stakeholders as the project progresses. Council has planned additional information sessions, including information pop-ups, and a walking tour in the locality in the new year, and will send out information in the near future. Council looks forward to ongoing dialogue through upcoming communication opportunities. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Director Walsh. And the last application is from Ms Phipps. Two questions is from Ms Pat Spicer, who is here. Ms Spicer, can I come back and read your two questions please, which will be answered by Kim Mornings, Director of Environment and Strategy. Pat Spicer: Through the Chair, for background information. In 1970, the Lands Department miscalculated Noosaville Shire's need for cemetery space for the next 50 to 100 years, so allowed the land to be privately purchased.
00:11:00 The 1999 Council had refused two applications to the subdivision, and the second application was the expansion of blocks on 62 Lake McDonald Drive, Cooroy, because the land does not have suitable access from its own frontage. The 1999 Council purchased the land for cemetery expansion, because the Shire's cemeteries were showing a need for Council to consider acquiring more land for cemetery use. With this site sharing a boundary with the existing cemetery, it provided an opportunity for easy expansion. This was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council made a decision in response All of this was part of planning to meet a core responsibility of council. Cemetery space was not an immediate need, but a DA for cemetery use was submitted in 2008 with the intention of activation of that DA in the next 15 years. For residents who purchase nearby properties after 1999, it is a justifiable expectation that land purchased for cemetery remains the intent use of the land.
8.4 PAT SPICER ¶
00:12:00 Because there isn't development on the site, does not mean the site was not serving an important purpose. My question, Noosa Council's Facebook page post on the 28th of January 2025 refers to the land at Lake MacDonald Drive, Cooroy as unused, despite its zoning for community facilities and its allocation for cemetery expansion in 1999 with a supporting DA in 2008. Local residents, including those who, as children, played on this land in the 1960s, have long used the land for recreation. What are the reasons the council considers the land unused? Mayor Wilkie: Director Rawlings, welcome. Director Rawlings: Thanks for the question Pat. So the 2008 development approval lapsed in August 2012.
00:13:00 The land has been controlled and was never used or acted upon. The land is zoned community facilities under the Noosa Plan 2020 and owned by council. However, while some residents have informally used the site as open space, the land has never been formally a park or open space area and its uses for that never encouraged. It has been fallow since council acquired the property. The land was contaminated and when council was notified of this, signs were erected and restriction to public access to the area. The land is currently being remediated. Council has a responsibility to plan and to benefit the whole community, not only in relation to cemetery purposes but a wide range of other community purposes and needs. Housing is one of those needs to be planned for. Our Shire is experiencing a significant long-term housing crisis and once remediated, social housing is proposed on a portion of the site. This will contribute to much needed affordable housing. Community consultation for the use of the proposed lots to improve housing.
00:14:00 Pat Spicer: Christian Chief, Peck Brown Information. First I will refer you to the Zoned Map of Cooroy, but unfortunately I was looking into it on the Zoned Map. Staff has stated that as soon as one of the amendments has been adopted, planning staff are working on what changes need to be made to address future site development. The update 9, March update to the housing strategy, gives an indication of some of the current planning for future development. For example, The staff have reviewed various housing types that have turned gentle density under shaping South East Queenstown to a part-time heritage advisor position where strategic planning team has been approved to assist with character guidelines and recruitment is underway. I'll give these as examples of planning that's going on. Council has marked land in Garnet Street with a red boundary on the zone map labelled further consultation zone change in the ledger.
00:15:00 This map has been in effect since your say for amendment 2, so this consideration has been operational for a number of years already. With further amendments to the Noosa plan under consideration, what is Council's specific plan for this land, which is currently zoned environmental and conservation and includes privately owned low density residential. Director Rawlings: So just also acknowledging that I understand that one of our staff had a contact with you Pat, just to confirm the lot in question. Yes. So in that context it's been confirmed with Pat which lot the question refers to. The split zoned property, privately owned lot in Garnet Street, Cooroy, has a small portion of zoned low density residential Yes. and a large portion of zoned environmental conservation and management to protect native vegetation on the lot.
00:16:00 The native vegetation is also covered by the biodiversity overlay being an area of biodiversity significance. The environmental management and conservation area of this lot also sits outside the urban boundary. The zoning of this lot has not been or proposed to be changed under any of the Noosa plan 2020 amendments. Previously in the 2006 plan scheme the whole lot was zoned detached housing, the equivalent zoning to the lot to low density residential under the current Noosa plan. Under the first Noosa plan 2020 the lot was split zoned to protect the native vegetation and continued as this zoned since. Council currently has no specific plans for this lot. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Director Lorentson. Thank you Pat Spicer. We'd only have an adjournment when there are questions and diputees here. Given that there is only Pat who can go ahead. Sorry. Speaker 3: Lots of questions. Thank you. Yes. Some feedback on the diputations. Yes please.
00:17:00 So we've just found out that unfortunately the email that we sent back to the speakers when I was talking to Brownlee was because our last meeting was at 5 o'clock we actually Deputy Mayor Stockwell: had 5 o'clock on their email. So their understanding was that this meeting was at 5 o'clock. So we can't even count 5 o'clock. Speaker 3: So unfortunately we've only just found out but that's the reason why they're not saying Director Walsh: I just wanted to note in the next period, we'll be going through all the submissions on the New Sputnik Gardens Master Plan and we'll be meeting with the friends as well. So we'll be serving to raise the aspects of their deputation as well, but noting that they should still present that to the Board Council. Thank you, Director. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, there are no general minutes. We have one notified motion.
9 MAYORAL MINUTES ¶
00:18:00 Advocacy for affordable housing. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to talk about the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, move your motion. I'll move the motion. That Council A request that the Mayor write to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification on whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above state-owned car parks. Located at Keystone. The City Service facilities, such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and surf clubs and B, include in the correspondence that if this approach is not currently part of the State's housing strategy, request the State Government investigate its feasibility as a practical solution to address housing shortages in high demand coastal communities like Noosa. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a second for that, please? Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wyshyn.
10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
10.1 ADVOCACY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ¶
00:19:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Noosa Shire is experiencing a severe housing shortage, particularly for essential workers, including teachers, nurses, police, emergency services and other front line staff. Rising property prices and limited rental availability have made it increasingly difficult for these workers to live locally, which is already impacting service delivery and community resilience. The Queensland Government has undertaken a state land audit, building houses above existing state owned car parks at essential service location offers a cost effective and strategic solution that avoids costly land acquisitions and makes better use of public assets. Noosa faces an essential worker housing crisis that threatens the delivery of critical services. State owned sites often include large, underutilised car parks that could accommodate housing above existing facilities. Developing housing on these sites could optimise public assets, reduce costs and ensure essential workers can live within the communities they serve.
00:20:00 The state land audit identified numerous parcels suitable for housing, but clarity is needed on whether vertical development over car parks is being considered. Seeking this information, the Queensland Government has taken action. This information will inform local advocacy and planning and support ongoing efforts by hannoavour member Sandra Bolton and the community Jer procedure. I'm just gonna throw in some data and also note that I was planning to move this at the out GAQ conference this year but unfortunately didn't complete it. And this is basically in response to the excellent efforts that our! This is in response to the excellent efforts that our! State Member of Parliament Sandy Bolton has been making in this space. Just some data in Noosa. Households in housing stress, 1,104, 5.1% of all households.
00:21:00 Median house price in Noosa is $1.4 million versus $735,000 in regional Queensland. Our median weekly rent is $950 for houses and $700 for units. Vacancy rate here in Noosa Shire, 1%. A healthy rate, for example, is 3.6 to 4%. And a lot of our essential workers at the moment are commuting long distances. And live outside the Shire due to the lack of rentals. And again, this undermines emergency response and service delivery. Mayor Wilkie: I have an amendment. The amendments are an addition to Clause A and Clause B.
00:22:00 And the change is to request that the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP in right to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above state-owned land rights. And Part C is to request the State Government also advise on when they will release the audit on state-owned land as requested by the Noosa MP. I second that. I second that, Councillor. Councillor Stockwell. Look, this, as Councillor Lorentson said, this strengthens the work already done by our Noosa MP. It also acknowledges the efforts by our Noosa MP in this space. And also it recognises that we don't do these things in silos or alone. We are aware of the broader context. And our Noosa MP has made this request.
00:23:00 She has made a request to the State Government about using state-owned car parks for this purpose. She has also requested the State Government conduct the audit on state-owned land with options for their use. And I'm advised that the member has also requested the release of that report. And by adding this, our voice to the request to release the report, I think we might be closer to understanding how the State intends to use this with state-owned lands for housing or otherwise. So, it's basically about supporting the MP and recognising that we're working in tandem with our local member on this very important state issue. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question for you, Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Given that Councillor Nicola and myself are on the housing group and we haven't even had one meeting this year,
00:24:00 I'm interested in how we've arrived at this point without any input from councillors around any discussion tables. That's been non-existent in terms of us representing on that. So, I guess my question would be, I do support the intent given our housing situation. In terms of Noosa, I'm just wondering, in my mind, I can't think of any state-owned car parks that would be high enough to or any that would facilitate further building on top of that. Mayor Wilkie: Is that a question to me? Councillor Finzel: Yes, that's a question to you as to why we've raised this and there's been no conversation in the committee around housing. This has just come before us today. So, I'm just wondering where you've had those conversations. Obviously, it's not been brought to the committee.
00:25:00 So, can you answer that? Mayor Wilkie: Well, in answer to your first question, state-owned car parks are in schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and service clubs. That's what's proposed, an investigation into building above those car parks in those state-owned facilities to help provide housing for essential workers. But in answer to your question about the broader progress of Noosa Council's work in the housing action, probably related to a housing action plan, I think we have a housing monitoring report due back early next year. Perhaps Director Rawlings can inform Councillors about the progress of the housing action plan. But we'll just deal with the... The amendment first, if that's alright. Thanks. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, given it's my motion, I'm happy to respond also, Councillor Finzel.
00:26:00 There was a discussion about this when we were proposing LGAQ motions. I actually circulated this and there was quite some discussion about it. At the time, we were told that we were restricted with the amount of motions that were allowed to be brought to state. So, I had to pull out a couple of my proposed motions. So, discussion again, and it was supported around the table by the Councillors. I had spoken with our local MP, Sandy Bolton, who is supportive of any efforts that we make in this space. Again, clarity hasn't been given by the state in terms of whether vertical development is allowed over car parks. But we have lots of really big car parks, Councillor Finzel, and I'm talking our state schools, our police stations. And this is, again, an opportunity to endeavour any potential opportunities and optimise underutilised car parks.
00:27:00 The same way that we're doing as a council in terms of looking at volumetric leasing above car parks on council-owned land. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Livingston. As I said at the beginning, I support this. We're all about the housing and exploring. My question then is to the Chair, or through the Chair, how come there's been no committee meetings called for the housing group on which we sit? Point of order. Councillor Lorentson: It has nothing to do with the notified motion in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order is sustained. But when we move to the discussion of the substantive motion after we deal with the amendment, we can ask questions of staff. We'll ask questions of staff about work done in the housing sector. We'll ask questions of staff about the actions of the housing strategy. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone wish to speak to the amendment?
00:28:00 I don't wish to close. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's unanimous. That becomes part of the original motion. Councillor Finzel, do you have a question of staff about the actions of the housing strategy? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I would just like to know, this is a high priority matter. At the start of the year, councillors are invited to participate on the committees, and that is formally through a motion ratified. So my question is, given this is a high priority issue identified by council, how come we have not had a committee meeting regarding anything around housing and potential discussions outside of what Councillor Lorentson has brought through the motion today, which I'm grateful for, because we need to do that. I'm just wondering, when we talk about transparency and identifying gaps. Mayor Wilkie: I think we've got your question. Thank you. Thank you. Your question is, what work is being done in that space? Thank you very much.
00:29:00 Director Rawlings: Through the Chair. Through the Chair. Through the Chair. I understand the question about the stakeholder housing reference group. The stakeholder housing reference group, as council will know, has about 20 organisations on it, external organisations as well as council reps. When it was formed, it was also understood that it would be brought together on a needs basis. It was brought together very regularly during the development of the housing strategy, the comprehensive housing needs, and to help inform the action and priorities for the housing strategy. We have now got very clear direction on what those priorities are from council. We've got a very clear budget. And a number of organisations have been involved in that. We've got a number of key projects that we are in process of implementing and advancing. Council's also endorsed two advocacy strategies, which both have housing advocacy in them. So we haven't felt there to be a need to bring together all those 20 organisations to deliberate
00:30:00 something when we are working through very clear direction, very clear priorities, and very clear budget allocation for implementing the housing strategy. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Director Rawlings. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Morrison, who wants to close? Councillor Lorentson: Just to add that I personally know lifeguards, I know teachers, I know police officers and fireys who are commuting only 30 to 40 minutes away from the Noosa Shire. And when an emergency happens, and they're commuting at the middle of the night, 30 to 40 minutes to get here, there's something just not quite right. Central workers, by definition, they're the people that keep our town functioning. They're critical. Without them, our Shire doesn't function.
00:31:00 What's in front of us, again, thank you for the inclusion, supporting the efforts of the Noosa MP, Mayor Wilkie. That's exactly what we do. We have to collaborate with all levels of government, and really put pressure on state to deliver outcomes that are for the greater benefit of the community. For our community. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And that brings us to consideration of committee reports. 11.1.1. Single use coffee cups program. 11.1.2. Organisation emissions reductions progress report. 11.1.3. It's a planning and environment court appeal. D114 of 2025 for minor change to a development permit from the MCU for a development permit for duplex at Duke Street, Sunshine Beach. 11.1.4. It was an other change to an existing approval for material change of use. Expansion of special purpose waste disposal and recycling facility and ongoing clearing
11 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.1 Single Use Coffee Cups Program ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.2 Organisational Emissions Reduction Progress Report ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.3 132004.4552.01 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D114 OF 2025 FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 1/27 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.4 132005.638.04 - OTHER CHANGE TO AN EXISTING APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - EXPANSION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE (WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING FACILITY) & ONGOING CLEARING PURPOSES AT 561 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD DOONAN ¶
00:32:00 purposes at 561 Eumundi Noosa Noosa Road, Durnan. 11.1.5. Were the planning applications decided by delegated authority in October 2025. 11.1.6. Was referred to the general committee as a confidential item of development. 11.1.7. Planning and environment committee recommendations on the block. Can I have a move and a seconder for these planning P&C, P&E committee recommendations to be adopted. Councillor Wegener. Seconder. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. 11.2. Is there a motion? There's the services and organisation committee recommendations. 11.2.1. Is the regional arts development fund rather annual grant recommendations.
11.1.5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – OCTOBER 2025 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.6 CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.7 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 ¶
00:33:00 We need to deal with this item separately because as explained in the S&O committee there was an error in the attachment provided in the report. Staff has now provided an updated copy of the attachment for approval. And if we can have Director of Community Services, Kerri Contini, point out the correction. Councillor Finzel: Thank you through the Chair. We did have an Excel cell error in the previous attachment. Councillor Wilson: That's been corrected. It's for jelly productions. And at the time when we presented the first report in the column that has the moderated score there was an error that's now showing the correct score on the S&O committee recommendations. Director Rawlings: There are no other corrections. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So the, we have the amended motion please. So I'll move that the report by the arts and culture manager to the services and organisation
11.2.1 Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) Annual Round Grant Recommendations 2026 ¶
00:34:00 committee dated 9th of December 2025 regarding the RATF 2025-26 annual funding round assessment and B, approve the RATF committee funding recommendations for the 2025-26 annual funding round assessment as outlined in attachment 1 to the minutes of the ordinary meeting dated 18-12-2025. Updated moderator panel summary RATF 25-26. May we have a seconder please? Second. Councillor Wilson. As explained this is a minor technical error and no need to, for me to wax on about that. Anybody else wish to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll just wax off. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Or wax off. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll just wax off. Mayor Wilkie: All in favour? That's carried unanimously. By 11, thank you Director Contini. 11.2.2 was referred to the general committee which was the Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges.
11.2.2 NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES ¶
00:35:00 11.2.3 was a confidential item, not the public waste, proposed dedication of TMR Freehold Landers Road to Noah Lake. 11.2.4 is the services and organisation committee recommendations en bloc. Can I have a move and a seconder for this please? Councillor Finzel: I'll be moved Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Moved by the Chair of the S&O Committee Councillor Finzel. May I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous. After general committee recommendations Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges 11.3.2 Financial Performance Report November 2025 11.3.3 Adoption of the Destination Management Plan. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to pull that out and test an amendment please. You're wanting to move it? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Will you have someone else move it? Councillor Lorentson: If someone else can move it then I just want to test an amendment please. Mayor Wilkie: I have someone to move Councillor Stockwell. May I have a seconder please?
11.2.3 CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – PROPOSED DEDICATION OF TMR FREEHOLD LAND AS ROAD - DOONELLA LAKE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.2.4 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 15 DECEMBER 2025 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.3.1 NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES (Referred from Services & Organisation Committee Dated 9 December 2025) ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.3.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - NOVEMBER 2025 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.3.3 ADOPTION OF DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ¶
00:36:00 May I have a seconder please? Councillor Lorentson: Is this being pulled? It's the general committee recommendation. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Is this being pulled? It's the general recommendation from the general committee that it's being moved and seconded. Councillor Wegener: Which is the... Mayor Wilkie: Which is what's on the... Which is we're moving the recommendations as passed on Monday. Okay. So... Yeah. So Councillor Morrison would like to test another amendment. So in order to start that process we need to move this as a starting motion. Right. For the purpose of debate. Okay. Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell would you wish to speak? No. I'll hold it to the end if I may. Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. Amendment that the Destination Stewardship Council include meaningful representation from community stakeholders ensuring local residents and groups have a voice in decision making, monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Destination Management Plan.
00:37:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Can we have a seconder for the motion? I second. The amendment. Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: This amendment's just come about. I have been speaking to some of the... Some of the residents and community groups that have been involved now for some time, some up to four years, and been part of the Destination Management process. They were concerned that there wasn't enough clarity in terms of their involvement in particular around the Destination Management Plan. So the amendment explicitly... The amendments... I put this amendment together to explicitly ensure that community voices are formally included and alignment in terms of the Destination Management Plan are aligned with local expectations,
00:38:00 understanding that what was delivered in terms of the Destination Management Plan was a community-led and community-driven development. Mayor Wilkie: The intention of the DNP is to include groups and agencies that have the capacity to physically implement the actions of the DNP. Director Rawlings: Through the Chair, thank you for that question. Do you mean the intention of the destination stewardship council? So yes, the intention of the destination stewardship council is to be a collective of people and groups that have the capacity and capability to drive implementation,
00:39:00 oversee monitoring and evaluation, help identify and manage risk, help prioritisation, sourcing of funds, things like that. And with the levers and the capacity to... to implement. In saying that, we also still have, as per the action in the DNP, the terms of reference to be developed and to be worked through with council. So there's still a process to go through with council about the finer details and the core purpose and priorities of that group and the process for establishing that group. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Questions or comments?
00:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Professor Stockwell? Speak to it. The motion talks about... The original motion talks about developing in terms of reference. In my mind, the destination stewardship council, to be successful, will have to have a highly collaborative interface with both community, business and the community. And importantly, expertise to drive and to undertake the monitoring and evaluation. The wording in this amendment talks about ensuring local residents and groups have a voice in decision making. I think it's important to set out the terms of reference. Not... I don't think that the purely representative model will get to the outcomes of a destination stewardship council. That we may want... I think it's far more desirable to set the terms of reference and then work out should we be asking for groups to nominate or should we be asking for people to be... for expertise and also connection to community groups.
00:41:00 So to me, it's a bit of a cart before the horse amendment that we should be... I've no problem in saying quite gladly that I think the only way it will work if it's a collaborative model that brings together the key people both in our community and in the And others who may, at a higher level of government for example, that may assist in driving some of the more strategic initiatives. But also people with real expertise in monitoring and evaluation, as well as local knowledge. So to me, I think the existing motion is the right way. Establish the terms of reference and then determine the make up. Rather than putting in something that may, in the end of the day, be somewhat frustrating. If groups think it is, for example, a little bit like the... the body that we had in 2016-20 council that had lots and lots of community groups
00:42:00 and couldn't get to a resolution. So to me, it's important to set the terms of reference first. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wilson: Just quickly in support. I think we've had some members of the community who were initially involved in the external reference groups and PRG that felt that they then were kind of neglected or dropped off through the process. So I think it's really important that we, since we won't be actually drafting the terms of reference, that we put a stake in the ground and say that community members have to be involved in that process. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? Yep. Councillor Finzel: Look, I think it's very important as a council. I want to reiterate, like the other day, that we do legitimise our community's voice and engagement. Everyone around the table here takes that role very importantly and makes it a priority for us. That's why we were voted to council.
00:43:00 I, in amendment the other day, prioritised the Destination and Stewardship Council, which was supported by everyone around the table and got put up as amendment. So I think this just adds another layer. I don't think that it's going to create an issue. Meaningful representation, I'm sure we can hear back from staff about how that would be undertaken. Noting also for good fiscal management, how that might look to cost to our own community. But I'm sure that we'll find a creative way, as we all work collaboratively, to open this up to include voice from our community, which certainly deserves illumination, deserves to be taken on part of the journey, given that it's a collaborative process and that's what we're putting forward. We are in a space and time and place where we are great facilitators of change and we are trying to bring community along as facilitators and include everyone and every voice in our community. So I will support this. I think it will take a bit of work to draft how we take this meaningful representation
00:44:00 to the community, given there's not a clear direction on the amendment. But, however, I've got confidence in staff and council that we will be able to engage the community in a meaningful way. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I think we will be able to engage the community in a meaningful way, but in order to do that, we need to first draft the terms of reference to, first draft the terms of reference to What this Destination Stewardship Council is there to do and what I'm concerned that if you approve this amendment that will give signal to the community that anyone who wants to be on there can and that may not be the case as Councillor Stockwell said there was a come one come all approach to the previous stakeholder reference group that couldn't reach consensus. I understand that the Destination Stewardship Council have a very different role in holding various agencies to account and will involve various agencies with the real capacity to implement the DNP actions.
00:45:00 So sure there's likely to be some community representation on the DSC but until we nut out the terms of reference I think this sends the wrong message and raises the expectation that anyone who wants to be on it could be on it. So for that reason as a precautionary approach I won't support it but certainly when it comes to drafting the terms of reference will we have a mind to ensure that there's some sort of community oversight. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I can't support this amendment in its current form. Councillor Finzel: Question to the Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Question to the Chair. In terms of going out to community for positions on the Destination Stewardship Council would that not be a process through say for example expression of interest and then once that has gone through that process is there potential then for the group to draft their own terms of reference independently once that people are around the table through the EOI process?
00:46:00 Or meaningful representation before it's formed? And then there's opportunity for the terms of reference to be set at that point? Speaker 3: Thank you through the Chair, Councillor. That's a difficult question to answer in terms of cart before the horse. Generally in my experience the terms of reference is what, you know, we control the terms of reference as Council. Set the terms of reference, those terms of reference need to be brought back and discussed. That's a difficult question to answer in terms of cart before the horse. And then you can make the decision of when you go out, whether you go out for expressions of interest, whether you go and identify people in the, in the, in the, because you'll, you'll, you'll identify on your terms of reference what groups or what, what expertise you might want on that, on that group.
00:47:00 And then you, then you would try to, to look into the community and whether that's groups or whether that's individuals or whether that's associations or whatever it might be to form, to provide that information or provide that expertise back into it. So that's my, that's my experience in, in, in this type of thing. So that's why we have proposed that we do the terms of reference first so that Councillors, you can decide, you can understand exactly what you, what you need and then go to the community to, to do that. To have a group and then develop terms of reference from that group is, is just a little bit round the other way in my opinion. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Through the Chair. Councillor Finzel: Just from memory, I just probably need to start with clarification. I thought when we did the Noosaville River Plan Group that they came on board and then they set their own terms of reference. Is that, have I got that? Can you correct me? Speaker 3: I wasn't, I wasn't there at the time. Yeah.
00:48:00 Director Rawlings: Thank you. So through, through the Chair, just, just to build on what the CEO said, with a group like this, very important to be really clear about the purpose of the group. And then the capacity and capability of who might be needed, what organisations might be needed to enable that purpose and deliver on that purpose. I think it is standard process that once you have established a group, that the group review the terms of reference. So that is standard process, but not develop the terms of reference. We need to develop the terms of reference. We did the same for the River Management Group. But groups do then check in on their terms of reference and review things like rules of engagement of the group, numbers of meetings, times we'll meet, protocols as a group, the values that might, you know. So yes, I think that check in process of terms of reference once the group's established is an important governance step. But for a group like this, we definitely need to set the terms of reference first.
00:49:00 And the process for establishing of that, and allow for that group once established to check in on aspects of the terms of reference. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone wish to speak before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Councillor Lorentson: I will. I hope that those around the table may reconsider their position. For many of the work that we've done in the past, we've done a lot of work in the past. We've worked with residents that were actively involved over four years in the establishment of this Destination Management Plan. The first time they ever heard of a Destination Stewardship Council was when the report was released. This amendment doesn't tie Council into anything. Sometimes we read too much in the amendment.
00:50:00 The intent. And the intent is live stream and I'm telling you what the intent is. The intent is to ensure that the four years of voluntary participation by residents and community groups in the establishment of the Destination Management Plan is respected. And that we respect their wishes. They approached me in terms of clarity around participation and meaningful representation in the Destination Stewardship Council. We respect their four years and understand also our job is to represent them. That's why we're standing here today. So I ask everyone please reconsider the amendment and again don't make a mockery of four years of really great work from some of our incredible residents and community groups who poured heart and soul into this Destination Management Plan.
00:51:00 Put the amendment those in favour. Mayor Wilkie: Councillors Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel. Those against. Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. I use my casting vote. The amendment is lost. It takes us back to the original motion. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? If you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. It's important after the last discussion that we do reflect on how we've got to this point and where we're heading. And Councillors you may remember I put around a detailed table and a couple of different options of governance of the Stewardship Council and I'm just looking here and I mentioned about 20 different groups across about 10 different functions. And the decision about who goes on the Stewardship Council should respect the work that
00:52:00 those who came before would have done. But in my experience in developing long term strategies, the people who are quite useful and suitable in strategy development are sometimes not the right people to help you guide the implementation. If you've got a purely representative model, you tend to slow down the implementation of my experience over a couple of decades of this sort of thing. You have to think about what is that group there to do? Are they there to drive the implementation, to provide counsel with some really good insight into what's working, what's not working well, what could change, what's, you know, look at the innovation that they might come. So to me it is essential to understand that. The Stewardship Council is a concept that's been around and may not have been used in specific words but has been part of the concept for a long time.
00:53:00 It is what's happening overseas in some of the leading areas looking at trying to improve the sustainability of tourism. So to me it's not a question of whether there will be collaborative partnerships and people from our community involved in the Stewardship Council. It's about just making sure that we set the terms of reference about what we want to achieve from that council, respect what's come before, but some of the groups involved there may not have little to do with what's going to come next in the implementation phase. To me it's really important to understand what we want people to be able to provide in terms of that partnership body and I think believing it as was adopted at the General Committee is the appropriate way to go. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion those in favour. That's Wegener, Stockwell. So we're voting for the substantial motion which was ratified on Monday. Speaker 4: Oh.
00:54:00 Mayor Wilkie: Wegener, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie against. Councillors Lorentson and Wilson. The motion's carried. 11.3.4 confidential not for public release, an environment levy proposed now in purchase. 11.3.7 general motion carried. Council members have seconded. Council members have seconded. Council member Wagoner seconded. Council member Lawson. All in favour. It's carried unanimously. Next item, three reports direct to the ordinary meeting. The first is a point of order to the Chairperson. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, I would like to move a point of order. The reports were not provided to the ordinary meeting. The reports were not delivered. Reports were not delivered by close of business day Tuesday as required under our standing orders. And I'd like the breach to be formally noted in the minutes.
11.3.4 CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 December 2025) ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.3.5 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
12.1 APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON TO COUNCIL'S AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE ¶
00:55:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I dispute the point of order because my reckoning is I got an email at 4.49 saying that, you know, access before five o'clock. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So that's in dispute. So some Councillors say that they have received the reports. So that's in dispute. Councillor Lorentson says you haven't. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: By way of explanation, there was a topographical error and there was a later change. So if you're looking about the time it went up onto a site, it's probably the time your members made. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me. Through the Chair, can I ask, 48 hours, given that our meeting times have now changed to 10 a.m., is close of business 48 hours we should have had the report released? We should have had the report released at 10 a.m., not 5 p.m. on Tuesday. Is that correct? Or have I misunderstood?
00:56:00 Mayor Wilkie: The question is, when is the time for the release of the reports for the ordinary meeting? Councillor Lorentson: It's standing. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. What's the standard time for the release? Speaker 3: Yeah. My understanding is that it's the close of business on the two days before. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Not 10 a.m.? No, not 10 a.m. We're saying close of business is what we're working to. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: I'll ask a question then. Yeah. The standing orders say that Council has been given sufficient time to go through agenda items. Is less than 48 hours considered sufficient time? Mayor Wilkie: I'll say that it was close of business Tuesday was the timeframe. I believe that's sufficient. Sufficient. In my opinion. My question was actually to the CEO. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Given that he had extra decision on when the reports get released. Mayor Wilkie: Well, I think it's a subjective call and it's not the CEO's position to answer whether
00:57:00 it's sufficient time or not. It's a subjective call depending on each Council's disposition. Councillor Wilson: I'll ask my question again to the CEO. Whose decision is it when the reports get released? And whose decision is it to decide whether there's sufficient time in releasing the agenda given that the CEO releases the agenda? Speaker 3: Yes. Ultimately, it's my decision. And that was a decision that I understood as being reasonable to release them. As we all know, we're working under extreme pressure to get some of these things done before this time of year. And we were working to get that done. And my understanding was before the close of business on Tuesday was acceptable in terms of our standing orders. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. I'd like to ask a question to the CEO. So, ordinary meetings, our standing orders say close of business Tuesday, two days prior to the meeting. When we updated our standing orders and changed our ordinary meeting from 5pm to 10am, was
00:58:00 that updated? Speaker 3: That's what's in the standing orders. So, that's maybe something we need to work on. We need to look at when we review the standing orders. But that's currently how it fits in the standing orders is that it's close of business on Tuesday before. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair. Again, my understanding, two days means 48 hours. And that standing order, close of business Tuesday, was under the assumption that we were having our ordinary meetings at 5pm. Again, I ask the question, was that updated when we changed our standing orders to 10am? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: The question is, can it be updated, Mr Senior? Speaker 3: No, that's not the question. Was it updated? The question is, was it updated? Obviously, it wasn't. Well, the standing orders remained as they were. We've all been working towards those standing orders. We're all subject to those standing orders. I'm more than happy to review that and understand now that that's been made a position, we can
00:59:00 certainly look at that from looking at our standing orders. But moving into a 10am start, and then close of business on a Tuesday is something that potentially we accepted, or I accepted, but that's maybe if it's not acceptable to you going forward, then we can certainly look to change that. Councillor Wilson: Another question, please. That less than two days may be reasonable when there are no new reports coming to ordinary meeting. But do you consider it reasonable when there are new reports coming straight to ordinary, which we haven't been advised of in our agenda for two days? Mayor Wilkie: Okay, look, I'll just draw a line on it out there. We can take this conversation offline. Thank you for bringing it to our attention about disparity. We can make that, we'll have a discussion about adjusting the standing orders. Absolutely. Thank you for raising that. Now I'll come to the appointment of the Chairperson to Council's Audit and Risk Committee. We have Executive Officer Yancey Wolk here to give us a summary.
01:00:00 Speaker 3: Unfortunately, Yancey's not around, so I'll take that. Okay, you'll deliver the report? Yes. Thank you. Just a quick summary of where we're at. This report seeks the appointment of Ian Rushworth as the Chairman of Council's Audit and Risk Committee. The term of the former Chairperson, Tim Cronin, concluded on the 12th of December 2025. The Committee has recommended the appointment of Ian Rushworth as Chairperson for an initial three-year term. Ian has significant experience in internal audit and risk management and is currently the Chief Auditor at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. He has served as an independent member of the Committee since June 2023 and his appointment will ensure continuity and seamless transition for the Committee to deliver independent oversight and advice on audit and risk management matters. The report recommends that Council A, note this report and B, thank Tim Cronin for his contribution to the Audit and Risk Committee for the past six years. And C, appoint Ian Rushworth as the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee for a term
01:01:00 of three years. So I'll give that to you, Councillors. Thank you for that. Thank you for the question. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson moves the motion. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilson will speak to the motion. Councillor Wilson: Just briefly. I've worked with both Tim and Ian since my appointment to the Audit and Risk Committee last April. Both have been great to work with. So I also thank Tim for his contribution in the last six years. And I'm really pleased to see Ian appointed as our new Chair. I think he'll really add value to the Committee. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Webber. Councillor Wegener: Yes. I would like to thank Tim Cronin for his work and contribution. He takes our, some, well, speaking for myself, uninformable questions very seriously and treats us very, very well and is very clear. And I'm sure that Ian, Ian is also very competent and we look forward to him as the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Webber. Anybody else wish to speak about this appointment?
01:02:00 I wish to close, Councillor Wilson. Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. We now go to item 12.2, which is adoption of the Tourism Reduces Roadmap. We have Director of Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings, here for the report. No, she was here for the report. She was here? It's my report. Okay. Now, we might take, this is an opportunity to have a five-minute break because we could be here for some time. While Director Rawlings is also here. Speaker 1: So we'll have a five-minute recess, couple of break. Thank you.
12.2 ADOPTION OF TOURISM NOOSA ROADMAP ¶
01:10:00 Mayor Wilkie: Welcome back everybody, we're up to item 12.2, which is the adoption of the Tourism Noosa Roadmap, and Director Rawlings, or CEO Larry, please take your report. Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay, so we're looking at the adoption, 12.2, adoption of the Tourism Noosa Roadmap. This report is an outcome of the meeting of the 8th of May 2025.
01:11:00 I'm going to take the report as read, but I am going to draw your attention to the executive summary. In line with Council's consideration of the DMP, it is now equally important to work with our partner organisations, including our local tourism organisation, which is Tourism Noosa, industry and businesses associations, community-based organisations in our community, to enable delivery and success of the DMP. In officers' opinion, a strong, aligned local tourism organisation is considered essential to the success of Noosa's shift towards regenerative tourism. This transition cannot be achieved by Council alone. Noosa's ambition goes beyond attracting visitors. It is about ensuring tourism actively contributes to the health of our environment, the wellbeing of our community, and the protection of our unique lifestyle. An aligned local tourism organisation plays a pivotal role in the development of the DMP. Noosa's role in supporting Council into turning the aspirations of the Destination Management Plan into everyday practice, shaping visitor expectations, supporting local businesses, and ensuring tourism contributes positively to Noosa's community, environment, and lifestyle.
01:12:00 As I said, in May 2025, Council called for a collaborative roadmap to be developed with Tourism Noosa, detailing Council's future expectations of Tourism Noosa's role, structure, and development. Noosa's role is to ensure that the DMP is a place of future focus and actions, and any further funding arrangements aligned with and informed by the final Destination Management Plan, ensuring consistency of purpose and long-term strategic alignment between Council and Tourism Noosa. For the goals of our DMP and regenerative tourism to succeed, the role of the tourism organisation, Tourism Noosa, must evolve into one grounded in stewardship of place. This means aligning marketing, industry development products and experiences, social and economic development, and the development of the local tourism organisation. Sustainability programs and visitor engagement with what Noosa can sustainably support, reinforcing respectful behaviours, and actively supporting businesses to deliver experiences that reflect our shared values.
01:13:00 When this alignment is clear and consistent, tourism becomes a force that protects what people love about Noosa rather than placing additional pressures on it. Tourism Noosa are a mature local tourism organisation with strong local, national, and international connections, and robust channels to market, develop, and promote tourism. They have developed over many years. They have strong networks and have been very successful in upholding Noosa's brand as an iconic destination. Now is the time to ensure this momentum continues in a manner aligned to Council and community expectations and the DMP. In this context, a process of review and consideration of a range of options for a fit-for-purpose local tourism organisation has occurred through the development of a roadmap. This roadmap provides Council with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework. A framework for the future of tourism delivery in Noosa. Developed collaboratively by Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa, and informed by independent benchmarking, global best practice, the roadmap is intended to respond to community expectations for change.
01:14:00 The necessity to involve how we manage and market our destination while ensuring tourism supports economic value while protecting and prioritising Noosa's unique environment and lifestyle. So the roadmap assessment. It assessed a range of eight options, considering role, structure, and service delivery model for in alignment and alignment with the destination management plan. The roadmap process was rigorous, incorporating a review of tourism Noosa's current operating model, strengths and challenges. Benchmarking against destinations globally, highlighting success factors such as cultural change, partnership-based governance, and sustainable funding mechanisms. An assessment of eight service delivery options against governance, financial sustainability, strategic alignment, and risk.
01:15:00 And there were a number of workshops that were carried out during this process. The eight options for future delivery of tourism destination management functions are, I won't go through them in detail, summarised below as one, status quo. Two, evolve the LTO, tourism Noosa, to deliver the DMP. Three, scale back LTO model. Four, collaborative shared services model. Five, council in-house delivery. Six, outsourced brand management. Seven, partnership with regional tourism organisations, RTOs, which in this case is Visit Sunshine Coast. And eight, establish a new entity. Council's newly adopted DMP provides clear direction and roles for the local tourism organisation. These are summarised in this document as lead regional tourism organisations.
01:16:00 The Considering the requirements of the DMP, the eight service delivery model options were evaluated as part of the roadmap development process, ranging from maintaining the status quo to structural reform through a new entity. Option 2, Evolved Tourism Nuisance to Align with the DMP, emerged as the preferred immediate approach, scoring highest for strategic alignment to the requirements of the DMP and lowest risk. This option maintains continuity of core services while embedding cultural change, evolving KPIs and improving governance. An alternative medium term option involving a phased pathway combines option 2 with shared service efficiencies option 4 and the potential structural reform option 8 if new funding mechanisms are secured in the future. The recommended option includes core and aligned services to the DMP, such as destination marketing,
01:17:00 international trade, visitor servicing, industry development and strengthening sustainability while balancing continuity with managed evolution, ensuring transparency, efficiency and alignment with the destination management plan. The recommended option also recommends changes to aspects of current service delivery that reflects an estimated 40% absorption of identified DMP actions within TN's existing core activity, demonstrating some capacity and agility. The option also includes commitment from TN to increase other non-council funding streams, separate to the visitor pay options being explored by Council over the same period, prepare a transition plan map mapping the evolution of the organisation's structure and strategic focus in readiness for the new financial year, 26-27, and undertake a review to make an organisation's
01:18:00 name change, for example, Destination Noosa, a title aligning seamlessly with the Noosa Destination Management Plan and perceived as more inclusive of the wider community whilst maintaining its relevance with the tourism sector locally, nationally and internationally. A change such as this signifies a new era alongside Council's new strategic direction for the destination as articulated in the DMP, a shift to stewardship. The report recommends Council endorse option 2 with shared service efficiencies option 2 as the preferred model. Option 2 is based on core annual funding of $2 million plus CPI. This option reinforces the importance of an evolved approach and model for the delivery of destination marketing, industry development, sustainability programs and visitor services for Noosa and that an evolved tourism Noosa is the preferred organisation to deliver these as a partner with Council in line with the Destination Management Plan.
01:19:00 The recommendation, as indicated in the report, is that the Noosa Destination Management Plan as it stands is note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Committee dated 18 December regarding the Tourism Noosa Roadmap. Part B, approve the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Attachment 1 in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa funding deed. Endorse option 2, evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the Destination Management Plan as the immediate and primary source service delivery model as outlined in the attached and proposed Tourism Noosa Roadmap. And D, request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. I put this report to you, Councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Given we are in a formal meeting, I'll move the motion. Will we have a seconder, please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Second.
01:20:00 Mayor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. As we've heard, this roadmap outlines the way in which this Tourism Noosa will evolve, after serving the Noosa community very well for 25 years, into a new organisation that reflects the community's aspirations for a model that better protects our environment, our liveability and prosperity, and has captured the community sentiment in the Destination Management Plan. The roadmap sets out how we will evolve Tourism Noosa from a business-as-usual model to regenerative tourism, where all marketing and industry development shifts to a regenerative focus, where visitors are encouraged to join residents, businesses and residents as Noosa custodians, helping to care for our environment, respect our community and liveability in a way that leaves Noosa in a better place for future generations.
01:21:00 This adaptive change is being done now to help Noosa responsibly manage and mitigate any risks to environment, prosperity and liveability from increased pressure from unprecedented population growth in South East Queensland and impending visitation from the Olympics. The proposed new model is informed by industry benchmarking and research into global best practice for destination marketing organisations. Independent benchmarking of eight other Australian and New Zealand local and regional tourism organisations indicated that Tourism Noosa was unique in many ways, that it operated more like a regional tourism organisation than a local tourism organisation. The report notes it is difficult to compare like-for-like organisations due to differing visitor numbers and types, population, funding arrangements, structure and strategic focus. In helping determine TN's next form, independent experts from URBJEC did a comparative analysis
01:22:00 of leading destination management organisations globally, with a focus on regenerative tourism governance, funding models and operational structures. It also identified lessons learned from these agencies in US, Canada, Ireland and Denmark that are relevant to Noosa's unique context. It found most were not-for-profit entities, were funded by a bed tax, had dedicated sustainability staff as well as marketing specialists, community engagement roles and also focused on visitor education. TN's funding is modest when compared to international destinations with access to bed taxes and diverse revenue streams. Domestic LTOs and RTOs were mostly funded by councils, but unlike Noosa where TN is funded by a higher rate for consumption, it was not so. Some were funded by commercial properties only. Others are funded by residential and other rates.
01:23:00 Lessons learned from these global success stories and insight into global best practices were that adaptive change over time was critical. They had KPIs to measure regenerative goals. Most had evolved over time rather than transformed radically and suddenly. That sustained and reliable funding was critical. That effective partnership between TN and RTOs was critical. All of these organisations, industry and community was essential, as proposed with the Destination Stewardship Council, and that no one size fits all. In determining the best fit for Noosa Council, eight service delivery models were mentioned, and they've already been read out, so I won't go into them. The third option, option two, is the Evolve TN model. It rated the highest against the criteria of governance, financial sustainability, transition complexity, and strategic alignment with DMP's regenerative tourism goals. And the roadmap proposes how tourism Noosa, over three to four years, will evolve to integrate these DMP priorities.
01:24:00 Council will continue to provide oversight via the funding deed, and require quarterly reporting by TN against the deed requirements to Council. The transition plan has required... ...recommended a base funding for TN at the current rate of $2 million, funded by the differential rate on commercial properties. No residential rates will be used. Phase one, in year one, will be to align and evolve the tourism services and KPIs to the DMP, and injecting a regenerative focus into destination marketing, visitor servicing, industry development, and sustainability programs. And then assuring all marketing alignments... ...with the Noosa brand and sustainability positioning. Drafting the terms of reference for the Destination Stewardship Council will also take place. In year two, it's the year of strengthening shared governance and expanding sustainability initiatives.
01:25:00 The Destination Stewardship Council, if adopted today, is proposed to be established by then. And TN will be a participant as a member. Other revenue... ...opportunities will be implemented where feasible. Regenerative tourism messaging fully embedded across campaigns. And more progress made towards having Noosa achieve eco-destination certification. It's already a leader in that regard. Year three is a year focused on consolidating, embedding the roles of Destination Stewardship Council, scaling up sustainability programs and visitor contribution initiatives. Years three plus the future evolution, expand revenue generation and explore other models, evolution into other models, if deemed appropriate. This change starts now. And this roadmap is again, like the DMP, the start of a journey.
01:26:00 It recognises the value of partnerships and where all of us has a role to play as custodians in keeping Noosa different by nature. And I commend the staff and the councillors. And TN on the work done in coming to this roadmap. Councillor Wilson: Any questions, please? Mayor Wilkie: Questions. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I've got quite a few, but they're generally pretty short. And hopefully, yes, no answers. The resolution by council on the 8th of May, part B2, the second graduated payment of $800,000 to be made at six months, subject to completion of the roadmap. The second graduated payment of $800,000 to be made at six months, subject to completion of the roadmap. Speaker 3: Those KPIs were due by the 31st of December. So we received those. We're now currently reviewing those KPIs. But we won't be making a decision on that until we review those KPIs.
01:27:00 Thank you, Carl. Councillor Wilson: And one of the KPIs was to be delivered by 30th of November, which was TN to deliver a report outlining a minimum of three alternative revenue stream options to be completed and presented to council by 30th of November. Has that been done? Director Rawlings: That report has been received. It was received after the 30th of November and it's currently under assessment. Councillor Wilson: Part E of the resolution was that the roadmap consider agreed service levels, organisational efficiencies, revenue diversification plans. I can't really see organisational efficiencies or revenue diversification plans. It's another question. I'm referring to the resolution and asking if these things have been met.
01:28:00 So could you please tell me where the organisational efficiencies and revenue diversification plans are in the report or the roadmap? Director Rawlings: So a raft of things have been considered throughout the process and the roadmap refers to those things. It refers to estimated costs for services and within that has been a review by TN around efficiencies and organisational changes. So that sits within that process. Councillor Wilson: And part G of the resolution was ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism Noosa include consultation with industry stakeholders and residents, ensuring transparency and input into strategic investment in Noosa's tourism future.
01:29:00 Has that consultation occurred? Director Rawlings: There's been significant consultation on the issues relating to our local tourism organisation, tourism Noosa, funding of tourism activities and how we manage the destination through two phases of the DMP process, including, you know, there was specific feedback through those phases on the issues I've just outlined. All of that information has been shared with and presented to Council and has been incorporated into the deliberations that have been made. So there's been a lot of discussion and analysis process of developing the roadmap. Councillor Wilson: Since this May resolution, so the DMP phase two process, how were residents specifically engaged on their thoughts on funding for TN? Were there any questions in the survey?
01:30:00 Did residents voluntarily provide feedback? Director Rawlings: Yes, there was quite a bit of feedback through the process, the phase two process of the DMP. Both in survey, qualitative data and in written submissions relating to tourism Noosa. Councillor Wilson: Could you be more specific, please, in what that feedback was in terms of TN funding? Whether we specifically asked about TN funding in the survey questions and what the sentiment was towards funding in the written submissions? Director Rawlings: The question specifically in the survey. I don't know. I can't, I don't have word for word. But the questions in the survey were directly related to the actions listed in the DMP, the draft DMP. And the draft DMP had a specific action relating to reviewing tourism Noosa and the organisation around their role.
01:31:00 So there was a specific question around that, which we received feedback from. I'd have to refer to a document to get exact stats. But we did get both people offered up comments on tourism Noosa, on funding, on amounts of funding, on marketing the destination, and linking those things to the challenge. And the feeling in some parts of our community that we are experiencing periods of congestion and using language that was used in submissions and feedback over tourism. And linking, you know, investment in marketing and tourism Noosa to that, those impacts.
01:32:00 So yes, we definitely received feedback, both in comments on the survey, qualitative comments, and in written submissions about that. I was about to try and quite figures, but I think I should just check before I quite figures. Councillor Lorentson: I have been in front of me. I can send them to you. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, thanks. Just from my recollection, if you could please confirm this was the general gist of it, was that sentiment was for a review of the tourism model, so about 90% or more. And the general sentiment against funding was negative. Is that your recollection? Yes. Director Rawlings: So I think of the, and Councillor Lorentson, and please, you've got the state, so please correct me. I've got them in front of me. But I think of the responses, so we had, you know, over, I think we had 1100 responses to this Phase 2 since May. I think we had, of those, 150-ish, I'm looking at Councillor Lorentson to correct me, of the
01:33:00 responses, either through survey and submissions, made comments specifically on tourism Noosa. And of those 150, I think it was about 80% of those that had, that called for a review of tourism Noosa and a reduction of funding. And I think the remaining 20, I'm going to get this wrong. Councillor Lorentson, did you want to put that? Councillor Lorentson: I just have some percentages in front of me. Participants sent in. I've got the general sentiment regarding tourism Noosa, 62% negative, 17% positive, 21% neutral. I also have proposed actions per thing for destination management in terms of stop public funding of tourism, 31%, stop promoting Noosa Shire to all visitors, 35%, reduce public funding of tourism, 2%, reduce destination marketing, 4%, redirect public funding of
01:34:00 tourism, 2%. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: So just final one, then I'll come back with more later. But does this roadmap and preferred option reflect that community sentiment? Speaker 3: I can, I think we just need to draw back the attention to the roadmap and the report. What we've focused on here is we've got a DMP that needs to have a delivery model. And we've got a DMP that needs to have a delivery model. And we've tried to focus on what is required in order to deliver the DMP. What this then spells out as these are the items, these are the elements that need to be delivered, that we need support with. The cost to do that is a figure that we have is around $2 million. That's to be still, I think, now that we have a DMP only three or four days ago, we need to now work through the actual actions and the final figure of that.
01:35:00 But that's a figure that we have. So that's where the focus has been, is what do we need in order to deliver and continue to deliver for our community in terms of tourism and promotion and marketing. Councillor Wilson: How does that start it by part G, ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism noose or include consultation, when you're asking us today to make a decision on three years worth of funding? Actually, I wasn't even expecting, never mind the community. Mayor Wilkie: I think that's a highly critical question. It's up to us to decide how we manage that. Councillor Wilson: I'm asking how the CEO's comments satisfies, if we're deciding on three years funding today and we were supposed to ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism noose or include consultation, we haven't had that consultation, so how can we satisfy part G, is the question. Mayor Wilkie: I think you've heard from the staff that there was consultation which garnered feedback about that situation.
01:36:00 That's the answer. Councillor Wilson: And it was against the plan. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. Let's just ignore it then. Speaker 3: I'm happy to. In the recommendation, you'll see that we haven't actually requested the three years of funding. We haven't requested to put a number in the recommendation. What we've said is we'll bring back the terms in February. So the idea today is to understand the roadmap, understand whether that's the right model to go forward with, and then the funding is for us to then, if we have that, is to bring that back in February with further terms and further discussion for Council's decision and or further work. We don't know at this point in time, but that's the position we're in. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Just some clarity. Firstly, CEO, can you confirm whether adopting the roadmap today commits to Council to two million dollars of funding for 2026 and 2027? And I've got in front of me page 20 of the roadmap.
01:37:00 And again, just clarity. It says finalised three-year funding agreement. Base score funding aligned to DMP. So my question is whether page 20 confirms a three-year funding arrangement of two million dollars per year as well. Speaker 3: I guess what we're doing today is putting this to you, and that's why with the recommendation is to finalise the terms. It's up to you to decide today whether you wish to commit to that or whether you want further work to be done, which is really for discussion today. My intention is not to commit us to the three years in that roadmap. It's to bring it to the table and say, here's the option. Please discuss. Please give us some direction. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So back to the roadmap. It identifies additional funding for Tourism New South to deliver DMP actions, and there's about $1.3 million over three years.
01:38:00 And when you go to the funding source, it says TBC. Is Council expected to fund this? So where is the funding source is my question. Speaker 3: I agree. There's no commitment for that. That's just what they're... Remembering this roadmap was done in collaboration with Tourism New South. So that's what this document has. It has both our input and Tourism New South's input. This is what Tourism New South believes, looking at the DMP and the timing of this, is what they think is required to do it. It's for us to decide whether we're the ones who have the ability to fund or not fund, based on what we want in terms of to deliver, what delivery outcomes we want from Tourism New South. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody wish to speak to the motion?
01:39:00 I've got a question. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Councillor Wilson: On the scoring of the eight options, how was the process arrived at? Sorry. How were the scores arrived at? Was it just one person's... I don't know. I don't know. ...assessment, or were there multiple people involved in arriving at these scores? Director Rawlings: There was multiple people involved in arriving at the scores. The working group were involved in that process. And then there was a moderation process that also happened. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Wilson: I've got a few questions that will, again, require me to read out a few different parts of this report, roadmap, and assessments, just for clarification. Option one, the status quo seems to assume the existing funding agreement is extended beyond June 26th, which isn't currently the case, but it also scores lower on the assessment
01:40:00 because lack of alignment to the DMP and regenerative tourism. However... ...the overall alignment of the DMP and the DMP is aligned strongly to strategy. Overall aligned strongly at the principle and goal level with the DMP across key themes, including destination marketing, regenerative tourism, industry development, and cultural storytelling. Could you tell me why the strategic alignment only scores two, which is poor, based on that finding? Director Rawlings: Yes. There is alignment at the moment at the strategic level with Tourism Noosa. And their strategy that Council's signed off on, it does enshrine in some of the themes, a shift towards regenerative tourism. But as mentioned in the report, there's definitely room for evolution of their service delivery.
01:41:00 And that was really the difference between option one and two. Option two was more focus on alignment and evolution of their current services. And that that be reflected in any future funding agreement and KPIs. Councillor Wilson: Thanks for that. Again, I'll need to quote a few things first. The existing agreement already has a clause that the DMP must inform TN's annual operational plan. The May resolution part F said, should the DMP be adopted during the term of the agreement, provisions will be in place to allow for variations of the agreement to ensure Tourism Noosa's activities align with the DMP's principles, outcomes, and relevant actions. On that basis, I don't really see much difference between options one and two. Both have base funding of $2 million.
01:42:00 Both don't have any funding for DMP initiatives. So TN will still need to continue to request budget. So just could you explain, please, why the two are different and why one is different Speaker 4: Yeah. Director Rawlings: It's a good question. Our current funding agreement only runs till June. So it's limited to requiring Tourism Noosa to evolve and change and adapt DMP for a period of six months. Option two is looking beyond June and into the future. So that's probably... You're right. They do similar things. And if the current agreement was beyond June, then we probably could have relied on the current clause in the current agreement. But it's not. It ends in June. So this process is about what happens after June.
01:43:00 And yeah. Option two does pick up on the fact that, make no mistake, we want our tourism organisation to be aligned with our destination management plan. Councillor Wilson: We've got a few more on the different clause again. We've got a few more on the different clause again. So we'll stick on their financial sustainability. Option one, status quo, stable under current $2 million council funding. So it assumes that it does get extended. Membership revenue, some mining revenue streams, hard dependency on council persists. So that's a three, moderate. Two, which is the preferred option, base funding stable, so same, but needs further diversification, like a visitor levy, which doesn't exist. And support for DMP project delivery were currently not funded, but this has been ranked a four, which would suggest a lower risk. So how is this scoring higher than the stable current state?
01:44:00 I'm also noting the outsourced brand management has predictable costs, potential savings, which sounds pretty stable. It still only gets a three. Potential cost deficiencies. So that's a three, moderate. Number seven is a four, because the council contribution is likely lower. So I don't know how a greater contribution by council with no ability to deliver the DMP would be a less risk. So number four. Mayor Wilkie: Is there a question? Councillor Wilson: Option one, financial sustainability scored three, which is moderate. Option two, which has a base funding stable, but needs further diversification, i.e. there's no further funding to deliver the DMP promises, scored four, which is good. It seems to me that that one's more risky than option one.
01:45:00 Mayor Wilkie: So are you making a comment or are you asking a question? Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I'm asking a question how it was scored four. Director Rawlings: So the assumption with option two is that there are new plans that have been put in place to be involved in. So there is some assumptions about potential revenue generation for tourism Noosa in an evolved model. Councillor Wilson: Just to clarify, the only thing that was actually mentioned was a visitor levy in that assessment. Mayor Wilkie: Question? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Well, it didn't talk about any of these revenue streams, only a visitor levy. So since we don't have that... Yeah. I still think this one should have been scored lower. So I still don't really understand why some of these scores...
01:46:00 I've got a few more, but how these scores have been arrived at... Mayor Wilkie: So you're making a statement, but we need a question. Councillor Wilson: No, I'm not. I'm asking what the process was of scoring these, that this option was deemed less risky than the stable state. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Why was option X less risky than... Councillor Wilson: Yeah. And that was my answer. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Got a couple more. Governance. Option one was ranked three. Governance remains strong. However, it lacks enhanced transparency from council oversight proposing the DMP. I'm not sure why, when we have a seat on the board. Option two was ranked four, so higher, because it has strong governance with potential for council to sit on the board. But we already have that. And then number three, which is a pared back model. Governance remains compliant under the Corporations Act, but reduced remit may weaken board engagement and oversight relevance. So why would it weaken board engagement and oversight relevance?
01:47:00 And then in that case, why does it still the same as number one? Director Rawlings: So option two had in it the... Resolution of the Destination Stewardship Council, which brings another level of governance. And not that they have particular governance oversight of Tourism Noosa, but there was another level of governance around destination management. Option three starts to question the viability of the organisation. So... The board... Yeah, it starts to reflect that, potentially. Councillor Wilson: Thanks. Another one on stakeholder risk and engagement. Again, there's different scores between options one and two. First one, current state industry is comfortable with continuity.
01:48:00 Community sentiment might be negative. Expectations for change are unmet. Two, industry-supportive community sentiment mixed with concerns regarding public funding. Two, industry-supportive community sentiment mixed with concerns regarding public funding. Three, high risk of industry backlash. Community may perceive as a positive related to assumption of reduced tourism, and then blah, blah, blah. How are these arrived at in terms of assessing industry, whether the industry and community is supportive? To be able to give those different weight. Director Rawlings: So that was based on those who took part in the assessment, which was the working group, and an understanding of... You know, being, having a good sense by Tourism Noosa of how their members and industry reps might perceive these changes. And also, it was to reflect some of the feedback we received through the process around community
01:49:00 sentiment. We know that there are some parts of the community who are... I don't know. They're looking for change. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, Nicola. Just follow up on that, Kim. In terms of the working group, can you just remind us who was formally included, and were there any independent or community members included as part of that working group? Director Rawlings: So, as it's outlined in the report, the working group consisted of the chair of Tourism Noosa, a... So, as it's outlined in the report, the working group consisted of the chair of Tourism Noosa, a board member of Tourism Noosa, the CEO of Noosa Council, the director of Environment and Strategy, Noosa Council, and the CEO of Tourism Noosa, and a senior
01:50:00 project coordinator. Councillor Wilson: I've got one more. Apologies. I would normally email these, but given the time, I put it off. In option three, we have... Financial funding implications. Council contribution could reduce significantly, for example, from $2 million to $1 million or less. I assume as part of the assessment, this would actually be funded. Was there any work done to see what this paired back model would actually look like in terms of cost efficiencies, workforce, any of those things, before evaluating it? Director Rawlings: Yes. There was various scenarios. Was there... From scaling back majority of the services, and it just being about maybe destination and marketing, to a scale back of each service with some service delivery around
01:51:00 each of them, and then what that scaling back meant to the service and the organisations by themselves. So, with considering an organisation's viability. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I think I'm done, unless anything comes up in the debate. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A different question. We've heard some of the statistics about the feedback from the survey. The Economic Development Department, in terms of their activities, has said that there's been a significant increase in the number of services provided through the tourism levy, plus what we provide in the current agreements with tourism nurseries funded out of a component of commercial and accommodation rate, variable properties. It's no longer the tourism levy, but we carried through the same amount, which is $3.9 million.
01:52:00 The question is, since they are the dominant rate payers who are paying for this, did we receive any submissions either for or against the amount going forward? And then, if you're going to tourism nurseries, from any business groups other than tourism nurseries, was there any business groups suggesting to reduce it or opposing it? Director Rawlings: I would have to confirm that, but my recollection, looking at Lynne, so feel free to jump in here, is that we received submissions from business organisations, representative business organisations, seeking support for ongoing and stable funding for Tourism Noosa. Speaker 4: In the submissions, we had 131 submissions, and we had an independent assessment of those
01:53:00 submissions, and it almost was half and half. What we observed is that residents were anti-funding. They were not. But the business community were pro-funding. They didn't say amounts. It was sentiment. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move an amendment, please. Amendment? Yep. A lot of questions I've got here have been answered. So I'm going to propose the amendment that Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a report for Council consideration on the reintroduction of commercial and residential production of a tourism and economic levy, specifically to reconsider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy, rather than as part of general rates.
01:54:00 Can we remove the estimated to generate, please? Which one? Can't be here. Director Rawlings: Which one? Remove estimated to generate, approximately. Councillor Lorentson: Estimated to generate, approximately. Can we remove the estimated to generate, please? Approximately $8 million per annum. Mayor Wilkie: Can you want approximately $8 million per annum? Councillor Lorentson: No. I'll just talk to, I'll talk to that. But can we remove that from the amendment? All of that. Director Rawlings: And it's just approximately $8 million per annum? Delete that. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. So request the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a report for Council consideration on the reintroduction of a tourism and economic levy, specifically to reconsider whether higher rates, the high rates currently paid by commercial properties, should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy, rather than as part of general rates. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that? I'll second for debate. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Norris.
01:55:00 Councillor Lorentson: At present, commercial properties in Noosa pay a higher differential rate, which is estimated, according to the report, to raise approximately $8 million this financial year. These funds, including commercial properties in Noosa, pay a higher differential rate, and are currently collected as part of general rates. Historically, this same contribution was collected under a clearly defined tourism and economic levy, providing transparency about its purpose and use. There is a widespread confusion in the community about who funds tourism activity in Noosa. A common misconception is that residential rate payers are subsidising tourism in Noosa. They are not. The high contribution already comes from commercial properties in Noosa. This distinction is unclear and poorly understood. Reconsidering the collection of this contribution as a dedicated levy would clearly separate the high rates paid by commercial properties from general rates, improve transparency and
01:56:00 allow both residents and businesses to better understand how tourism-related funding is sourced and applied. A CEO report would enable Council to assess governance arrangements, accounting treatment, legal and regulatory implications and best practice models used in other local governments. It would also allow Council to consider how a levy structure could improve clarity, accountability and confidence in how tourism-related funding is managed. Importantly, this amendment does not predetermine a decision. It simply requests clear, evidence-based advice so Council can make an informed choice about whether reinstating a levy would better reflect fairness, transparency and fiscal responsibility while addressing long-standing community confusion.
01:57:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is about revenue raising. So. I'm wondering whether it is a valid amendment to the motion in front of us which doesn't address where the money comes from. I'm not clear whether there are discussions. If there is discussions on the source of revenue in the roadmap, it may. If there's no discussion on the source of revenue, it may not be an appropriate amendment. It just goes broader. So that's the question. To the CEO or to? I'm not sure. Is revenue sources part of the roadmap? Director Rawlings: Well, the roadmap does and the Council report states where tourism is funded from. It does have in it that Council collect, Council levy a differential to the commercial properties.
01:58:00 And that is the source of where tourism is funded from. So that is in the documents. Okay. Pat Spicer: That's probably right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Go on. Oh, no. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think there's an easy way to address it. That this becomes part of the report identified in recommendation D, which would make it more consistent with the motion. Councillor Wilson: I'll support it. As Director Walling said, there is reference to revenue raising. There's reference to commercial rates and the historical levy. And it also talks about potential future revenue streams, such as bed taxes and visitor levies. So I think every kind of revenue in that case could be considered.
01:59:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? Yes. Councillor Finzel: A question to the Chair. I support the intent of this. It has been discussed. It's been challenging around the community since that change came into being. From my understanding, the levy was originally set up to promote a, you know, an embryonic tourism organisation. From my understanding, at the time of the change came, it was about that that organisation had matured, and that we had reached a point in time when that constraint had hatched, and that we were able to move forward. And I think the reason for that purpose was, um, um, wait. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cool business. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Cool business. So, um, I welcome the idea that we bring this discussion to the table to clarify, um, that process. I'm not sure today is the right place to actually put that point, initially.
02:00:00 Because in my mind, I, a round discussion could have been that it's perhaps not even cool enough. I don't know. There's so many options. Um, I'm not sure that Councillor Lorentson would be prepared to, um, run, say, a reintroduction of tourism, an economic levy, that would let this fall. We could look at, like, I love the idea of going, like, we'll re-look at it, and we'll revisit it. I think that's really important and highly valued. But, um, I don't know. When we're looking at transparency, providing a community with clear eyes on why we're making these decisions, how we're making these decisions, how we're informing the decisions. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I really appreciate your intent. And it is timely that, probably, we have these discussions. Especially when we find ourselves at an intersection of change. Um, not sure this is the right forum for that.
02:01:00 But, um, let's leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Um, if I could provide some clarity to Councillor Finzel. Mayor Wilkie: No, sorry. Uh, there wasn't a question. Okay. And if you can answer, um, we will close it. Okay. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Um, my understanding is that with the destination management plan and the roadmap, we're moving away from destination marketing, which was the original intent for the tourism and economic levy, and we're moving into destination management. So, I, I don't think that the two fit anymore. A, a tourism levy is not really in line with where we're going with the destination management plan. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, I remember the reasoning, um, and around the technicality of what levies can be raised for.
02:02:00 So, reintroduction of the tourism and economic levy. The tourism and economic levy might not be consistent with that. But I like what Councillor Finzel's suggesting is, I would suggest in the report back in February that we do look at what our alternative, whether it's a levy or some other mechanism, um, or some broader remit, um, that does bring it back in levy, because I do believe that a lot of angst in the community has resulted from moving away from the tourism and economic levy. It's clear that it's, it's created social harm. It's created division. Um, and it's all just through the name. So, if we can, um, in some way that it is, fits with the Act, um, and I think Councillor Finzel, this, this is just asking for a, a review of it, so that I would hope as part of that there's other options reviewed as well. Um, so that's that. We do look at it in some way really clearly and definitively saying this is what we collect
02:03:00 this much on top of all the standard rates, we're collecting this much from the commercial enterprises and the accommodation enterprises and that's what's going to be used for economic development of which part of that is, um, what funds, um, you just go through what funds the roadmap, what funds other elements of destination management. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. And I, through the Chair, ask if I can make a technical change to the wording and, um, make it consistent with the wording at the end. Request the CEO prepare a report to Council on the, re-, um, on the reintroduction of a dedicated levy specifically to reconsider whether the high rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates.
02:04:00 Councillor Wilson: We don't need to repeat it. Mayor Wilkie: We request the CEO to report to Council on the reintroduction of the dedicated lobby, Councillor Lorentson: specifically to consider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties Mayor Wilkie: should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. Everyone's happy with that? Council answer this, please. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I do. So basically, again, the amendment doesn't commit us to anything except a report to come back to Council.
02:05:00 And the report, you know, what I'm envisaging is this discussion that we're having around the table. Options for levy design, collection mechanism, what are the eligible and ineligible uses of the levy funds, governance, accountability reporting frameworks, interactions with existing funding arrangements, for example, like the tourism NUSA, looking at regulatory and legislative considerations. More importantly, and I think this is the part where I really, I think I've put this amendment up, I think maybe three times in the last 12 months, but I just think it's really important there is too much confusion. And also, we need to also recognise that it is our business community that are paying the high differential rate.
02:06:00 So I just think an amendment like this also pays respect to our business community by acknowledging that they're high contribution and ensuring that whether it's through a dedicated levy, that the purposes, the three purposes are infixed. And whether those purposes are destination management, infrastructure protection, environmental amenity and economic resilience. Again, but that's part of the discussion, debate and review of the possibility of reinstating a dedicated levy to collect what's already paid by our business community. Again, we need to really sort out this confusion between who pays, and this is generally the only way we're going to be able to do that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Taylor. That's Councillor Stockwell, Lorentson and Wilson, Finzel, Wilkie against.
02:07:00 Councillor Wegener, the amendment is carried and becomes part of the suspended motion. Any other amendments? Councillor Wilson: Um. I do have an amendment, but I just want to see, it might be redundant depending on if I can ask the CEO a question. Sure. Question. Um. So I noted that in this recommendation, currently, it doesn't actually refer to the funding agreement, but from what you said before, we're not deciding on the three year funding agreement today. Is that correct? Speaker 3: It's up to you. It's up to you. We'll put it in its terms. If you want to put funding in there, then that's about to change that or hand that to terms that are, to be more specific, but final terms, of course, um, timing, um, or, you
02:08:00 Speaker 4: know, length of funding. Speaker 3: KPIs. Yeah. Speaker 4: KPIs. Yeah. Speaker 3: KPIs and funding. Councillor Wilson: I think it's pretty impossible to decide on a preferred option without knowing what it costs, and the next step says confirmed future base funding of tourism, there's a three year agreement, so we haven't actually decided to have a three year agreement, so I'm just not sure what we're actually committing to today and where. Given that there's references to the funding agreement and the three year figure in the report and the roadmap, how are we not deciding on that today? Speaker 3: Excellent. What I guess we're proposing is that if you agree that option two is the model to go forward with, and then we come back in February with what the actions are based on the DMP now that we know what is the DMP,
02:09:00 that it's been decided, because remember when we were working through this the DMP was still in train, so we need to go back and understand that. Our assumption currently, as you see in the roadmap, is they're requesting $2 million to deliver that, whether that's the final figure, that's why I want to bring back the terms and the funding to that February meeting for us to discuss and agree or disagree. Mr Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think there is a problem with B, because in the roadmap there is a number of recommendations.
02:10:00 Including alternative options. I think it may be worthwhile having a short break to try and work out whether instead of approving the roadmap is we approve specific recommendations within the roadmap, and then leave D to February. But that's just my thinking, is B actually is too long the investment to be useful to interpret D. Mayor Wilkie: Question, when you say too many options, are you referring to the roadmap, referring to option 2 and option 4? So, on... Because here it says, C says endorse option 2. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but that's... In page 19, you have service delivery.
02:11:00 You have three recommendations, and it does say option 2 in C. But then you have three is funding recommendations, four is governance and oversight. So, three does say allocate base core funding of $2 million per annum. So, I think if B and C... If B and C stands, then we are committing $2 million, and it might be good to break it down so that if certain councillors do or don't want to approve that, that's just my thinking. Councillor Wilson: Can I add another element? If you are relying on the scores from this process, they're investing in maths as well. Mayor Wilkie: So, what are you proposing, Councillor Stockwell? What would be the change that you're proposing?
02:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not proposing any change, what I'm saying is... If we want to separate out funding, the amount, then we would need to specify what recommendations in the roadmap that we are agreeing to and what will be determined as part of D. Mayor Wilkie: So, specifically the funding amount as, say, a part... Make it clear that we're... We're not committing to $2 million as part E to this recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, part of A is all refining B, but I think it will take a little while to get to the point where that makes sense, so I don't think we should do it. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just maybe make it a little bit simpler? Again, I reference page 20, 5-31st of December, finalise a three-year funding agreement, base core funding aligned to DMP.
02:13:00 That's where my confusion started, where the question I asked the CEO, were we confirming today a one-year, $2 million base agreement, funding agreement with DMP, or whether we're actually today confirming a three-by-$2 million year, plus any other destination management plan actions on top of the $2 million core base. Sorry. It may... My suggestion is maybe it just needs some wording, finalise three-year funding agreement, base core funding, maybe that just needs to be removed. Mayor Wilkie: Any suggestions? Director Rawlings: I think Councillor Stockwell's suggestion's the best one so far. I'd hate to go for it. In terms of having a little break and just getting the wording right around this, just to make sure it's completely accurate. Mayor Wilkie: All right. Well, everyone's agreed to that? Yep. Thank you. Thank you.
02:41:00 Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. We have an amended motion that is the result of the adoption of an amendment. But so far, only myself has spoken to the motion. Is there anything else? Anybody else like to speak? Councillor Lorentson: Can we get to the motion? I still have quite a few questions I'd like to ask. Questions? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So, I'm going to go back to Appendix B, sort of, again, I just need some clarity. In terms of the scoring in Appendix B, the report states it's up high level, and as it
02:42:00 reads, it's largely descriptive. I'm just trying to understand, have I missed something? Are there any questions? That underpins the one to five scores for each criteria. Director Rawlings: Through the Chair, on page 12 of the attachment one outlines the scoring scale and explains the scoring scale and what was considered as part of that criteria and then provides an interpretation for that scoring.
02:43:00 Councillor Lorentson: So there's no other analysis other that's what's presented on page 12 of the report? Director Rawlings: The analysis is presented as the attachments in the eight tables. Appendix B. Appendix B. Yep. The explanation of the scoring and the criterion ratings is on page 12. Councillor Lorentson: So okay, where I'm going with this, I'm just trying to understand, would a $2 million funding arrangement constitute what we would consider a significant procurement under Council's policy? And I'm just trying to understand what documentation. And evaluation standards would apply. And should we be applying them to this report?
02:44:00 Speaker 3: Yes, it is a significant amount of money. There's no question about it. It's a significant funding arrangement. So it would be subject to. And that's why we're suggesting that we come to a future meeting for endorsement because we need to do that work. Councillor Lorentson: There were other options that we discussed in the many, many, many workshops that we did. And I'm going to use by example one that I really wanted costed. It was a hybrid option that looked at combining in-house, moving tourism in-house, and having an independent advisory group. And then a roadmap towards something like an economic development. My question was, were all other reasonable options properly assessed and reported before committing to long-term arrangements, or the only ones the eight presented?
02:45:00 Director Rawlings: So the ones you just described are part of the eight presented. So option five is bringing it in-house. Option eight is a new entity, like an economic development and tourism organisation. And as you can see, the hybrid option combines a number of those. So yes, what you just articulated was assessed and considered. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes, through the Chair. Chair, just a question around when you are negotiating with jurors and Noosav, is a procurement option one of the considerations that could be brought to that conversation? And how would that work? Is that a possibility? Option six. Option six, is that? Speaker 3: Sorry, Councillor, when you say a procurement option, what?
02:46:00 Can you elaborate on that for me, please? Councillor Finzel: As a service option, that goes like anything. It's a procurement process. Speaker 3: Oh, sorry. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Option six. Speaker 3: Yes. Option, sorry, option six, consider that. So in terms of, sorry, in terms of each of the actions you were looking at procuring, that's right, sorry, yes, that was option six, that we considered in this point. Mayor Wilkie: Further questions, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Oh, no, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lyon? I want to try another amendment. That Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and present to Council a draft Tourism Noosa roadmap for further consideration, including full costings of all potential delivery and governance models, with all reasonable alternative options fully assessed, costed and compared, and supported by meaningful consultation with residents and industries, sorry, with industry stakeholders.
02:47:00 And the broader community, to provide Council with a complete and evidence-based basis for decision-making. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone care to second that? Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to second the debate. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Just, Council's been asked to make significant and long-term decisions about the future of tourism governance and funding in Noosa. And these decisions, I think, are very important. These decisions carry financial, operational, and reputational implications. And to me, it should not be made without a complete and transparent understanding of all viable options. To me, at the moment, I don't see in front of me a fully costed comparison of all reasonable delivery and governance models, including alternatives and hybrid models to the current arrangements.
02:48:00 Without this information, I can't be, as a councillor, confident that selecting a model will be effective. I think that the role of selecting a model that delivers the best value, accountability, and outcomes for our community. Preparing a clear roadmap that assesses costs and compares all options side by side will provide Council with the evidence needed to make a sound and defensible decision. It will also help avoid unintended consequences, cost escalation or governance risk that may otherwise emerge over time. Meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders. Industry stakeholders and the broader community is essential to ensure that the preferred approach reflects local conditions, business realities, and community expectations. And is aligned with long-term strategic objectives rather than short-term convenience.
02:49:00 This amendment strengthens transparency and also acts responsibly in the best interest of Noosa. By basing its decisions on complete, accurate, and publicly defensible information. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, for your intent behind this. I have a question through the CEO. Is this possible, given the timeframes around the funding day and what the requirements are around that? Is this actually feasible? Can this actually be done? Speaker 3: Look, I think you can see that the number of options that we've provided are great. And what you've said, Councillor, is that there are other options potentially and other hybrid options and other. For us to go back and to review those and provide absolute on each one of those is something I don't think that we as an organisation are geared for.
02:50:00 And or the timeline for this would be. It would be quite extensive just to do that amount of work. And then I'm not sure that we would actually come to a position where we're still able to make a further decision. Because there are still going to be so many assumptions built into any modelling that we do going forward. So that's why we've tried to keep it as broad but as simple as we possibly can to help us to make a decision. Also recognising that the roadmap is designed as a phased exercise. So there's opportunities in there to review and to change and to meet the needs or the needs of the community or the needs of the environment at the time. So it's really trying to get us to a point. There's no question that we've been successful over many years with tourism Noosa. To say it's an immediate fix is really not the case.
02:51:00 This is really looking at it and saying this is the most appropriate for our perspective. The most appropriate going forward is to continue to use tourism Noosa as our body. How we use that is still to be sort of absolutely finalised. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair to the CEO then. So given the answer you just gave would you say the appropriate time because we do understand it's important to keep our community. As displayed here. On the journey is the time for this to is post review, change and then consult after you've had the meeting with the tourism Noosa. Is that the time we'd go back to take it out to community for the consultation review. In terms of like the funding agreement or dollars allocated.
02:52:00 And will that potentially come back to council as for a decision. And when is the time that we could take it back to community. Speaker 3: Absolutely the decision will come back to council. So there's no question about that in terms of the quantum of funding. If the decision is not taken today for the quantum that's being proposed in here. Then that will come back. We'll do more work. We'll come back with a future. I'm comfortable with that. That timing of that I would have to have that conversation with tourism Noosa. If that's the decision or the direction. Does that answer your question councillor? Pat Spicer: To some degree. Speaker 3: Sorry. It's a timing thing and I'm not sure when the timing is. We're talking February here. Obviously we're sitting in December right at Christmas. You know everything's squeezed. So you know I'd much prefer to have a bit more time.
02:53:00 But I'm not sure that we can given the limitations of the urbanisation of tourism Noosa. They're at a point where they want to make decisions going forward as well. Mayor Wilkie: Councilors we've had consultation, meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders over at least three years and two phases of consultation, the roadmap. We already have a roadmap councillors. It's already well researched. It's a very good advisory way forward. It has explored eight different models, different options. It's benchmarked global best practice. It's benchmarked local tourism organisations in Australia, regional tourism organisations in Australia and New Zealand and come up with a proposed way forward. This to my mind is another obstructive, delaying, delaying tactic. It's paralysis by analysis.
02:54:00 Councilors we already have a tourism Noosa roadmap for consideration. That's what we're doing here today. It is hard. There's pressure. A deadline is upon us. But pushing the thing down the road to ask for another roadmap to be done in my mind is just absurd and a waste of ratepayers money. I won't be supporting it. Councillor Wilson: I'll support it. I think it's absurd that we've taken seven months to get to this point and still don't have full costings. We don't really have a roadmap that's got analysis of all the different options. We've just ended up back at the base case level of what we already spend. That's really not what I was expecting after seven months of research and analysis. And I think the community deserves better. We need to be transparent. We need to have meaningful consultation as we promised in the resolution back in May. And we need to have as councillors a complete and evidence based basis for decision making.
02:55:00 I don't feel I've got that today and I don't need to be patronised about that it's hard. It's not hard when you've got evidence based decisions. It's actually pretty easy. So yeah, I'm appalled that we're in this situation today. And we don't need to be making a decision. We don't need to be making a decision on an unfinished document and items that haven't been costed. If we adopt this roadmap today, there's a two million dollar figure that's all over it. How do we ever decide that we're going to have a different funding amount when the public is seeing this two million dollars? Obviously the working group has decided on this two million dollars and where does council actually get to decide on this? Mayor Wilkie: And the councillors will speak to the amendment. Councillor Giselle. Councillor Finzel: Is the opportunity, given we're at this decision making place, we've arrived here today,
02:56:00 we have to, in my opinion, make a decision one way or the other. Where does council, does it come back to council for us to actually make the decision around the amount of funding that we need? Will that be allocated? Will that be brought to us as in a report? Or will that be through the budget process? Or what is the process after your negotiations with TM around the dollar value? I think we're all seeking confidence today given the pressure from the community that we heard and we listened way back as far as our campaign to run and represent our community today and be transparent in our concerns. I think we're all seeking confidence today given the pressure from the community that Yes, it's a question. Do the CEOs know at what point does the $2 million, I don't know, the question is, is the $2 million a figure that can be changed?
02:57:00 Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor. The report makes a recommendation for option two. Option two has a figure of $2 million attached to that as a recommendation. The report is also based on the DMP and the actions out of the DMP. The DMP was only decided on Monday in terms of the actions. So yes, if you wish today to go down that path, in my opinion, my position would be yes, you could. What I propose is we go back to tourism. So understand exactly what the works and requirements are, what the figure is to deliver that, and bring that back to council. And that's very much what the recommendation or the resolution is attempting to say.
02:58:00 And we bring the terms and funding opportunities back. Now, that requires you to then say, well, we're not accepting, we can accept the roadmap, but not the funding. And the funding is a separate piece that comes back at a future meeting for you to decide. So that's what I'm, that's what is possible to do. Mayor Wilkie: So just a clarifying question. So if we approve the motion, sorry, not this amendment, the motion as it stands, we're committing to the roadmap as it stands, option two, which basically is that TM deliver this range of proposed services. The indicative cost is $2 million a year. Perhaps more if extra services are going to be offered. And there's a three, there's a three-year implementation plan. We endorse that, the roadmap today, that's what you'll go away and come back with after talking to the news in terms of the deed, when you agree the final terms, and council will decide in February, whether they accept that or not, that'll be the other decision for you.
02:59:00 Speaker 3: I think that the, the only piece for that is that the recommendation is, says $2 million. So if you want to make a, make a part of your amendment or resolution that, that you don't accept that $2 million at this point, but to accept that future report that, that outlines what the potential costs for those services are, then that's, that's a safer way to go, if you like, in, in, in terms of the position we're in. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Mayor Wilkie: I'm allowing it because it talks to funding, which is instrumental to, central to what is being proposed by this amendment.
03:00:00 Speaker 3: Councillor, I can't say whether it will be more or less, but what it will be is more properly costed and understood at that point. But again, more than likely we'd be looking to understand exactly what it is and you would get a costing against each of the actions and then it's a decision for council as to whether you accept those actions. Mayor Wilkie: So far only Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie and Wilson have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I do. I'm going to start off with the formation of the working group. It's made up of Tourism Noosa board member, Tourism Noosa CEO.
03:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. There was no mention of the working group in the debate. A close should only respond to what was raised in debate or it will close what's in there. It's bringing a new business into a close which is not permitted by the standing orders. Mayor Wilkie: That is true, Councillor Stockwell. Please sit down, Councillor Lorentson. There was no mention of the working group in the amendment. So we'll amend your comments, not mention the working group. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So in my opening speech I talked about risk. So I'm going to continue on that basis. The options analysis and the roadmap carries a risk. Risk of bias due to the composition of the working group who possessed the potential models. There was no independent or community representation.
03:02:00 While the analysis is professional in appearance, the absence of external scrutiny, independent oversight and the level of detail I hope we do support this. We've been put in a really extraordinary position today to make a decision without the information that we need to make an informed decision. I am going to reference, because it's not once but quite a few times that Mayor Wilkie makes mention to delay and obstruction or deferment. I want to really make clear that requesting information or requesting a complete report is not obstruction, it's not delaying, it's not deferment.
03:03:00 It's due diligence, it's good governance and it's doing our job. Doing what's required under the Local Government Act and doing what we get paid to do to represent the voices of our people. To make decisions, the most informed decisions that we can in the best interest of the community. So please Mayor Wilkie I ask that you refer from referring to delay, defer or obstruction tactics when all the Councillors are asking for is complete information, robust information. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. I'll use my casting vote. The amendment is lost. Anyone else wish to try and speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: I'd like to move to move an amendment please.
03:04:00 Pat Spicer: You don't want to read that out? Mayor Wilkie: Yes please Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Right. That item B may be amended to read B. Agree to the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Attachment 1 as the guiding framework in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa Roadmap. Agree to the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Attachment 1 as the guiding framework in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa Roadmap. As outlined in Tourism Noosa Roadmap, to align with the Destination Management Plan, DMP, as the immediate and primary service delivery model, however, noting Council has just completed the DMP, the specific actions, programs and services to be delivered, final funding amount and terms are subject to further discussion.
03:05:00 DMP deliverables, funding and terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. Speaker 4: Someone care to second that? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, question to the Chair first. Is the amendment in front of us ultra-virus?
03:06:00 What do you mean by that? Councillor Finzel: Well, it's... Councillor Lorentson: Does it negate the intent of the original motion? Mayor Wilkie: Not from what I can see. Speaker 3: The original motion, sorry, if I can speak. The original motion refers to bringing the report back in February in terms of the agreement. So this is really just refining that. Pat Spicer: In my mind. Mayor Wilkie: Would someone like to second this for the purpose of debate? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel, you have the floor.
03:07:00 Councillor Finzel: Well, firstly, this whole process has put us all in a challenging position. I want to say that first. It's been a long road. I wish it had arrived at a different intersection today. It's been very distressing on everyone involved. I want to say that. I think when we talk about psychosocial hazards in the workplace and the pressure that this has put us under at the end of the year in a short amount of time, not just us, our community, that have contacted me, and a short amount of time to read the plethora of documents presented before us, the legal challenges, the transparency challenges, you know, it's a lot. However, today I'm choosing to put this amendment up to help you with some clarity and progress this forward
03:08:00 with the intent to try and provide leadership in a very difficult environment. I think that we have found ourselves up against the wall in December, I might add, right before Christmas. You know, I, anyway, we're just going to try and get some leadership around this table and I bring this forward for debate to see if we can progress it any further. Mayor Wilkie: That's all I want to say. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel, could you actually explain the, oh. Just explain to me how the, how the changes, what, what, what you're changing about the original recommendation? Councillor Finzel: The intent? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Well, I think it's trying to just bring debate around the table to try and bring to the light that the $2 million amount of funding through the deed, like, is not what we're deciding today.
03:09:00 It, we're agreeing to the road map, in my opinion, so that then that allows the agreement with Tourism Noosa to continue. That has to come to a conversation, from my understanding, correctly, if I'm wrong, to the CEO. We can't move forward, apparently, based on legal advice, that, you know, that's where we're at. We can't change that. Is that correct? That's the given. So how do we inch ourselves? How do we move ourselves towards an outcome that can progress the conversation around aligning a future agreement with TN as the preferred person, or organisation, and provide opportunity for the amount and whatever's agreed on to come back to Council in February? I think I've got this right, correct me if I'm wrong.
03:10:00 Yes. For Council to make a decision around funding for TN. In alignment with the DMP, to deliver some actions to our community to say we are pressing this forward because we ultimately want to see the Noosa we love looked after for future generations. Now, I don't know how else we're going to move forward today. There's a lot of complexities in the matter. So, I just invite councillors to have a debate around the table and see where we arrive. Mayor Wilkie: I want to thank Councillor Finzel for all this amendment. But it goes to the fundamental difficulty that we face when we receive input from the community about how much money tourism Noosa offers.
03:11:00 And what we would like them to receive for the services they provide and also for the services we would like them to provide. Some around this table and some in the community want tourism Noosa to receive no funding or less funding. Some want the same funding. Some want an increase in funding. What this does, this motion, is it takes us away from saying, making a call and saying, yes, we're endorsing option two, and for option two, the indicative costs are $2 million. So, make a decision, you support that or not. This says endorse option two, but we may not agree to a figure. And it leaves tourism Noosa in the uncertain position of not knowing how much they may end up, whether it be enough for them to be sustainable beyond February.
03:12:00 So, because of the uncertainty inherent in this and, again, the delay in delivering that certainty, I won't be supporting this amendment because I don't know how other councillors feel. If you support the $2 million as proposed in the roadmap, then vote for it. If you don't, vote against it. And that's legitimate. So, I'm quite comfortable with the original recommendation because it gives certainty of funding. And it helps us just get on with it. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, a question to the CEO. From the responses to questions presented to you prior, please clarify if I've got this wrong. That I felt that this gives us the opportunity to endorse the roadmap, to give...
03:13:00 Is that right? To endorse the roadmap. Agreed. To give the certainty to TM. So, they need that certainty to progress forward. I don't believe this amendment supports... Is this a question or are you debating? Does this support a locked-in figure of $2 million or does it support a negotiation at the table for TM and you guys to come together, look at what they want to deliver within an amount of money that's unbeknown to us yet? That's agreed upon. It comes back before us to make a decision around funding and services. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Constance. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Karen Brown. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Yes, you're correct. So, what we're proposing here is that we agree that the tourism roadmap so that then we can... The second tranche of funding for tourism Noosa for this current deed could be progressed
03:14:00 as long as the KPIs are met. We still have to finalise those as we talked about in there. But then it also... What it does is that we endorse the... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We endorse option two as a guiding framework and then we negotiate, we come back with what does that mean in terms of the actions, the KPIs and the potential cost for that, again, for debate and discussion and decision in February. That's the... If that makes it clear. Councillor Wilson: I'll speak to it. Professor Wilson. I think... Back to Councillor Wegener's question. Maybe part of the problem here is that some of the new text hasn't been shaded red. So, one of the key things for me is that it says, Council has just completed the DMP.
03:15:00 So, the specific actions, programmes and services to be delivered and the final funding amount in terms are subject to further consideration. So, I think that's a strong addition here. That means we're not locked into that figure of $2 million because they were still costing to be done. It simply gives Tourism Noosa assurance that they are the primary service delivery model, but without costing what that primary service model is, we're not committing to the figure. So, I think this... Thank you. ...strengthens the original amendment. It means that we're not actually endorsing any funds today for any particular period, but we are saying there will be an ongoing amendment. So, I think that's a strong relationship with TN if this is supported. I believe in the resolution in May last year, we ended up with some parts that gave unintended consequences of things that maybe could never have been delivered.
03:16:00 And therefore, I think any additional clarity that really separates parts of the process is really important. So, I support this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to it. With the funding, I totally get where you're coming from, but we are giving the... We have to make a decision for Tourism Noosa now. Our weakness and where we've come unstuck is we didn't give surety in the past, and I wanna give surety now. I want them to feel confident to be funded right off the bat so we can start this now.
03:17:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. With all due respect I think that we should be also considering what's important to our community, not just Tourism Noosa. I am in support of the motion amendment in front of us and I think it's a really good middle ground. It doesn't commit us to funding. It requires that we get more information before we actually make any decisions. Councillor Wegener: Question? Without committing to funding are we doing anything at all? I mean committing to adopting the DMP without funding means nothing. Question? That is the question. Is it enough to...
03:18:00 To agree to the road map but not agree to any funding? Speaker 3: From my discussions with Tourism Noosa I believe it is. I believe that we've got the ability to... What it gives them is some surety between now and July 1 or June 30 for the second tranche of funding. And the negotiation, we've taken the position where as a guiding framework we accept that they are... The relationship that we need to continue with and we'll work through what that looks like based on the DMP and based on the fact that it's only just come through the system in terms of what's to be delivered and what the terms would be. So I believe that this will be acceptable. That's my understanding. I can't speak for them. Councillor Wegener: Good. So there's not much of a change at all as far as the funding goes with this. Is that right? Or it's assumed that there's a $2 million funding straight off the bat with the previous.
03:19:00 So how does this change the funding model going forward between here and February? Speaker 3: What it does is basically says to deliver the DMP as best we knew beforehand, the costing was around $2 million is what was provided back from Tourism Noosa. What we're saying now is let's... Now we know what the DMP is. Let's actually assess that in more detail so we actually understand exactly what each of the elements is and bring it back. And then you've got the ability to agree or not agree to each of those elements. So to Councillor Finzel's point as well, it is back to almost a procurement exercise as well. Here's the pieces that we want. How much does each piece cost? We decide and work it through. Okay. Okay. And that way you'll be able to assess how much money you're going to spend or have to spend in order to deliver what you want or not.
03:20:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question. If we go with the original motion which has the recommendation for the $2 million individual cost and you go back to Tourism Noosa and by February you've worked through the costs and whatever, is it likely to be... Is it locked into being $2 million or could there be other... Speaker 3: Could it be another fee? Just a second. Okay. No, that's what I'm saying. But this amendment is saying we're not locked in. We need to work that through and we have to make a decision. And if they need to make a case for each of these pieces. So to be honest, I'm comfortable with this as an amendment. I think this meets the needs and gives us the ability, which we always wanted to do, but timeframes and getting this through hadn't allowed us to do. But this gives us a bit more time to do that. We need actually to work it through and come back to some more detail. It's really just giving us the ability to finalise the 12 month funding agreement, the deed, and also to say, well, Tourism Noosa is the body that we believe has got the ability to, at this point, the ability to help us with the DMP.
03:21:00 What that means is we just need to now really knock down and come back to you in February with a further plan. Mayor Wilkie: So if this is yours, the figure that you may come back with may be $2 million, maybe more, maybe less. Speaker 3: And I can't... You've seen... Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. Yeah, it could vary. Speaker 3: Yeah, you've seen... We don't know what the cost is. You've seen the breakdown of costings in our workshops of what Tourism Noosa spend on various parts currently. So all I can say is that needs to be further scrutinised or further itemised and based on the DMP. So, you know, we've got quite a lot of detail, but we don't have the final detail, and that's what I'd like to be able to do for February. Will you be able to... Will you be doing that if the other motion gets up?
03:22:00 No. The other motion? The original? The original motion. No. That would commit us to... Well, that would... We'd still bring it back in February, but we committed to an actual number. This... We've got an A number, or numbers, that you can then decide upon. So we're not locking ourselves in. Mayor Wilkie: So it commits us to following through and delivering option two, which is the Evolved TN model. Yep. Evolved TN model, and whatever that may cost. And that's what you'll come back with in February, as opposed to with the other one, it's locked into TNURF. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I like that then. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we need a bit of clarity, because I know councils are feeling under pressure, and I know emails flying from community are suggesting that staff are driving this.
03:23:00 Councillors, staff recommended to us that the existing funding deed require a tourism nurse road map by February. Very strongly recommended to us. Okay. It was councillors who gave advice to staff to say, no, the fiduciary duties of the Board of Tourism and Nursing, we need to have this by December. When we made that decision, we didn't perceive that there'd be such an extended period of negotiations. And those negotiations have resulted in what's in front of us, and we need to have this by December. And we've been subject to very detailed spreadsheets provided by Tourism and Nursing on page 14. You can see how they've allocated what they think is the core funding, and of just over
03:24:00 $3 million. And of that, they're suggesting $2 million would be needed from council to provide those core services. And that's really what option two is. The chances of that coming any lower from the advice we've been given are low, because we've got a company limited by guarantee that has certain requirements that generate the need for a certain amount of core funding to continue on. The way I read this motion, there is a key difference. Because we're not approving and only agreeing, it probably draws into question compliance with the existing funding deed. And it probably means we have to then get the written agreement of Tourism and Nursing
03:25:00 before 31 December to go down this track. If that written agreement doesn't come, we're technically in breach. That's the risk. We've got acceptance that this is a reasonable way forward, probably gives us some reassurance that it could happen, but I don't think if councils are voting this because they think there's going to be a significant cut and they'll be able to go back to the community saying we've achieved that. We've already done those negotiations and we already know what the answer is, that for the services that we think we want it's going to be around that much. So while I'm neither here nor there, I do think we have to be really realistic that the time pressure was the result of the decision we made as councils a number of months ago.
03:26:00 It is all linked to this whole process of funding which we have had continuing short term. The whole purpose of the roadmap was trying to give that security if we're going down this path. So, thank you. That's where we're at and as I said, I'm neither here nor there on the amendment. I think the first option is in accordance with the funding agreement. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: To the CEO, the semantics between approve and agree to, there seems to be quite a difference between the two. Agree to is a guiding framework. Speaker 3: Thank you. But in the, sorry. Through the Chair. In the deed, it requires us to agree the roadmap by 31st of December. So that's why we've changed it to that term, agree.
03:27:00 That allows me to then continue through. Again, it's the roadmap as well as the KPIs before we can provide the second tranche. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Thompson. Question to the CEO. Just a follow up from what Councillor Stockwell just referred to. Agreeing to. To this amendment, as I've understood from Councillor Stockwell, is there is a very slim likelihood that that $2 million, given the work that's been done in terms of what is core service delivery for tourism user, that $2 million isn't really going to change much, am I correct? Speaker 3: Based on the information and you've all seen the spreadsheets, based on that, that's where it's at. But I'm, I can't say that it's going to change much. I can't say whether it will or won't, but that's, you know, that's what tourism nursery is saying is, is required to, to, to run their business. I think there's, there's an ability to negotiate, but I can't, I can't say whether we, you know, and again, it comes back to what do we want.
03:28:00 There's pieces in there that, there are elements, and we say, well, we want those, but we don't want that, and that could come down, that could change the funding model as well. Councillor Lorentson: So, accepting the amendment in front of us, we may essentially be agreeing to, again, what was the original, maybe a little bit less, 1.8, maybe a little bit more, we don't know. So, we're agreeing to, the, the amendment in front of us, we're agreeing to something that we don't know. I figure we, we, we don't know. Speaker 3: That's, that's, that's correct, but it's also, what it's agreeing to is the ability for us to go back and, and understand exactly what the elements that we want from the DMP, and what each of those cost, and whether we're prepared to actually pay for those elements. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, just a quick question. So, I've understood that those actions are additional costs, not core business. So, there was $1.3 million identified in the agreement as, um, actions to be con, con, confirmed in terms of funding sources.
03:29:00 Speaker 3: None of those have been agreed by us. Okay. Councillor Woodson. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I think we're, we're coming around in circles with conflicting advice here, because when we asked earlier, we were told, even in the original recommendation, we're not locked into $2 million, but now it's sounding like we are. But the, the original Part D said, request the CEO to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms, um, in February 2026, so there was still further negotiation, even though, as I've said, lots of documents refer to the $2 million, but that wasn't locked in, or it is? Speaker 3: Well, in my opinion, it wasn't. This clarifies it a bit, I think. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Can I, um. Councillor Finzel: Oh, there's a question. Can I, um. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Um, given Councillor Stockwell's comment around that we may be in breach of the current agreement, can we get some clarity on that?
03:30:00 Because I certainly don't want to be putting up anything that puts us in a position where we're breaching the current agreement, so I'm not comfortable now unless we get clear, clarity on that, because I'll withdraw that. Yeah. Speaker 3: So, what we need is for, um, written agreement between the two parties that, that, um, that we can push it out to February. Oh, yes. I have, I have confidence that that, that will happen in my discussions, um, and all that. That's all I can say, but I have confidence that they, they understand that, and that they're willing to, to accept that. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Stockwell. Um, through the Chair, that didn't really satisfy me. Are we in breach of the current agreement with the wording on this amendment?
03:31:00 Speaker 3: No, we're not currently in, in, in breach of the agreement because it says we need to be, it needs to be, um, in writing from both parties. So, until that's not agreed, we're not in breach. It's my intention. Councillor Finzel: What? Yeah, can you say something? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, just that the clause that I read said we have to agree to the terms and the, the funding for those terms for that period, which would be three years, according to this report, um, unless otherwise agreed in writing. And what the CEO is saying is he feels that that agreement in writing is a likelihood. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. From the advice given to him. We can push it out to February. By December, by December 31st. Speaker 3: We're not in by 31st December, but we'll push it out to February. It's a decision. Before we agree the, the actual funding. Yes. Councillor Finsnell. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So it sounds like there's a risk if this goes out in the current wording. And the risk is that it will still proceed to over 2 million dollars.
03:32:00 Pat Spicer: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Is that, do you identify that as a risk? It's an unknown. Is that a risk? I'm concerned now about breach and risks and gaps, which are huge. Speaker 3: I don't, firstly, I don't believe that, I think it's a very, very, very, very small risk because of my discussions with Drew and Musa, and I don't believe we're in breach. And there's also, within the deed, there's opportunities for dispute, for resolution of dispute. So I'm confident that we can, if that happened, we could come to that agreement fairly quickly. So I'm not, I think this is a reasonable path forward. Councillor Wilson: Question? I think I asked this back in May. Clause 2.10 says, and this is potentially where we're at, in the event the roadmap is mutually agreed by the parties, but not yet endorsed,
03:33:00 which is why we've got agreed rather than... That's right. Why we've got agreed. By 31st of December, Council may, in its absolute discretion, acting reasonably to allow continued operations, elect to pay the further funding, which is the $800,000, where the KPIs have been achieved, which we don't know yet. I remember asking, when it says by the parties, who does that mean, and how do you have that mutually agreed? Because we've just said now it has to be in writing, but that's not clear from this. So how do we mutually agree, and who are the parties that make that agreement? Director Rawlings: The wording of the agreement is very specific, to anticipate this scenario. So it says two things, it says that the roadmap needs to be mutually agreed. The roadmap has been mutually agreed, it's been reported to Council as mutually agreed by the CEO of Noosa Council,
03:34:00 the Chair of Tourism Noosa. So that component's been met. Your component is whether or not you want to endorse it or not. The wording was very specifically crafted on that basis, because of this potential scenario. There was a second part to that question, sorry Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I think you may have covered it, but I said how is it mutually agreed, so you've just said by bringing it to Council, and who are the parties. Director Rawlings: The parties are the signatories of the funding agreement, and it's signed by the CEO and the CEO of both organisations. The endorsing of the roadmap is Council's decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that's one clause, the clause I was referring to is separate, can you just clarify? Director Rawlings: Yes, the clause, the second clause is that discussions about any, the current agreement is a 12 month agreement,
03:35:00 expires on the 30th of June 2026. There's a clause in there that says discussions must be undertaken in, starting in November, on any, on potential for a further funding agreement. And provide, should I have the agreement in front of me? Yeah, thanks Nicola, thank you, that would be helpful. Speaker 4: Term of that agreement. Director Rawlings: Thank you. So the parties will commence discussions after the 1st of November 2025, which has happened, regarding a potential further term, funding for the further term, and the terms on which the funding may be provided, and will conclude those discussions by the 31st of December. So we have to have had discussions around any potential further term or funding agreement, funding by, and advised by the 31st of December.
03:36:00 Unless, that is, there is mutual agreement in writing to something else, which is what the CEO has referred to, that mutual agreement in writing, potential. There's a third clause that says if Council does not intend to provide further funding, or a further funding agreement, we must advise Tourism Noosa by the 31st of December. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Thanks. I'm sorry, I was expecting this. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, do you have a question? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that's clarified where we're at. No. No. Mayor Wilkie: Alright. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, look, through the Chair, look, I'm not, I think I'm going to withdraw this, because I'm not comfortable, it doesn't give us a surety, you know, I'm not certain where Tourism Noosa want to sit, what they're prepared to agree to. We've seen their figures, we've seen their projections.
03:37:00 You know, by endorsing a DMP, we certainly sent a strong message that we preferred them as that provider. You know, however, where they're going to meet on that negotiation with the CEO is not in front of me. The risk is that if we, you know, rely on them to have an agreement in writing that we might not reach. You know, I think, for me, that's risky. I am not in that negotiation. I am not legally trained. What I am is a representative of my community, and they clearly stated, through the campaign and on several things, that they are not interested in having status quo, revolving door, that money just going through. We haven't met KPIs. Some of them, we haven't met. Yeah, given those things, I'm pulling this because I'm not confident that moving forward
03:38:00 that we're going to even get. The intent of this was to try and progress it, to minimise risk, and to ensure our community that we've debated around the table and tried to take every step available to us today in a very challenging situation. I don't think that this is going to deliver what my intent was. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener, do you have a seconder? Do you consent to the motion being, the amendment being withdrawn? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. It has to be in the hall. It has to be in the hall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I had the agreement cancelled, so. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And all in favour? That's Councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie against. Councillor Wilson, that is withdrawn. We go back to. Councillor Lorentson: No. It has to be consented by the whole council to be withdrawn. Yes. Oh. Director Walsh: No. Councillor Lorentson: There's the standing order. Yes. With the consent of the seconder and. Mayor Wilkie: The councillor shall not speak.
03:39:00 I don't think it has to be 100%. The seconder and councillor. That's a majority, isn't it? A majority. A majority? Yes. Yes. A majority. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Going back to the clause before 3.1. The parties will commence discussions after 1st November 2025 regarding potential further term funding for the further term and the terms on which that funding may be provided will conclude these discussions by 31st December 2025. When we said earlier that we weren't agreeing or endorsing funding today, that sounds pretty much like we have to. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes.
03:40:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so so far only myself has spoken to the original motion, which is as the amendment added about the lending. Can we go back to the... I'm just trying to... Thank you, Councillor. Okay, this is the motion as it currently is before us, Councillors. Councillor Finzel: Can we just have a break before we go to that point? Mayor Wilkie: Councillors, would you consent to have a break? We have been going for a while. It is past lunchtime too, so 15 minutes this time.
03:56:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Welcome back everybody. We're now, we have a five-part motion before us and to which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Who else wish to speak? We'll move an amendment. Councillor Wilson.
03:57:00 Councillor Wilson: I'd like to move an amendment please. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Let item F be added to read. Request that in relation to item D, Council's Procurement Department lead the development of any future funding agreements. Councillor Finzel: I'd be happy to second for debate. Mayor Wilkie: I'm sorry. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilson: We've had a lot of going around in circles today trying to establish what exactly we're voting on today. Whether it's just a road map, a future relationship, funding, how many years, what amount. I said earlier and I'll say more about this later, but I think the motion that we, the resolution from May 2025 put us into a position of maybe some conflicting parts. And then a funding agreement was rolled over from the previous one and then tried to pick up the parts of this resolution.
03:58:00 We've had some conflicting. Advice and ideas today about whether that funding agreement has put us into a position where we have to decide on funding today. And I'm just really concerned about the risk that it's put us under. It's clear from the amount of hours that this has gone on today that no one really seems to know exactly what we're approving under this resolution today and where the decision about funding will be made. Usually if we're spending. Amounts of $2 million or more over a multi-year agreement, we use our procurement team, as Councillor Lonson said earlier, to do the assessment and evaluation, but also to draft a supplier agreement. And while this isn't technically a supplier agreement, it's very similar to one. And therefore, I've been saying for a while that I think our procurement team should certainly be involved in that development. Obviously, with input from various parts of the organisation, from finance, from everyone.
03:59:00 But just keeping a bit removed from the people who've been involved in negotiations, I think that's best practice to have that kind of other level of governance. And so while it's not completely clear if we're talking about a future funding agreement today, yeah, rather than just roll this agreement over, I'd really prefer that we start with a new agreement that's kind of based on our standard supplier agreements and then tweaked for whatever we need to do in terms of the roadmap and the DNP. Mayor Wilkie: Question, CEO. Isn't Council's procurement department involved in all funding agreements with Council, along with governance and finance and procurement already involved? Speaker 3: As Councillor Wilson said, this one's a little bit different because it's been a relationship agreement as opposed to a strictly.
04:00:00 Service agreement as such, and that's something that we've been looking to do going forward. Anyway, I've been pushing is that it is more of a service agreement, but that's the evolution of our relationship with Tourism Noosa over many years has become this sort of rollover and all because of the way the funding was allocated, but also just the relationship that was built to deliver. So that's where it's sort of gone to. I know when. When. Scott Waters was here, he moved the dial a little bit more towards KPIs and whereas in the past it wasn't even that strict, but we've got more KPIs and then it's gradually been evolved from there with my involvement as well. So I'm comfortable with that, it's just whether they lead it or whether they, in all of our service agreements, we, they're a service provider, so they're part of it and they provide that service to us, but it's led by the experts or the people who are involved.
04:01:00 So. Support. Support. I'm comfortable with that. I absolutely think that they should be involved and that's a, that's a really good point. So I'm not, I'm not carrying a dispute or, or. Councillor Wilson: Sorry, just to answer Wilkie's question. They're not currently involved, is that correct? In this agreement? Speaker 3: They haven't been at this point. We've had legal advice, absolutely. Lots of legal advice, but, but not, you know, and that sort of is inherent in the, in the legal advice is the procurement advice as well, to make sure that we don't step outside the bounds, but yeah. But in terms of the actual procurement department. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All right. Councillor Wilson: I'm happy to amend that to support if that's, doesn't change it too much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to agree to that. I think that's a good change. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Can we change up these KPIs? Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
04:02:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support the amendment. I think it just gives another level of probity and governance and audit assurances. And, you know, for expenditure of this significance, again, $2 million. It's not our money. It's community funds. I think this is a really good addition. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you, Councillor Wilson, for bringing this to the table. I'm happy to support this. I think that any layer of extra eyes over governance and assuring to our community that, you know, processes are being adhered to and that, like, there's several layers of governance, I'm happy to support that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Yeah. Of course, of course we support it. And I think the change from LEAD, the Development of Future Summit, coming around to support is a really wise one.
04:03:00 Obviously, the departments involved need to lead the discussions. And to have that procurement there and support is extremely wise. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm happy to support it. And just building on what the CEO was saying, I think they will have a, you know, procurement will have a very rigorous and, you know, very, you know, very, you know, very, you know, very, and, and, and, and finance and propobity type mindset, which is good. I think where else it might help is that where we, it'll depend on where we eventually wind up, end up with the potential additional actions. So if they are not built into the current funding agreements, the procurement may have the idea about how you would set the agreement up so that is a, a, at least an efficient process and allows them to do those extra tasks. So I will support it. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you.
04:04:00 Are there any more amendments? Anyone want to speak to the substandard motion? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The reason why this is a difficult decision is that we have a really diverse set of opinions in the community. And as we heard from those who are engaged enough to provide written comment into the Phase 2 of the Destination Management Plan, there is a sizeable body of people in our community who would not support this approach. And I can tell you that a lot of the people that I've heard very vocally advocating for that approach, a lot of them have been very long term supporters of this approach.
04:05:00 And I think that's why I look up my role as a councillor. So it's really important that I take the time to explain why I think I understand that they see that defunding tourism nursery as a lever to address over tourism and why I don't think that's a wise move. And there's another whole group in the community who just see an amount of money and think, well, that could be better served from fixing potholes. And we know that a previous amendment will try and look at an outcome so that people are really aware that this is an amount of money as part of the overall pie for economic development and that those who pay those rates have not raised opposition to it. And so why I think on a big picture it's important to follow the roadmap is we've got a very significant
04:06:00 analogy, an aircraft carrier, which we call the visitor economy in Noosa. It's been one of the biggest economic boats we've had for a long time. And what I think just pulling the pin would do would be setting that adrift so that the visitor economy will rock back and forward with tides and currents. And if there's no energy in it, when there's a storm coming, you won't be prepared. So why I think we should be investing in a local tourism organisation is I think the DNP sets a new destination for that boat. And I think the whole crew has to be on the boat to make that change of direction. And I think we should be investing in it. You can't put out a strategy and then hope to achieve it. And the level of support for a number of actions, which the industry will be better for, will
04:07:00 be quite clear. And that's what we list in this. The roadmap lists some of them. And what are those actions? And so I suppose, to me, it also brings in this concept of not having consultation. I don't need any more specific questions going out to the public and saying, do you support this amount of money? Because I don't need any more specific questions going out to the public and saying, do you support this amount of money? Because it's sought support for different functions to achieve a different outcome for our destination. I'm going to lead that back to what the lessons learned from our global benchmarking from the experts in the field set.
04:08:00 Number one was, in terms of the function, form follows function. Organisational structures and governance should be shaped by the task and priorities outlined in destination plans. So I understand there's been a very short timeframe between adopting the destination management plan and having the contractual obligation to make a decision. But it's clear from that, and to me, that there is these tasks and there's a subset of these tasks which is more effectively delivered by industry in association with Council and other community. And that then we just have to make the decision, is Tourism Noosa the best vehicle to undertake that? And we did look at the other options in terms of, do we just rely on a regional tourism organisation? Do we go out to the, just to brand management and have a small group of tasks? And that's what the appendix analysis done. And I'm quite happy to make a decision based on the scoring and the analysis of those different
04:09:00 options. The next one is cultural change is crucial. And within the roadmap is really a guide for how Council is suggesting investment should lead to cultural change. And it's really an evolution rather than a major change to tourism, the industry, and to the organisation. Evolution over revolution. That was another one that came back. All the successful ones were tourism destinations that have evolved to a point where they're now world's best practice. And we gave one example of where they tried to make a significant change in the way they delivered it. And they were successful in that transformation. So that's one example. Partnerships matter. Effective collaboration between Council, tourism organisation, communities, and other stakeholders. And that's another area where I think the, we've had that discussion this morning, is the partnership model is basically the destination stewardship council.
04:10:00 The local tourism organisation is part of the service provider to achieve some of the actions in the DMP. But they are a partner. Okay. For example, the local tourism organisation is part of the service provider to achieve And investment, and that's what we're talking about now, being the driver of this, trying to get more than year after year and constantly having to run up against deadlines for this funding, and no one size fits all. So they're the key messages that came out of our global benchmarking, and while I understand all the queries and comments today, I have enough within what's in this roadmap, and it's what we've heard in our numerous workshops to say that, yeah, option two. Is the best fit at this point in time. I think once we get the Stewardship Council moving to a more collaborative service delivery model, may also, that's option four, may also be a thing that we consider in years to come.
04:11:00 So I'm happy to approve the tourism destination map, and to get the fine details sorted out in February. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We are supposed to speak for our players. Councillor Wegener: You go ahead. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson, Councillor Finzel. Speaker 1: Oh, I can do it, go on. Councillor Wegener: All right. This is a typical Tom speech. A great mayor said that a nice place to live is a nice place to visit, and that is Noosa. But there's a threat. And the threat is from the... That this is, may be deteriorating, it's a nice place to live, there's a threat out there, and the presidents have let us know about this threat, and it's come through loud and clear, and we've listened, and we have taken on the threat of over-tourism, of over-population around us, and we've taken action, and that is the Destination Management Plan.
04:12:00 We have actually done what a good council does. You learn about the threat. You study it. You create an answer, and we have endorsed the Destination Management Plan, and now we need to get it going, to enable it, and so today we're looking at the roadmap, the Tourism Noosa Roadmap, and that is what we're counting on to enable the destination, the DMP, and there's good groups. We have a very, very big group of groups that are stumbling a little bit. It's been a long morning, but the groups that are for this, of course, the Tourism Noosa, the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, ZEN, they're all on board. They want the Destination Management Plan.
04:13:00 They want to make Noosa a better place. They see the threat out there, and they want to improve it, and that's what we're doing here today, with the roadmap. Some say we don't need this visitation, the tourism. And I think that we do need the visitor economy. When I came here in 1998, I was, I started making surfboards. In 2001, we bought a house on the back of making surfboards, and we sold surfboards to the locals, and we exported some overseas, but the cream of the crop of our surfboard making, of my business, was the visitors that would come to Noosa, pour a bucket of money on my kitchen table, they would stay and surf for a couple of days, and then enjoy Noosa, and that's the visitor economy in my lifetime, and that really helped me. And that's the visitor economy in my lifetime, and that really helped me. I met the Majestic Theater, where I volunteer, and they're in the same situation, where on, well, first of all, the Majestic Theater is run by the Pomona Arts Incorporation, and they run the markets in Pomona, and the Majestic Theater, and it's a top-class organization, and the theater itself is in great nick, and it's an incredible value to the community, the theater.
04:14:00 You have little seats. All these other community groups using this fantastic theater that is not funded by council. It is privately funded through the arts. And what is the cream of the air? They need visitation. On Saturday morning, I'm there and you have 40 people show up for the silent movie at 12 o'clock. And they pay $15 a piece and they buy $20 worth of food and drink while they're there. And it's a great organization. But we need visitors. We actually have a visitor economy. And without that, we're going to be very compromised, just like my own business.
04:15:00 So I want to make sure that the next generation has the same opportunities that I had. And that's why I ran for council. Because I understand that we need to maintain this place. A nice place to live is a nice place to visit. And that is where the volume of our wealth comes from. That is the basis of our economy. And I want to make sure that the next generation has this. And so I believe that the roadmap supports and will help us maintain the Noosa that we love so much today. And it will support the destination management plan. And we have listened to the community and we are acting accordingly. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener, yeah.
04:16:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, sure. Thank you. Thank you all the staff, TN, our community and my fellow councillors around the table. You know when this all started, I was really excited. I thought it's great. Transformational change. A vision we can project for to be proud of. Where we're projecting through our organisation and through our community a new generation that can cultivate and coordinate principles that are not driven by a command and control model. Transformational change via the DMP is timely. Call to action remains necessary to address Noosa being overloved and we all agree on that. Presently there's some uncertainty within the community which remains unaddressed around transparency, funding and process.
04:17:00 Our community looks to us for bold leadership to represent their voice in our community. And gendering trust is critical. A strong foundation is the anchor of every visionary transformation. Without clarity of purpose, shared understanding, and trusted relationships, even the most ambitious ideas struggle to take root. When we invest in solid organisational foundations, clear processes, open communication and a culture of learning we create the conditions where innovation can thrive rather than flicker out. That's how I felt today that there was a wind coming that could flicker out the flame of change and vision that everyone aspired to.
04:18:00 Fostering improved transparency, minimising reputational, financial and delivery around change facilitation. Each of us has a role in shaping the path ahead. When we align our strengths, share our insights and move with purpose, we turn vision into reality. So let's begin one informed step at a time. Toward a future where we design together, confident that our shared foundation will carry us there. A strong foundation isn't just a nice-to-have in times of change. It is the heart of governance. When people know the structures guiding our decisions are transparent, fair and well thought out, trust grows naturally.
04:19:00 And trust is what allows real collaboration to take hold. What we're building together isn't change for sake of change. It's shared future shaped by clear principles, open communication and accountability. That everyone can see and feel. When those foundations are sound, our residents don't have to guess what is happening or why. They can step forward with confidence. Collectively, let's keep strengthening the way we work. The way we listen and the way we decide. When we do that, visionary change stops being risky and starts becoming possible. A strong foundation of good governance is what makes visionary change feel not just possible,
04:20:00 but safe, shared and genuinely exciting. When people can see that the decisions are guided by clear principles, transparent processes, and considered accountability, trust stops being something we hope for and becomes something we build together. Reinforcing that governance culture doesn't require grand gestures starts with everyday habits. Creating open channels for honest feedback. Making decision-making criteria visible. And ensuring roles and responsibilities are clearly understood to help all people feel grounded rather than uncertain. These small signals show that the foundation beneath the change is steady. Deepening collaborative trust grows from similar practices.
04:21:00 We strengthen it when we share information early. When we invite diverse voices into planning. And when we follow through on commitments. Trust thrives where people feel heard, respected and included. This is our moment to move forward together. Informed, aligned and confident that the structures supporting us are sound. When heart sits at the centre of our work, trust stops being something we try to manufacture. And becomes something we naturally create. People feel it when decisions are made with care. When voices are genuinely welcomed. And when the purpose behind change is grounded and shared in shared humanity. This is the kind of foundation that makes collaboration not just effective, but inspiring.
04:22:00 A heart-led approach reminds us why we're here. To shape a sustainable future that supports everyone, not just a few. When we bring empathy into our governance. When we listen deeply. And when we honour the experience of each person. And collaboration then becomes a spark. One that ignites passion, creativity and commitment. Moving forward we strengthen this foundation. By inviting open dialogue. Sharing knowledge generously. And collaborating collective wins. These practices build trust that lasts. And fuels the momentum needed for meaningful, sustainable change. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel.
04:23:00 Councillor Finzel: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: You might need a little lean in. See if he's clear. I'm disappointed to say the least that we're in this position again. The same as we were a year ago and in May this year. Backed into a corner and up against a deadline that we knew was coming seven months ago. What I'm really disappointed about is that Councillor Phillips left for long planned leave on a Tuesday morning. Thinking that the key business for the year was wrapped up as we were told this wouldn't come to the December round. She's literally just sent me a message that she's only just found out this was happening today. This report dropped at 5pm Tuesday for decision this morning, this afternoon. We've had workshops on the progress of the roadmap and talked about some of the potential options. But we've not seen this analysis of the options or the report till Tuesday night. We're missing one of our decision makers. And we're missing good governance in this process. Having this come straight to the ordinary meeting with less than two days. The staff recommendation and council resolution of May 2025, in my opinion, put us into a predicament.
04:24:00 It predetermined there would be an ongoing relationship and funding agreement with TN. Even though we were supposed to only be making a decision on funding for the 2025-26 financial year. The resolution directed council and TN staff and board to agree future service levels, organisation efficiencies, revenue diversification plans via a roadmap. Essentially to come up with a variation on the status quo. No rethink of the model, a rebrand. Sprinkles. The CEO asked for my input on how to do this. How this could work. Short answer, it wouldn't without an objective person that's not involved with either organisation. Or affected by the decision. To take a step back and examine what TN can offer. How its current model is working and how that matches council's needs. We threw around some ideas of suitably qualified people that Larry knew. I'm just going to pause at this point and say at no point today in this four hours of discussion
04:25:00 have we had any criticism of TN. What TN actually offers. No one said pull the plug. No one said stop funding. This whole debate today has been about the process. About the uncertainty in the funding agreement. It's about the uncertainty in the resolution. Or in the recommendation and the resolution that was made last May. So there's been absolutely zero discussion about TN at all. And it just seems like this whole seven months has been about, I don't know, about why we're here. Anyway. The working group was formed between the council staff who made the recommendation. And the TN CEO on board most affected by the outcome. And I do completely appreciate all the work that they have done in good faith. EarthCheck was brought in to research other models internationally. Operating in different legislative and economic environments. We didn't see the scope of work or why certain locations were chosen to benchmark. But there does seem to be a bit of a focus on pushing the bed tucks. There's very little research on Australian LTOs and RTOs that the resolution required.
04:26:00 We're briefly told that Noosa Council's contribution of $34 per capita is higher than comparative reasons. Without stating what these are. And we move on with an inconvenient truth. So there's eight LTOs and eight RTOs researched. We're also told tourism in Noosa operates with the scale, staffing and economic impact closer to an RTO. Without saying why. Or whether it needs to given it's an LTO. Option two did not emerge as the preferred outcome. Because it was set out in the council resolution in May. A variation on the status quo. I'm not convinced the other options got as much consideration. The analysis we have now in terms of scoring is inconsistent across the options. So I can't rely on that to support a decision. The recommendation of option two sets a base of $2 million.
04:27:00 Which we've gone round in circles today of whether that's fixed. With events funded by council. So no real saving. No DMP initiatives are included in this amount. And the plastic free Noosa program is not included. So this model can't actually support an involved DMP allied option. An additional $400,000 is required to deliver on the DMP. And when we bring in CPI we're back where we started at $2.5 million. But there's more. The recommendation is to fund for three years. So there's over $7 million for rate paying. There will be no community or industry consultation specifically on this matter. No survey questions in the DMP directly asked about TN's funding over the next three years. There was strong support for a review of the current model. Respondents voluntarily made written submissions including comments on TN's funding. Overwhelmingly against funding or increasing funding TN. That's the only consultation we currently have.
04:28:00 And this recommendation is contrary to that. I'm not prepared to make a decision on a potential $7 million. With poor analysis. A roadmap that doesn't meet fully the requirements of the May resolution. And especially that has not seen consultation with industry stakeholders and residents. We still have no justification on this baseline of $2 million per year. Just the status quo. Nothing to support the future staffing structure. Identifying efficiencies or revenue diversification plans. Only that it's funded by business. But there could be so many other uses for the rates that businesses pay. To me this isn't a roadmap. It's a research paper. The roadmap should tell us how the preferred option will be implemented and what it will cost. We just have vague timelines that promise things like future revenue diversification. We've got subjective terms but no real evidence. Ratepayers money has been spent for the last seven years to arrive right back where we started. And I know that TN board members have given hundreds of hours of time for free. What do we need to do to get frank and fearless advice to make this decision?
04:29:00 This isn't about TN at all. It's just about councillors being constantly pushed into a corner and ethically compromised. I really don't want to delay. Seven months should have been enough. To produce a costed roadmap and carry out consultation in accordance with the main resolution. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lauritsen. Councillor Lorentson: Today we've been asked to endorse a preferred model and commit more than $2 million of community money without the necessary groundwork. As councillors we have a fiduciary responsibility. Under the Local Government Act to act in the best interest of the community. That requires us to test assumptions, understand financial exposure and make decisions based on clear evidence. Not to commit funding first and work out the details later. Yet the recommendation in front of us largely preserves the existing model and funding level.
04:30:00 With proposed improvements only to be developed after funding is secured. That reverses good governance practice and exposes in my opinion to council to unnecessary risk. Community sentiment has also been consistent. Many residents do not support significant funding allocations without transparency, oversight or strong accountability. Good governance requires that councillors are presented with the full range of options, clear costs and an independent assessment of risk. Before a model is endorsed. Anything less falls short of due diligence and the principles of transparency, responsibility and community interest embedded in the Local Government Act. The report itself provides only a high level overview of eight potential service delivery models. Without a substantive evaluation of the risk, trade-offs or long-term implications of each.
04:31:00 It does not adequately assess operational capacity. Costs, benefits and costs. It does not cover all of the relevant considerations, governance structures or accountability mechanisms. Roles, responsibilities and oversight remain unclear. And the proposed Destination Stewardship Council is insufficiently defined in terms of purpose, authority, membership and decision making. While the report references community consultation undertaken through the Destination Management Plan. It does not set out how community voices will be embedded in ongoing governance. There is no clear mechanism to ensure residents' concerns or expectations will shape Tourism Noosa's performance, priorities or oversight. The recommendation also in front of us commits significant base funding to Tourism Noosa before KPI thresholds and accountability measures are properly defined.
04:32:00 There are no explicit triggers for intervention. For example. If regenerative tourism outcomes or community expectations are not met. Creating both financial and reputational risk for Council. Overall, the report in front of us, again, which is only received less than 48 hours ago. Lacks the depth, analysis, transparency and meaningful independent and community representation required for such a significant financial and structural decision. Again. We're talking about $2 million of community funds. It leaves me as a councillor without the evidence needed to make a confident and informed choice about the future of tourism governance in Noosa. I support Tourism Noosa as the preferred body to deliver some of the actions in the Destination Management Plan.
04:33:00 That's not in question. What's in question today is the report. Until the gaps that I've just identified are addressed, I will not be supporting the recommendation. This is not about delaying progress. It's about ensuring that we get it right. When $2 million of community money is at stake, the community deserves better than a good enough report. They deserve a rigorous, transparent and accountable process. And so do I. Current analysis does not provide me with the information and confidence needed to make an informed decision. And therefore I won't be supporting the recommendation. Mayor Wilkie: Councillors, it's easy enough to say you support Tourism Noosa. You support Noosa having a future. And then the real test is whether you vote for the plan that addresses those things.
04:34:00 Words are nothing unless they're backed up with action. When faced with an uncertain future, we are going into uncharted territory. That's why we have a roadmap to help get us there. There are uncertainties. Things are unclear. There is extensive research and benchmarking that may not necessarily support your view. But it is sound benchmarking. It is an excellent standard of work. It's easy enough to pick holes if you don't want to support something. If you don't want to support something, don't support it. But to make out that this piece of work and the direction this council is going in is somehow in breach of the local government acts, requirements for transparency and governance is absurd.
04:35:00 Courage is needed to make decisions when there is uncertainty. We have excellent pieces of work through the DMP, which is reflected, the values of which are reflected in the Tourism Noosa roadmap. And we have expectation from people in this community, mainly in the tourism industry, who are community members, who have families at schools and sporting clubs, but who rely on a sustainable, long-term, regenerative tourism industry for us. They're putting their trust in us to make the right decision today. And that is that funding for a responsible and effective tourism marketing body continue. We've got a roadmap of how that can take place. For us to say that we support Tourism Noosa, we support giving Noosa a future, if you really mean it, you'll be voting for this motion before us. Otherwise, you'll be looked at as if your words are not worth the breath
04:36:00 that they require to push out of your body. I'm supporting this. All in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. Those against? That's Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel. I use my casting vote. The Tourism Noosa roadmap is being endorsed. We now move on to the next item. The next item on the agenda, which is 2020 item 12.3, Forward Event, Corrective Action and Status Update. We have Director of Corporate Services, Marg Gatt, here for this report. Could you please give us a summary of the report? Speaker 2: Thank you, through the Chair. Good afternoon, Councillors and our community members online. This report provides an update to the 16th of November, ordinary meeting on the significant fraud event of December 2024 by way of high-level analysis, lessons learned and corrective actions
12.3 2024 FRAUD EVENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND STATUS UPDATE ¶
04:37:00 implemented and being implemented. All relevant processes and operating procedures were immediately reviewed with additional internal controls implemented post the event to mitigate or minimise risk of any subsequent fraudulent events. The perpetrators, as mentioned in the previous report, used social engineering techniques that were sophisticated, strategic and targeted. While Council systems and services were not affected by this fraud, the incident did highlight non-compliance with some of our standard processes. Through our subsequent investigations, we have identified that there were elements of human error that contributed to some failures in our internal controls. I'll just provide a high-level overview of some of the analysis around our control environment. So we do have standard operating procedures designed to prevent fraudulent activity,
04:38:00 and these procedures incorporate key internal controls intended to safeguard financial processes and ensure compliance. Some of these include independent verification of supplier detail changes. Any changes to supplier details, such as bank account or contact details, or contact information, must be independently verified against the original request. This step ensures that updates are legitimate and authorised before being processed. changes to bank account details require formal oversight and approval from a designated approver. This provides segregation of duties and an additional layer of scrutiny to mitigate the risk of unauthorised or fraudulent alterations. A review. An audit log is also generated for every payment run and provided to the approver for review. This log serves as a critical control mechanism, enabling the approver to confirm the accuracy and integrity of the transactions prior to finalisation. Councillors, our staff have taken very seriously this incident.
04:39:00 It weighs heavily on not just individual staff members but the entire finance team, and we have had many conversations around the lessons learned from this very serious incident. So any of the following actions may have reduced the risk or prevented the fraud from occurring. Adherence to Council practice, whereby requests for changes to supplier contact details are verified with the supplier using the original contact details on file or through an independent search for contact details, often referred to as the vendor or master file. Verification of the sender's email to the supplier's email address from an independent source, such as the supplier's website, may have indicated the different syntax used in the email address, though this in itself may not have alerted Council to any anomalies without direct contact with the supplier. Also, requirement for inquiries from our bank regarding payments or questioning of it
04:40:00 to be escalated to a senior officer for action. In summary, these lessons highlight the importance of us consistently applying existing controls, enhancing verification processes and fostering a culture of vigilance to protect Council from similar incidents in the future. Following the fraud event, controls and procedures were reviewed and improved. In conjunction with the Queensland Audit Office recommendations, the following additional controls have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Implementation of a third party software protection that validates banking details, regular mandatory cyber security training for all staff. That cyber security, just to clarify, also includes social engineering and other identifying fraudsters. Development of an organisational policy and procedure, which articulates Council's commitment to ensuring accuracy, integrity and security of master file data,
04:41:00 and outlines Council processes in regard to vendor or master file maintenance. This includes a commitment from staff to compliance with that policy and procedure through the understanding of the impacts of non-compliance, both financial and reputational. A Council system control, where changes to supplier contact details require approval. The requirement for all changes to supplier accounts to be recorded in a register of creditor changes, which is reviewed by a senior officer monthly, to identify any patterns or anomalies that may indicate fraudulent activity. And lastly, Council will establish an independent financial management assurance program, as we refer to it as an FMAP. This program will provide a system of internal controls, reviews and audits designed to ensure the accuracy, completeness and proper use of financial information and resources. Additionally, this program will evaluate compliance with Council's financial policies and procedures and broader regulatory requirements.
04:42:00 The implementation of this FMAP embeds a proactive risk-based approach to the organisation and is consistent with previous recommendations from the Auditor-General in reports to Parliament for local government. As part of the incident analysis, corrective measures and considering lessons learned, the Audit Risk Committee and elected members have been fully briefed on the matter and ongoing corrective actions. Key internal and external stakeholders will continue to be briefed as process improvements are implemented. In summary, Council is firmly committed to maintaining the high standards of integrity and ethical conduct, ensuring the prevention of fraud and corruption throughout all areas of our operations. Council maintains a strict zero tolerance stance on fraud and corruption. These behaviours undermine public trust, compromised service delivery and damage to the reputation of local government. Fraud and corruption control is a shared responsibility. I will leave the report there, Councillors,
04:43:00 and I'm happy to answer any appropriate questions. Mayor Wilkie: We are in formal session. Any questions can be asked and answered after the motion is moved. Someone can move the motion. I'm happy to move the motion. Councillor Stockwell. I second. Second, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thank Acting Director Gatt for the verbal and written report and for the effort she's put in. In addressing this matter since she first started with this issue earlier in the year when she came on as the Acting Director. It's not an event that any organisation wishes to have to deal with and it has obviously grabbed a lot of angst in our community as any crime has victims.
04:44:00 What I think we as Councillors have to be aware of is that the matter has been analysed in a detailed way and we've been privy to a range of detailed step-by-step sort of briefings that gives us an understanding of both what happened and what we've done to try and minimise this occurrence in the future. Just this week I received an email about the EFT Shore as a supplier to Council of Presumers. I'm not going to ask because I get paid and I put it in a travel invoice or something. So we're making the steps as of course outlined in the initial report and I think this is open and honest about how we got into the situation and I also thank them for the openness and honesty and also the steps taken to minimise our risk into the future. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Any questions for the group? No.
04:45:00 Just to close? Councillor Wilson: No I'll speak to people this week. I want to thank Acting Director Gatt for the report and also note that she's been in this role since joining Council in 2026 after the event and was required to investigate the events that led to the fraud. As I said in October this was preventable and some risks were known but not acted upon. But I'm satisfied that this report gives the public further detail around how the fraud occurred and the mitigation strategies adopted since. Some people have suggested this report should have been written by an independent investigator. I believe Acting Director Gatt is the appropriate person to write this report as she led the investigation in January. Meaning she collected contemporary information at the time of the event with access to our financial systems and staff and with no prior involvement with Council. An invest... an independent investigator coming in now would not have access to all that information.
04:46:00 The team's also been working with the external auditors, KPMG, and the QAO, who are obviously external, to establish the facts, ensure no other events have occurred and record the event appropriately in the financial statements. I'd like to thank Acting Director Gatt for all the improvements she has made this year in such challenging circumstances and the full finance and IT teams who've been working together to review processes and work with the auditors on additional procedures. While I appreciate members of the public may have further questions about the event, I believe the focus should now be on the future and in my role as Councillor and a member of the Audit and Risk Committee, I'll continue to ask for updates on processes and risk management. I do note that when we originally asked for this report, it was in the public interest to make sure that the truth was available and I see that there's a headline today saying that this report will help to build reputation and trust back with our community.
04:47:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wilson. I'd like to make an amendment. Councillor Morrison. That Council requests that the Chief Executive Officer's management of the December 2024 fraud incident a councillor-led independent review of the Chief Executive Officer's management of the December 2024 fraud incident commissioned by Council to assess all decisions, actions and oversight taken by the CEO during and after the event,
04:48:00 including how the situation was managed, and any consequences arising. The findings are to be reported back to Council in a publicly accessible manner. Speaker 4: I'll second. Mayor Wilkie: Can you second the original motion? Oh, yeah. There's no second of the amendment lapses. So the amendment has lapsed. Go back to the original motion. That's the one with the seconder. Now, anyone else wish to speak to the original motion
04:49:00 that had councillors stop on Councillor Wilson so far? Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: I will. In October, I moved an amendment at the ordinary meeting, recorded in the minutes of 16 October 2025, that Council commit to releasing a publicly accessible follow-up report by the December round of meetings. That report was to address key questions raised by the community and outline findings, actions taken, lessons learned subject to legal and privacy obligations. The amendment was supported by the majority of councillors. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge and thank our acting director, Marg Gatt, for her resilience, temperament, and expertise. Not expertise, just thank you, Marg. You started at a very difficult time for council
04:50:00 and the way you conducted the process. It's nothing but really commendable. And I just want to acknowledge that. The report presented today does not meet the questions that I posed in the minutes of the October round of ordinary meetings. It glosses over some of the inconsistencies between the statements made in October by the CEO, and the Mayor, and those that are presented now. It doesn't answer the questions raised by community. Transparency, clear delegation, and accountability are non-negotiable and they're non-transferable. They come with title and they come with paycheque. The ultimate responsibility for what happened December 2024 lies clearly
04:51:00 in my view and in my opinion with the CEO, no one else. Ignoring this principle underestimates the intelligence and expectations of our community. We're here today because 1.7 million of community money was lost. And it wasn't lost because of clever criminals or a sophisticated AI scam. It was lost because internal processes, the safeguards that we rely upon were not followed in practice. Full stop. The report explains what happened but it doesn't answer the question our community is asking. Who takes responsibility and what are the consequences? Again, as I said first time round this is not about blame it's about leadership. And leadership means the buck stops at the top. Yes, fraud exists in business. Yes, social engineering and AI deception are real threats. But those threats are not why Noosa lost 1.7 million dollars. The loss occurred because the controls
04:52:00 on paper were ignored, poorly enforced or inadequately resourced. What makes this unacceptable is that it involved public funds entrusted to us. What makes it worse is that councillors had to chase the audit commission for information. I am disappointed. Disappointed that no leader stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility the buck stops here. Mayor Wilkie, can I ask why you are laughing? Mayor Wilkie: I was not laughing. It's about laughing about it, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: You, you were just laughed at me. Mayor Wilkie: I think you were imagining it. So I am just, I am just Please continue with your thing without drawing other councillors into it. Councillor Lorentson: I am disappointed that no leader
04:53:00 like the Mayor or CEO stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility that the buck stops here. The community expects more from its leaders and so do I. People of Noosa deserve leaders who put transparency and honesty above self-preservation, protect staff especially from policy as they protect budgets and treat community money with the care they would be on. Mayor Wilkie: I stop you there Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Gordon. For impugning and problem motives to other people, in the name of the CEO and myself and that's unacceptable and need to combat. Please retract the statements and apologise. Councillor Lorentson: The present leadership is demonstrated.
04:54:00 And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to apologise that this event today has been used as a platform to lecture at this point. I remember, distinctly, back in October, the CEO saying, if anyone is responsible for this, if you're looking at someone to blame, blame me. And I said, I heard him say that in an interview. At this table, I said, I'm sorry this has happened. Regarding this report, it is a great report. Thank you, Margaret. Yeah.
04:55:00 Thank you. Thank you very much. There are people in this organisation who, more than us, a million times more than us, have been personally impacted by this. The ratepayers, of course, are very angry. It wasn't something that any of us wanted to have happen. But there are people in this organisation who have been personally impacted by this crime. And they are probably hurting even more as a result of some things they may have heard around this table today. So we're dealing with human error. And with human error, we're also dealing with human frailty.
04:56:00 People make mistakes. And it's also human nature, I guess, for some to seek to blame. And that's the other downside of this. But anyone who's interested can see steps taken subsequently to react and protect against this ever happening again. And there are lots of lessons learned from all of this. So, I would like to acknowledge the CEO. He did say he was sorry for this incident. He didn't want this to happen. If anyone's to blame, he did say that. He did take responsibility. And if you've seen his press statements recently, he's done the same again. It takes a large person to do that. And I'm personally sorry that this has happened as well.
04:57:00 I can't help it. We owe the rest. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, Andrew Ellis wishes to speak. Councillor Stockwell, yours to close. We'll put the motion in favor. That's carried unanimously. Now, that brings us to no confidential session. Item 14, the next ordinary meeting will be at Council's Chamber 9, 9 Bellingham Street, Tewantin at 10am on 22 Jan 2025. Yes. Now, before we go, 2026, that's the last meeting of the year. Before we go, I would like to say this has been a very challenging year and Noosa Council has faced situations that it's never faced before. So, it's placed all of us under pressures that we haven't faced before and we've all responded according to our natures.
13 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
14 NEXT MEETING ¶
04:58:00 And we've all done the best we can with what we've made. I really believe everyone around this table has the interest of the community at heart. I'm wishing the staff a pass on my thanks to you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. CEO, thanks to the staff for their great support and work, enormous workload throughout the year, what they do every day to make this Shire look great and keep it running well. And I wish all the dancers around the table a very good Christmas, a good Christmas break and a bright and cheerful 2026. And to the people in the gallery who've joined us here today, thank you for coming along. Thank you.
15 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.