Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: To the ordinary men, on the first day of the 22nd of January, the day of the meeting opened at 10 a.m. I acknowledge that we're meeting on the lands of the traditional custodians, 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 in respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love, and respecting and caring for each other. I'd also like to acknowledge that today is National Day of Mourning for the victims of the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, and that is the reason that council is flying the Australian flag at half-mast today as our other governments are in the country. The Australian government has invited members of the public to observe one minute silence at 6.01 p.m. Queensland time on this National Day of Mourning to honour those impacted by the Bondi Beach terrorist attack. Speaker 1: I know that all councillors are in attendance, and that Councillor Wilson is attending on the line.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:01:00 Mayor Wilkie: Can you hear us, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Okay, thank you, everyone. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. We also welcome Director Richard MacGillivray, who's acting CEO and Larry Sengstock's captain. Welcome, you two. I'm for his confirmation of the minutes. Can I have a move and a seconder for the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 18 December 2025. Councillor Lorentson, thank you, that's second. Councillor Finzel, all in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. I believe we have one petition for taping by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to submit this petition. Purpose of the petition is the undersigned have requested that New South Wales Council read this petition.
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 ¶
00:02:00 I would like to present this to the CEO for his consideration and also response to the petitioner. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question for staff, Chris. This toilet block is the one that's designed for all abilities for saving access? Correct. It's changing places. Right. All of it is this toilet block. Right. Thank you. All in favour? Councillor Wilson: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: That's second. Can we have a second? We have a second. Second, Councillor Phillips. My apologies. All in favour? That's unanimous. There are no presentations. Yes. We have some deputations. Two deputations. Fifteen members allocated for a deputation. First, our speakers, Willie Oswald, Jill Brownlee from Friends of Noosa Katanga Gardens, and the problem is the master plan for Noosa Katanga Gardens. Willie and Jill, would you like to come to the electorate? Welcome.
00:03:00 Pat Spicer: Thank you. Speaker 3: Did everyone hear me? Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Wilkie, councillors, other ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for the opportunity for presenting. Thank you. Thank you for this deputation from the Friends of Noosa Katanga Gardens. Representing the Friends today are myself, the secretary, and I'm also one of the Friends' representatives on the stakeholder reference group for the Noosa Katanga Gardens master plan. And also Jill Brownlee, our long-standing president and also a life member of the Friends of Noosa. The Noosa Katanga Gardens was established over 35 years ago through the advocacy of a group of Lake McKinney residents. Who had a vision and convinced the council at the time to turn what was a dumping ground and an eyesore into a botanic gardens, not just a park. The collaboration and vision between council and residents 35 years ago ensured that we
7.1 Applicant: WILLY OSTWALD, FRIENDS OF NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS Topic: MASTERPLAN FOR NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS Speakers: WILLY OSTWALD, JILL BROWNLEE ¶
00:04:00 and future generations can enjoy this wonderful asset. How often have you heard of the botanic gardens being Noosa's hidden gem? The draft master plan is designed to guide the future. The botanic gardens over the next 25 years. The community feedback clearly endorses the revamped entrance zone and new arrivals area. The establishment of accessible pathways including the garden promenade. The rejuvenated amphitheatre including additional seating and shade to make the space more usable. And a new community shelter and information hub with kiosk and public amenities. These changes will allow more users to access the gardens and enjoy the 8 hectares of collections and gardens. The Friends have carefully considered the draft master plan and although we agree with many aspects, we believe there is a lack of focus on stewardship and development of the plant
00:05:00 collections. Without this, there is a real risk of turning Noosa Botanic Gardens into a beautiful park with plants. Rather than a true botanic institution with purpose, scientific value and educational integrity for future generations to enjoy. Our primary concern is that the draft master plan has not addressed one of its key objectives. To be stewards of the botanical collection through respecting, enhancing, protecting and promoting the legacy of the existing and future collections. Currently the draft master plan is all about structural improvements to the gardens, with next to no planning for the actual gardens and future botanical collections. Which is the key reason why people visit a botanic garden in the first place. International research data attests that a region's botanic garden is usually the first
00:06:00 or second destination for most tourists to an area. The botanic garden is the first destination for most tourists to an area. The Botanic Gardens of Australia and New Zealand or Bagan's is the organisation that most botanic gardens in Australia and New Zealand belong to, including Noosa Botanic Gardens. Bagan's believes that a master plan, and I quote, should set the direction and priorities of a botanic garden over the medium to long term and will have direct implications for the development of its living collections. Development and or implementation of a living collections plan should be a priority for any botanic garden's master plan. A living collection management plan for the gardens would include thematic planning and interpretation, evaluation of the existing collections, identification of gaps in the botanic garden's collections, a detailed management plan which covers criteria for assessing whether
00:07:00 a plant is to be added or removed from the gardens, records management, managing invasive species, coping with climate change and other environmental issues. It would also provide a framework and plan for the future of the botanic gardens in respect to plantings and collections, thereby assisting in the detailed design stage of the master plan implementation. From the outset, the Friends have been advocating for, if not a curator, then at least a living collection management plan as part of the master plan for the gardens. We requested that the brief to the consultant include this. At all the stakeholder reference group meetings, I raised our concerns regarding the plantings and collections. Our formal response to the draft master plan reiterated these concerns. The gardens has faced and is faced with several issues and challenges. All these bear out the importance of implementing a living collections management plan.
00:08:00 It's worth me touching on some examples of these issues in a bit more detail. Noosa Botanic Gardens has had five different garden supervisors over the last six years, all of whom have different ideas on the plantings in the garden. This has resulted in a lack of clarity in the thematics of the garden, gardens being planted up and then pulled out 12 months later, plus a lack of forward planning. Existing plant collections have become fragmented over this time, diminishing the garden's educational, conservation, and curatorial value. There has been little focus placed on record keeping of the plants, which is a key requirement for any botanic gardens. In the absence of council action, the Friends have taken the initiative and have spent many man hours over the last two years identifying, classifying, and mapping the existing plants
00:09:00 in the garden. This information was provided to the consultants preparing the master plan. Several rare and endangered trees that were mistaken by council staff for more common varieties have been removed from the gardens over the last few years. These trees have been donated to the gardens and represented a significant conservation asset for the community that has now been lost. In some areas of the garden the plantings are replicated, overgrown, dying, or simply placed in the wrong spot. This has resulted in overcrowding and deep shaded areas in the garden, resulting in poor growth in understory species, as well as poor growth in the development of the existing trees. The Noosa Botanic Gardens doesn't have its own budget, and there is no maintenance or development program in place. Recently, the bridal walk structure was removed and it has rotted so badly over recent years. This area can no longer be used for weddings.
00:10:00 A living collection management plan would assist in overcoming many of these issues and provide a detailed plan to assist in the future development of the botanic gardens. It would also assist in identifying the future funding required to maintain the gardens. The Friends want to collaborate with council to achieve a living collection management plan using the toolkit provided by the GANs. We strongly recommend that, as a minimum, the Draft Master Plan be amended to include the immediate appointment of a project working group to develop a living collection management plan for the gardens in the short term. The project working group should include representatives from council, the Friends, and external horticulturists with botanic gardens experience. We are ultimately asking council to value the Noosa Botanic Gardens experience as an
00:11:00 Speaker 2: important part of the project. The Friends have been involved with the Noosa Botanic Gardens since 2013 and we currently have over 160 members. We have steadily increased our presence in social media and the like. One of our key objectives is to assist in the maintenance and management of Noosa Botanic Gardens. Our MOU with council focuses on the collaborative relationship between council and the Friends. All our activities serve as a positive, interactive link between the gardens, the community, and council. I think some statistics are worth mentioning. Last year we clocked up over 2,000 volunteer hours assisting with the removal of fallen
00:12:00 palm fronds , weeding, pruning, planting, and mulching. On average, once a month, we can get up to 2,000 volunteers to help with the removal of fallen palm fronds. In 2020, our propagation team not only propagated plants for the gardens, but raised just over $25,000 at our three plant sales. Now that the master plan offers a way forward, we expect to collaborate with council as to how best to invest the funds raised last year and accumulated over the last five years. So not to blow our trumpet, but in our feedback submission, as Willie has mentioned, we are On page three of the draft plan, which states, all proposed works around the existing collection will be a matter for detailed design. We'll include the survey of existing collections and key species. We'd like just to reiterate, the Friends have spent the last two years doing just that, so that is already available and won't need to be done.
00:13:00 Unlike the proposed structural improvements under the master plan, the implementation of a living collection management policy within the draft master plan could be achieved in the short term, you know, in the next 12 months, at minimum cost, but will provide huge benefits in protecting and planning the future of Noosa Botany Gardens. So, as a major stakeholder in the gardens, we ask that Council support the Friends' request for a living collection management plan to be included as part of the draft master plan. Thank you. Thank you, Jill. Thank you, Willie. Mayor Wilkie: Next up, we have Pat Spicer talking on the topic of community consultation. Spicer, welcome back. Pat Spicer: Thank you. Mayor and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak on community consultation.
7.2 Applicant: PAT SPICER Topic: community consultation Speakers: pat spicer ¶
00:14:00 Effective community consultation requires more than notification. It requires a provision of clear, accessible information and meaningful, respectful engagement before decisions are made, so that community input can genuinely inform outcomes. Transparency is fundamental to this process. It requires proactive information, sharing rather than relying on requests, meetings that are open and inclusive. And supporting documents that are readily available, timely and understandable to residents. Council's current consultation approach relies mainly on its website, limited publicity, selected letter drops, pop-up events, one-on-one engagement with staff, Facebook posts and Your Say surveys.
00:15:00 While this approach may be efficient and cost-effective for Council, it creates significant barriers for many residents. Reliance on the website assumes residents have the time, technical skills and capacity to locate and interpret lengthy and technical documents. This excludes many people and discourages meaningful participation. Pop-up events offer a broad range of information. They are often held during business hours and in locations that do not support inclusive or detailed discussion. One-on-one engagement requires residents to be already informed. Without prior access to information, such conversations cannot be effective. Facebook is not universally used and should not be relied upon as a primary consultation tool. For more information visit www.fb.gov.au.
00:16:00 Requiring QR code registration for meetings creates unnecessary access barriers, with simpler alternatives are available. Finally, Your Say surveys are widely perceived as instruments for creating sentiment rather than genuine consultation. When surveys appear leading or outcome-driven, being structured to support predetermined outcomes, confidence is the key to success. Residents in the process is undermined and participation declines. I now turn to the case of 62 Lake MacDonald Drive, Cooroy. Council advised residents in 2024 that a letter had been sent in July 2022. Most residents did not receive that letter. One resident who did receive it requested further information, but no additional information
00:17:00 was provided. Council's intentions for the site were embedded in the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022, Action 5511, with planning activity commencing as early as 2019. A letter drop occurred on 23 May 2024 to residents in Dianella Court and via Facebook. At the Council meeting in the community meeting in Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, Cooroy, on 15 May 2025 the Director of Strategy and Environment confirmed that residents in Carrie Street did not receive that letter. A broader letter drop on the 5 August 2025 to more than 133 surrounding properties was an improvement. However, by May 2024 planning was already well advanced. A land project was in place.
00:18:00 The second purchase price had been agreed, grant funding secured, a memorandum of understanding signed. Planning had moved well beyond what could be reasonably described as preliminary or essential behind the scenes work. At that stage, meaningful community consultation should already have occurred. Following the May 2024 correspondence, residents requested meetings with Council. A steering committee was formed, with broader resident participation through an active email and messaging group. These meetings are described as community consultation on Council's Housing in Cooroy webpage, which was created only after residents requested. Information was not shared proactively.
00:19:00 Attendance of meetings was restricted, particularly where presentations were involved. Presentation materials were provided only to attendees and with instructions not to share them. This approach is inconsistent with principles of transparency, open meetings, publicly available information and genuine consultation. Small group engagement alone is inadequate, where decisions affect the wider community and set precedents for future development, particularly in hinterland towns such as Cooroy. I now refer to Council's resolution on 20 January 2025, which requires that the process for considering and investigating future uses of lots 2 and 3 at 64 Lake MacDowell Drive include community consultation.
00:20:00 That consultation is proposed to occur only after feasibility work at Nisa Heads and Tewantin. Residents are extremely concerned that civil works currently underway deliver infrastructure suitable for housing, effectively pre-empting future decision making and limiting genuine consultation on alternate uses. To avoid misunderstanding, I would like to clearly articulate the community's expectations in relation to community consultation as follows. First, a public community forum, open to all residents, held in Cooroy, on the future uses of lots 2 and 3 at 64 Lake MacDowell Drive. Second, clear and accessible notification of that forum, including date, time, location and key issues,
00:21:00 using methods that do not rely solely on digital platforms. Third, open and transparent information sharing, including a clear explanation of the implications of receiving $178,000 from the Australian Government's Housing Support Program and $4,099,040 from the Queensland Government's Residential Activation Fund in 2025 and how this funding affects future land use options. Four, assurance that community views will be genuinely heard, respected and reflected in outcomes, consistent with Council's resolutions and stated consultation processes. Finally, Cooroy seeks equitable treatment. Hinterland communities should not experience reduced transparency or consultation
00:22:00 compared with coastal centres. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Pat. Mayor Wilkie: We have four submissions to public question time. The first application of two questions is from Ms Rhea Den Brassen. Ms Den Brassen could be here today and she requested Ms Pat Spicer read her questions, which will be answered by Chris Steele, Acting Director of Infrastructure Services. Ms Spicer, you already have elected. Thank you. Please read your questions, please. Pat Spicer: Through you, Chair. Rhea's first question. Excuse me. Pat Spicer: What is the cost per tonne of material removed by truck from 6264 Lake Macdonald Drive? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for your questions, Mayor. Council is unable to provide the cost for the tonne of material removed from Lake Macdonald Drive. It would be breaching the commercial rights of the contractor.
8.1 RHEA DEN BRAASEM ¶
00:23:00 This is sensitive information. Pat Spicer: Question 2. How many tonnes of material have been removed by truck from 62 Lake Macdonald Drive so far? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you again for your second question. The amount of tonnage so far approximately is 15,500 tonnes. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Matt. The next application with two questions is from Mr John Spencer. Spencer, welcome to the line. The question 1 will be answered by Acting CEO Richard MacGillivray. Question 2 will be answered by Acting Director of Court Services, Mark Batchelor. Thank you, Chairman. Speaker 7: Thank you, Chairman. My question has partly been raised by a previous speaker.
8.2 JOHN SPENCER ¶
00:24:00 The background to my question is that Mr Spencer is currently the Chief Executive Officer of These are the ways in which Noosa Council gathers information on community opinions, as is required by the relevant statutory acts. The background is that these consultation processes or surveys are often conducted, as we've heard, in-house using council staff. The results are often presented as a very brief summary with no detailed analysis or breakdown and only superficial mention of the methodology. This type of consultation, as we've heard, does not inspire community confidence, as there will always be a perception of bias towards pre-existing council plans. Adverse community reaction to the Noosa River Forefront Plan and now the new Destination Management Plan indicates that carrying out an in-house community consultation process is not always entirely satisfactory.
00:25:00 Determining public opinion on any subject is a skilled process, and organisations exist which specialise in this. One such company claims it is used by 60% of local governments throughout Australia. Obtaining detailed information on public opinion in this way, as part of the planning process, would be cost-effective as time and money spent on plans are unacceptable to the community. My question, therefore, very simply is, would it not improve community confidence in the consultation process if council conducted surveys and opinion polls through an appropriately qualified independent third party? Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr Stetson, for your question. I appreciate it. The council has committed to meaningful engagement that is reflective of our values. We have a broader community and its practices are underpinned by the International Association of Public Participation, IAP2, globally recognised for its best practice approach to community engagement.
00:26:00 Council also has a community engagement framework to provide the context on how to plan, design and implement the community engagement process to identify projects, strategies and decision-making processes. Surveys are one part of the conversation with our community as we adopt an integrated approach to community engagement, which is consistent with best practice. There are a range of options offered, including face-to-face engagement and the opportunity to provide written submissions. Council staff make an operational decision to design, develop and test community engagement surveys in-house, and these are developed by highly skilled engagement professionals. The cost to engage an independent third party to provide the service can be significantly reduced. Some of the complex or high-profile community engagement projects, such as the Noosaville Portial Infrastructure Master Plan, Pomona Place Plan and the Housing Strategy, we have partnered with specialist consultants to assist with survey design and analysis of the data.
00:27:00 In line with our community engagement framework, we endeavour to close the loop with the community by reporting back what we have heard and how it has influenced council's decision-making. We acknowledge that there has been some delays in providing reports for some of our recent engagement projects. We continually review and investigate methods to enhance our engagement and encourage members of the community to sign up and be part of our newly formed Community Engagement Feedback Panel for future projects. John, second question. Speaker 1: Second question. The background to this, which is far less important, Mr Chairman. Speaker 7: The background here is that the audiovisual community engagement project has been completed. The digital system we have in this chamber, which is used to make it two or eight levels of the public, the proceedings of council, including public questions such as this, is manifestly not state-of-the-art.
00:28:00 Not only can the person asking the public question not be heard, it may have improved, but much of the proceedings at ordinary meetings can be hard to hear and the image quality is such that it can be hard to know who is speaking. Visually, the various charts and motions put on display during council meetings can often not be seen clearly. So, my second question is, will the council improve the quality of the audiovisual system used to make it available to the public, the proceedings of auditory meetings and public questions? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Director, Acting Director Mark, that will answer your question. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr Spencer, for your question. About improving our sound system in the council chamber to ensure that public questions are heard as clearly as the responses. I have proposed an immediate and longer-term solution. The immediate is within the chamber today. For the immediate solution, we can utilise our portable PA system with two mobile microphones.
00:29:00 This system is already used effectively during our remote council meetings throughout the region. By using this PA system, we can amplify the questions so that the streaming audio picks them up clearly, ensuring that the public question is heard with much more volume and clarity. But in the longer term, we plan to investigate and understand costings to further permanent upgrades for the council chamber. Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Spencer. The third out of the two questions is from Mr Brian O'Connor. Mr O'Connor, welcome to the lectern. The first question will be answered by Acting Director of Community Services, Paul Brinkman, on behalf of Kerri Contini. And the second question will be responded to by Mark Gatt, on behalf of Tim Williams. Speaker 1: Thank you, councillors. Pomona remains the only town in Noosa Shire without a flagpole at its war memorial.
8.3 BRIAN O'CONNOR ¶
00:30:00 In its responses outlining progress on the Pomona Place Plan initiatives, the council states that the placement of a flagpole at the Pomona War Memorial is under consideration, an action that has been underway on and off since before the memorial was refurbished and rededicated in 2018. The question is this. This matter having been under investigation for the past seven years, what are the considerations around a flagpole at this time? And has that consideration resulted in any outcomes such that the Pomona community can look forward to permission being granted for a flagpole to be located at the memorial rotunda in Joe Basso Park? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr O'Connor. Mr Brinkman. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr O'Connor, for your question and your continued interest
00:31:00 in the Pomona Place Plan initiatives. The council acknowledges your longstanding interest in the proposal for a permanent flagpole near the Pomona Rotunda War Memorial in Joe Basso Park. Over several years, council officers have carefully evaluated various factors, including the park's limited space, high community use, safety concerns related to children and pedestrian movement, and maintenance implications such as mowing access and obstruction risks. A permanent flagpole in the open park was not supported. These considerations were outlined in previous correspondence to you. The idea of installing a flagpole was included for consideration in the Pomona Place Plan and will be further assessed by council to see if it could be accommodated in an existing garden bed. This proposal still needs more research and hasn't yet become a funded project. The evaluation process will continue as resources, staff capacity,
00:32:00 and overall organisational priorities permit. In the interim, council advises that temporary flagpoles can be effectively utilised for commemorative events, offering flexibility without permanently impacting the park's functions. Additionally, the permanent flagpole located outside the Pomona Fire Station across the road is also available for use during commemorative occasions. Mr O'Connor. Mr O'Connor. Speaker 1: Mr O'Connor. My second question is this. If it takes seven years to consider something as relatively simple as the placement of a flagpole in a park, beside a wall memorial at Pomona, what prospect is there that Noosa Council will complete all 52 actions in the Pomona Place Plan within a ten year timeframe? Some of these actions being complex, in need of detailed planning,
00:33:00 Speaker 4: Thank you Mr O'Connor for your question. I'm responding on behalf of Director Strategy Environment Kim Rawls. The Pomona Place Plan has actions with specific timeframes for commencement to ensure implementation of the plan can be staged in a sustainable long-term approach. A draft short-term implementation plan has been prepared showing good progress against many actions in the place plan. This will be continually monitored over time with medium and long-term projects being considered over the appropriate timeframes as part of the council budget process to ensure Mayor Wilkie: adequate funding. Thank you. Thank you Mr O'Connor. The last application for two questions is again from Mrs Pat Spicer. Mrs Spicer your two questions will be answered by Acting Director Margaret Gatt on behalf of the Director of Pat Spicer: Strategy Environment Kim Rawls. Through the Chair. Background information. The Queensland
00:34:00 Fraud Office Local Government 2024 Report, Report 13-2024-25 available on the website. The press released in October 2025 stating council had been directed not to release information about the fraud so as not to jeopardise ongoing investigations. The report at the December Ordinary Meeting outlined the rather comprehensive measures that have been put in place in retrospect but were staff aware of this possible fraud target area prior to the event? So my question is while there were restrictions on releasing information to the public regarding the loss of 2.4 million through fraud in December 2024, were all the staff in the financial department fully briefed on the contents of the Queensland Audit Office report immediately after the report was received?
8.4 PAT SPICER ¶
00:35:00 As it explicitly warned about the fraud risk in super master file data changes and provided a case study of a recent council loss through such data changes being made to supply a bank account details. Thank you. Director Gatt. Speaker 4: Thank you Mrs Spicer for your question. I'd like to confirm that whilst the initial loss was 2.3 million dollars through recovery by the bank and our insurers the current figure is 1.7 million. This is still a substantial amount and council does not take this lightly. We have been making a range of changes and additions to prevent this from happening again. Council was notified by the QAO in March 2024 at the fraud event that targeted the City of Gold Coast before the calculated attack on Noosa Council.
00:36:00 As also documented in our previous reports to the Audit and Risk Committee and to Council, the recommendations from the 2025 QAO Noosa Shire Council Interim Audit Report have been implemented or substantially progressed. Council has met all its reporting obligations. Council have conducted regular mandatory cyber fraud training to better equip our staff for such activities. Council has strengthened processes for updating, maintaining and securing the vendor credit master file including the development of a vendor maintenance policy. Council is in the process of establishing an independent risk-based financial accountability program to review and audit the accuracy and proper use of financial information and Council has substantially progressed the implementation of the financial accountability program. Council has also developed a program to implement a third-party payment protection software to validate banking information.
00:37:00 Pat Spicer: Thank you. Next question, Mrs. Spicer. Through the Chair. I don't feel that answers the question because it doesn't say when staff were informed back in March. And that was my question. The report that Mark Gafferstone has done has been exemplary and I admire the way she's undertaken that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Order of law answer. Pat Spicer: Whatever order I know. Right. Thank you. I know I have no right to comment. My background information. Housing strategy. The housing crisis requires action by all levels of government. Council has acted in this area by amending the Noosa Plan to allow greater diversity in housing, making it easier for housing to be built on land owned by churches, etc. Allowing residents to build granny flats or smaller homes. All the houses on their existing residential lot and providing incentives for developers to build affordable housing.
00:38:00 Councils were originally set up for four essential services to the community, roads, water, waste collection and wastewater. Responsibility of local government today are quite extensive including infrastructure, local roads, footpaths, stormwater, drains and bridges, waste management, public health, overseeing public health services including food inspections and managing public pools and other facilities, animal control, registration, parking, planning and development, land use and zoning, building approval, signage and advertising, and other facilities. Community services and facilities, parks and recreation, libraries and community centres, arts and culture, aged and childcare, safety and environment, fire prevention, emergency management, environmental management, government and representation, representation to other levels of government, local laws, strategic planning.
00:39:00 While this list is not exhaustive, it serves to indicate. Local laws, strategic planning. That council has a large area of responsibility. The why question is one I get asked regularly and can't answer the question, so I'm asking. Why is Noosa Council taking on the state responsibility of providing housing by spending millions above grants to remediate and install all infrastructure for housing at 64 Lake McDonnell Drive, Cooroy. As well as entering into a contract with the City of New South Wales. I'm asking the City of Coaster Bay to build 26 units when it is in fact that the site does not meet the housing strategy actions of ready access to services, transport and proximity to work. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mrs. Spicer. Director Gatt.
00:40:00 Speaker 4: Thank you, Mrs. Spicer, for your second question. I'm responding on behalf of Director Strategy Planning and Environment, Kim Rawls. The housing crisis currently gripping the state. The problem in Australia is one that neither the state or federal governments are going to be able to solve alone in a short time. Rather than sitting back and expecting the problem to be solved by other levels of government, Noosa Council, along with many other local governments, has chosen to be part of the solution. Despite the belief that this is not a local government responsibility, local governments have a responsibility to ensure that their communities are places where people want to live and families can thrive with amenities and services critical to people's lives. Local governments are specifically required to plan for the needs of their community under the Local Government Act. This could legitimately include land use and development outcomes to support housing. Many councils across Australia are increasingly exploring how they can support affordable housing in response to local needs, including Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay, amongst others.
00:41:00 Councils also have a critical role in enabling housing outcomes through planning, servicing and often land. Thank you, Mr. Spicer. Noosa Council's 2018 Social Justice Charter commits Council to implementing policies and providing services that decrease inequality to doing what it can to ensure Noosa is a diverse community where there are affordable places for people to live. At the 2021 Census, there were 2,461 low-to-median-income Noosa Shoah households in housing stress. Since then, the situation has only worsened. To illustrate, the median weekly rent for Cooroy has increased from $500 a week at the time of the 2021 Census to $800 in the September 25 quarter. This is a 60% increase in four years. In endorsing the 2022 housing strategy, Noosa Council committed to encouraging greater public and private investment in more social and affordable housing in the Shire,
00:42:00 and partnering with the registered community housing providers and others with the aim of providing more social and affordable housing. This included investigating council-owned land which might be put to the use of the purpose of housing locals. The land at Lake MacDonald Drive was just one subject, one site, subject to feasibility investigations, with others being in the centres at Noosa Junction and at Tawantin. These actions are specifically listed in the Housing Strategies Act. A guide for local governments in delivery of affordable housing produced by the ALGA, Australia Local Government Association, Housing Australia and Australian Community Housing, has recently showcased Noosa Council's efforts, including the Cooroy land-based contribution to social housing delivery. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mrs Spicer, for your points and advocacy.
00:43:00 Ladies and gentlemen, we now take a 10-minute adjournment. Thank you.
01:00:00 Okay, we're back in Cairngotham, everyone. We are now up to item 9 on the agenda. There are no more minutes. Item 10, we have two notified motions which were included in the agenda. 10.1, three-month trial of alternate shark mitigation measures during southern whale migration. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I do. I'd like to move the motion. Can I ask for just a correction that Council writes to the State. So, delete Minister for the Environment and Tourism. It's actually the Minister for Primary Industries, Tony Parrott. Point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question was what's on the board now, what was submitted, or was the original submitted? Because there can't be an amendment of a notified motion.
10.1 THREE-MONTH TRIAL OF ALTERNATE SHARK MITIGATION MEASURES DURING SOUTHERN WHALE MIGRATION ¶
01:01:00 Councillor Lorentson: That's not been submitted. That's actually not the response that was given to me by the CEO when I actually noted the mistake a few days ago. Mayor Wilkie: Well, we'll just get some advice on whether a notified motion can be changed by a mover. Councillor Lorentson: So, the advice, and I can pull out the advice from the CEO, because I attempted to make the change about a week ago. And he was told just to change it on the floor. So, I'm happy to... Mayor Wilkie: Look, hold on, I'll make a call that, please change, change it as, it's a minor change, so let's... Councillor Lorentson: It is, but it's been authorised by the Chief Executive Officer of New South Council. Appreciate it, thank you Mayor. That Council write to the State requesting that during the 2026 whale migration period, the Queensland Government consider a three month trial replacing traditional shark nets
01:02:00 with smart drumlines or other contemporary non-lethal mitigation technologies that allow for the safe passage of migrating whales with Noosa main beach proposed as the trial location. This trial should apply specifically to the southern migration period when whales, including vulnerable calves, are travelling south and when the majority of indigenous whales are on the coast. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, may we have a seconder for that please. Happy to second. Thank you Councillor Phillips. Councillor Isner. Councillor Lorentson: It is one of the most significant natural events for our region. It is central to our identity, our visitor economy and our community's deep connection to the ocean. As a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, we also carry an internationally recognised responsibility to lead in environmental stewardship and to change the world.
01:03:00 This motion reflects that responsibility. Every year traditional shark nets pose a known and preventable entanglement risk to whales, especially during the southern migration when mothers and cubs travel closest to shore and when the majority of entanglements occur. These incidents are distressing for the animals and traumatic for the community members, volunteers and responders who witness or participate in rescue efforts. They also create a paradoxical safety issue. A distressed whale can attract sharks, potentially increasing risk to beachgoers rather than reducing it. Nets do not create a barrier. They do not stop sharks from entering swimming areas and when a whale is caught in a net, the thrashing, the blood and distress signals can draw sharks closer to the shore. This is why we need to make sure that we have a safe and safe environment for all of our animals and all of our animals. Human life is our highest priority and recent events in New South Wales have reminded us
01:04:00 why this conversation matters now more than ever. In the past week alone, New South Wales has recorded multiple shark attacks, a stark reminder that outdated technologies are not keeping pace with modern coastal risk. We owe it to our community to ensure that the tools used to protect them are the most effective available. Modern technologies, such as smart drumlines, are more targeted, enable rapid response and significantly reduce bycatch, while still focusing on the three shark species most associated with serious incidents. They are contemporary, evidence-based tools used increasingly across Australia because they provide better protection for beachgoers than passive nets. The Cardinal Report. Formally titled Queensland. The Queensland Shark Control Program Review of Alternative Approaches and commissioned by the Queensland Government in 2019 reinforces this.
01:05:00 It remains the most comprehensive, independent, scientific assessment of shark control equipment used in Queensland. Importantly for Noosa, the report found that replacing the two shark nets at Noosa with additional drumlines, quote, could potentially maintain catches of the three most dangerous target shark species, while reducing captures of other sharks and bycatch by approximately 97%. In other words, equal or better safety outcomes for people with dramatically less harm to marine life. Council has already shown leadership on this issue. Last year, the Local Government Association of Queensland endorsed the investigation of alternative updated shark mitigation technologies, with overwhelming support from the Queensland Council. This motion reflects that evolving position and aligns with best practice in coastal management, and also with our obligations as a biosphere reserve to model innovative, sustainable
01:06:00 solutions. When I first brought the LGAQ motion to this Council, I faced resistance, but I stood my ground because I knew how important it was to our community. That motion went on to receive overwhelming statewide support, and I'm taking that same principled approach today. I've not withdrawn this motion out of fear that it may somehow jeopardise our relationship with the State on other advocacy matters, because it won't. Respectful, clear, and constructive advocacy strengthens relationships, it doesn't damage them. That is precisely why I've prepared, and will now table, the LGAQ report. Sample letter with this motion. To show fellow Councillors exactly how we should intend to approach the Minister. Respectfully, constructively, and with a refined, simple request.
01:07:00 It makes clear, if you read the letter, that this is collaboration, not confrontation. You may hear after I sit that we shouldn't raise this again because the Minister has previously declined approval. But this is not the same request. It is materially different in scope, different in timing, and different in intent. We're not asking for a six-month removal of nets, we're not asking for a full migration season trial. We're asking for a short, targeted, three-month, southern migration trial, and some community members... Thank you. Councillor Lyons from the Council is here. Happy for Councillor Lyons to continue. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So I want to note that some community members who originally did not support the earlier proposal have already indicated that they're open to this more refined approach.
01:08:00 Some have even suggested even a two-month window that we should be throwing to the State. That is what finding middle ground looks like, and this approach has never been put forward to the Minister. Advocacy is not about asking once or twice and walking away. It's about listening, refining and evolving our position, and that is exactly what this motion does. Relationships with the States are not damaged by respectful dialogue. They are built through it. Strong relationships are formed when Councils show they are willing to adjust, to collaborate, and to keep the conversation open, not when they fall silent on issues that matter deeply to their communities. Thank you. There's a quote that I love using. If we do nothing, nothing changes. And in five months, the whales are going to begin their migration. If there is an entanglement and history tells us there likely will be, I want to know that we, as a Council, did everything we could to prevent it.
01:09:00 This motion is not about conflict. It's about responsibility. It's about protecting human life. It's about protecting marine life. And protecting the mothers and calves that pass our coastline every year. It's about standing up for those without a voice. It's about living up to our role as a UNESCO biosphere, where innovation, environmental protection and community wellbeing must go hand in hand. The worst case scenario is that the Minister is going to say no. But what if he says yes? The risk of momentary change. Momentarily upsetting a Minister can never, never outweigh the risk of another whale or calf becoming entangled off our shores. One is political discomfort. The other is irreversible harm. This is a reasonable, respectful, evidence-based request.
01:10:00 It reflects community expectations. It aligns with emerging best practice and demonstrates leadership. And it also aligns with both the State and Noosa Council's priority of protecting human life. Again, councillors, if we do nothing, nothing changes. I hope you support the motion in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move an amendment. I'll just read this. It's from the Minister. It says that we note the attached correspondence, which is four pieces of correspondence, to and from the State Government and Noosa Council's request to trial the removal of shark nets during whale migration season in conjunction with deployment of non-lethal mitigation methods, including smart drumlines and aerial drone surveillance, and b formulate a range of advocacy
01:11:00 strategies, not limited to letter writing, to achieve the objective of a trial for shark net removal during whale migration season. These strategies are to include advocacy for a three-month trial during the southern migration period when whales, including vulnerable coals, are travelling south when the majority of contaminants are known to occur. May I have a seconder, please? Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, please. Through the Chair. Point of order. Chair, I raise a point of order understanding Orders 29. My original motion is narrow, precise, and entirely self-contained. It directs Council to take one action only, to write to the Minister with a refined request for a three-month southern migration trial at Noosa Main Beach. The intent is clear, the scope is limited, and the operational impact is minimal. The amendment before us does not simply adjust or refine that motion. It fundamentally alters its character.
01:12:00 It introduces a broad advocacy program, requires staff to develop multiple strategies, and shifts the focus from a single targeted request to a much wider campaign for shark net removal across the entire whale migration season. This is not an amendment that, quote, retains the identity of the original motion as required by Standard Orders 29.1. It is a new motion in substance, scope, and effect. Standing Orders 29.1 are explicit. An amendment must be in terms that retain the identity of the original motion and must not directly negate it. The identity of my motion is in its simplicity. A single letter requesting a specific three-month trial. The amendment replaces that simplicity with an entirely different proposition. A multi-layered advocacy strategy that goes well beyond what was contemplated. It does not retain the identity of the motion.
01:13:00 It transforms it. Furthermore, Standing Orders 29.1 are different. They are designed to prevent amendments from being used to introduce new subject matter or impose new operational burdens to staff. Yet that is exactly what this amendment does. My motion requires one letter. The amendment requires strategy development, ongoing advocacy work, and potentially public-facing campaigning. These are new obligations, not refinements. They were never part of the original motion and cannot be inserted through an amendment without breaching the intent of Standing Orders 29.1. It is also important to note that Standing Orders exist to protect the integrity of decision-making processes. They ensure that Councillors know exactly what they are voting on. And that motions cannot be reshaped mid-debate into something materially different from what was originally put forward. Allowing this amendment would undermine that principle. Councillors would be voting on a motion that no longer resembles the one I gave notice of. And that is precisely what Standing Order 29.1 is designed to prevent.
01:14:00 Finally, the amendment alters the purpose of the motion. My motion seeks to reopen a conversation with the Minister through a refined, reasonable request that has never been put to the State. The amendment pre-empts that process by escalating the matter into a broader advocacy campaign before we even have made the refined request. That is a substantive shift in the intent. And Standing Orders do not permit amendments that change the purpose of a motion. And for all those reasons, Chair, the amendment does not comply with the Standing Orders 29.1. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for that, Councillor Lorentson. The intention of the amendment, it does not negate the intent of your motion. It is intended to improve the chances of success for the idea at a State level. Formulate a range of advocacy strategies. I'm proposing that we have a discussion and a Council discussion forum, or a Council-only forum,
01:15:00 where we can talk about ideas such as advocacy to the State, face-to-face delegations, so on and so forth. It is not an expensive exercise. It's about to increase the chances of success for this idea of a three-month trial. So my ruling is it does not negate the intention of the original motion. And that it be allowed. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move a motion that the ruling of the Chair be dissented from. And I also would like to move that, Chair, given that you are the mover of the amendment, I respectfully submit that it would be inappropriate for you to rule on a procedural matter relating to your own amendment. I therefore request that the Deputy Chair or CEO rule on this point of order. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. And look, as Chair, as the mover of the amendment, I'm entitled to speak in favour of it.
01:16:00 I believe I've made the right call. Let democratic processes take their course. Allow the amendment. If Council has had any concerns about its nature or the course of action it's proposing, it can be voted down. That's the reason why I'm saying it ought to be allowed. We have heard your... Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair... Scales of arguments. Sure. And through the Chair, can I ask the CEO, my understanding with standing orders is that when I move a motion that the ruling of the Chair be dissented from, does that not trigger a vote of the Councillors? Speaker 6: It does. Councillor Lorentson: It does. It does, yeah. So why is that step... Mayor Wilkie: It needs to be put to the Councillors now whether... Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. But that was not offered. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: No. It is part of the process. But it's part of the process. The Chair has a right to argue the reasons why he's made that...
01:17:00 He or she has made that decision. Speaker 6: So we can go to the vote. Mayor Wilkie: Go to the vote. Speaker 6: Around. Mayor Wilkie: Whether the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. But the Chairman has a right to vote on it. Speaker 6: Correct. Correct. Yes. So, Councillors, we're basically voting around, and the standing order is Clause 29 1, around whether or not that the amendment to the motion shall be in terms that it's retained the identity of the original motion, in terms of what Mayor Wilkie has put forward, whether that retains the identity of the original motion and does not directly negate the motion itself. Mayor Wilkie: So... We're actually voting on a... On a motion... We're actually voting on a motion that the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. Yes. Yeah. And my argument is that it be allowed to go through the democratic process and rights stay or fall based on the consensus of the group.
01:18:00 Yeah. Question? Councillor Phillips: If the amendment was from someone other than the Chair... I've just got to get my head around. We haven't had this before. The amendment's from the Chair. So, if it wasn't from the Chair, how... does that differ from how this process would work currently? Mayor Wilkie: I'll just say, we're not voting on the amendment, no. No. We're voting on whether the ruling of the Chair, that the amendment be allowed to be debated and put to the vote by the Councillors, be dissented from. No. Councillor Phillips: That bit I'm aware of. Sorry. My question is, if... How would it differ if it was, say, Karen's amendment? The Chair votes whether the... How does it work if it's the Chair? Because that doesn't really feel like it's... Speaker 6: Yeah. So, just from a procedural point of view.
01:19:00 So, we do... We've just got some clarification. We do need a seconder around the dissension motion that's been put forward. So, we need another Councillor to second that request, whether there's the dissension under Clause 31. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And can I ask the question? Under 31.7, which is the dissent from the Chairman's ruling, are there any provisions that suggest the way it's handled varies depending on the role of the Chairperson in the matter being dissented from? That's a good question. I can't see anything in there from A to F that would suggest that. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Kinsley. Councillor Finzel: Can you second that? No, I'm sorry. No, the original motion. Was that seconded? Right. Jess. Councillor Phillips: I did. Jess. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Just another question then.
01:20:00 In terms of... Yes. In terms of the process around the stamp orders, how would this work if we, like, go to the vote before we've even debated the first motion? Councillor Lorentson: This is just an amendment. This is just the amendment. So, then it goes back to the original motion and we debate that. Councillor Finzel: And then you would have opportunity, if you want, to raise that again further down the track. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So, the process is a motion can be moved. Yes. And then once the motion is moved, seconded, and the mover has spoken to it, an amendment can be moved, which is what's been done. It hasn't been seconded yet. Councillor Lorentson has challenged the right of this councillor to move an amendment. And when I've ruled that the amendment be allowed to be put to debate and vote, Councillor
01:21:00 Lawrenson has said no. So, the motion has moved that the chairman's ruling, that the amendment be allowed, be dissented from. So, if this procedural motion is carried, I could not... We could not accept the amendment as part of the debate. Speaker 6: And, in addition, so, as mentioned, so, the motion for rule of dissension needs to be seconded before you can proceed to the vote. So, there needs to be a council to second whether that... Yeah. ...request for dissension. Mayor Wilkie: Before it goes to a vote. Sorry. Before it goes to the vote. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: A question through the chair to the acting CEO. If no one seconds this, does this just fall? Councillor Lorentson: No. Yes. The dissent does, but the amendment stays. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Yes. To clarify, does the dissent fall for no seconder? Speaker 6: If there's no seconder, it is... That's seconded. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay. Okay.
01:22:00 Seconded by Councillor Wilson. So, we put it to the vote. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, you want the vote... Councillor Phillips: I do. I still have a question. A forwarding one, please. I don't... I still need to understand, because the... How the chair can rule on something that's to do with their own motion. So, I need to understand if it was someone else that moved an amendment. I understand that then the chairs... But how do you vote on something that you put forward? That, to me, that... I just need clarification. If it was someone else that made the amendment... Yes. ...I understand that the chair could... Yeah. ...step up. That's the right... That makes sense to me. I don't... When's the process when the chair moves the amendment? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. I can say that, as Councillor Stockwell said, there's nothing in the standing orders that rules the chairman out... Okay. ...of ruling on something... An amendment that he's moved. Councillor Lorentson: Okay.
01:23:00 Can I ask a question to the CEO through the chair? In terms of the standing order, the standing order's 29.1. Can you, other than read what it says, explain to us what it means? Mayor Wilkie: Does that do anything to you? Speaker 6: So, this is going back to the basis for your calling of dissent... The dissension. Councillor Lorentson: Absolutely. Speaker 6: ...councillors? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 6: Look, I'm happy to provide comments. Obviously, Clause 29.1 is... I'm sorry. Clause 29.1 is basically the amendment to the motion should be in terms which retains the identity of the original motion and does not directly negate the motion. So, whilst the procedural motion that's put before council is essentially what is being sought, is whether or not the position from the chair is agreed upon or not.
01:24:00 So, I'm happy to provide comments. In order for this to progress, given we have a seconder, my advice would be for the councillors to make the decision on whether that amendment should be allowed based on the outcome from the dissension ruling itself. Thank you. So, my advice would be is to let the councillors make the vote in relation to this, to allow whether the amendment be retained or not. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have a question from the chair. So, if it's found that it is outside section 29.1 in terms that the amendment has actually introduced new subject matter or extends the scope of the motion, does that stop the mayor from adding maybe still an amendment to the motion that possibly modifies
01:25:00 what's being put in front of us now? Speaker 6: Through the chair. Look, if you're asking for my specific opinion. Councillor Lorentson: No, it's not an opinion. No. CEO, I don't want your opinion. I just want to understand and give clarity to the councillors here that if the decision has gone outside the scope and the intent of the original motion, that doesn't stop the mayor to still proceed with another amendment. That doesn't impede on the scope or intent of the motion. That it's, at the moment, it's very broad. My motion is very, very targeted and specific. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order. Point of order. Just another question. The issue that you read out there is does the amendment, does the amendment negate the original motion? And the answer. Yeah.
01:26:00 And that's. That's it. Yeah. That's. Yeah. That's. Yeah. That's the key issue. Speaker 6: Yeah. Just to answer the original question, you are correct, Councillor, that at any stage later, the mayor or other councillors can make further amendments. In response to Mayor Wilkie's comments, absolutely. In terms of the voting for councillors, it's in relation to essentially around the amendment put forward and the dissension that's proposed is around whether or not that amendment is in line with Clause 29 of the Standing Rules. Councillor Phillips: Question. Do we get to speak a bit about a procedural motion? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we just. I can answer that. Only this. Only the mayor and the mover of the motion. That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: Exercising my rights to speak. Because I'm the author of the notified motion, I can speak very clearly and explicitly about
01:27:00 the intent. Mayor Wilkie: Excuse me. Councillor Lorentson, do I have already spoken? I'm giving the order. Speaker 6: And happy to clarify. So only the mover of the procedural motion and the chairperson may speak to the procedural motion in that order. So therefore, Councillor Lorentson, and then the final response from me. And then the chair. And no other councillors may speak to the procedural motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can I just confirm and mainly say to those councillors who haven't had this process, a vote in favour on this one is a vote that you think that the amendment doesn't retain the identity and or directly negate a vote against means you think the amendment's acceptable. Is that correct? That is correct. Speaker 2: Sorry. Councillor Wilson: Hang on. Go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a vote for the motion of the second chairman of the ruling is that you believe that the amendment does not retain the identity and or does not or negates the original motion.
01:28:00 A vote against means you are happy that what is proposed is an amendment to the motion. Councillor Phillips: So that's all. That's what you think. It is. Yes. It is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So a vote against allows the amendment to be debated. Yes. So, we will call the vote. We will call the vote. Those who agree that the Chairman's ruling be dissented from, raise your hands. Those who believe, that's Councillor Lorentson, Phillips and Wilson. And Finzel, those who believe the Chairman's ruling not be dissented from, that's Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Williams. So, the amendment is, that's carried. That means the amendment is not allowed. Back to the original motion.
01:29:00 Anyone else wish to speak to the original motion? Notice the motion. Pat Spicer: I will. Councillor Phillips: Um. . . . . . . When I first put my hand up to run for Council, I remember meeting some community members that had spoken passionately about this because it's been quite topical. And I think for years, swimming in the ocean, I hadn't really thought too much about it. But there's definitely many of our community that are asking Council to step into this space.
01:30:00 From my perspective, I've always had these kind of almost contrary groups of people approach me, you know, fishermen saying that they can't even catch a fish without the shark taking it first. And then we've got, you know, absolute horrific scenes of whale calves being caught off our beautiful beaches. So, that's definitely not something we want either. Um. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01:31:00 So, first of all then, part of that, speaking to that is just that I want to probably acknowledge that you have been in this space for a long time and I like your tenacity of not letting something go. I don't really want to get involved in like a political debate over how this all works. That's why today disappoints me because I just want to, like the work that you did, I just want to see it probably, it's simple, it's clear and I can't bang on on other days about clear communication and then go against it here. So, I guess even though I sort of understood the amendments, for me it's just making a real, like what happens next after today, it's pretty clear for me in this notified motion. So, that's why I'm going to support it. I guess there's a lot of other opportunities. For, through our council only discussions to bring up other ways, maybe the council can move forward in other advocacy spaces.
01:32:00 I know that's how I've had to bring through my e-bikes and things like that before the, so there is other processes that we can do that without it being, I guess, awkward for all of us sitting here around what we want to achieve today. So, yeah, I'm very supportive of the proposal to us. So, yeah, I'm very supportive of the state, whether that temporary three-month migration period is considered, yeah, thanks. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to try another amendment then, following on from the advice, please bring up the original amendment and I'll add changes to the wording. Speaker 2: Okay, all right, second. Mayor Wilkie: I would like it, at least. Second. Discuss. Discuss. In part B, change the words to councillors discuss.
01:33:00 Discuss. Discuss. Discuss. A range of advocacy methods. Discuss. Discuss. Mayor Wilkie: Discuss. So get rid of the formula, a range of advocacy strategies, comma, not limited to letter writing, yeah, and the rest is as is. So the heartbeat has been changed to councillors discuss a range of advocacy methods, not limited to letter writing, to achieve the objective of a trial for sharp net removal during the Royal Migration Season.
01:34:00 Don't need the next sentence. Yeah. These methods instead of strategies. Mm-hmm. I'm sorry. Mayor Wilkie: I'll just leave. Yeah. Just say these are to include. Leave it as is. Thank you. These are to include advocacy for a three-month trial during the Southern Migration Period in the wilds, including involving cars that travel south from the majority of the contact points and how to do it. Do it. May I have a seconder for, to test this amendment, please? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Sissler, the idea is good. The context is important. That's why I've attached the correspondence to and from the state government about a request
01:35:00 to have sharp nets removed during the Royal Migration Season. On every occasion we've written in a respectful, clear and collaborative way. The state government has made it clear it will not be removing the sharp nets for any amount of time during the winter season or at all. So we're going to do that. One letter carried the full endorsement of 77 Queensland councillors as a result of an LGAQ motion and the State Government again indicated its reasons for not removing nets for any amount of time. There is a very well known wise saying that advice is against doing the same thing over and over and getting a different result. In this case, continuing to write on essentially the same topic and the same method risks weakening the weight given to Noosa Council's advocacy on state issues.
01:36:00 I think we should continue to advocate on this. It's too important, but it's important that advocacy be effective. It will take some time. If we're genuine about successfully achieving the goal of net removal, we must think more carefully about the range of advocacy methods. This is why the amendment proposes we discuss a more strategic approach to advocacy, not limited to led by, but can include that to achieve the goal. This amendment offers that we have a chat in the Council discussion forum about methods that are more strategic than relying on the ad hoc practice of having a notice of motion every time we have a new idea. We need to have a process that's seamless, can result in council conversation, and it can just happen.
01:37:00 This involves consideration of use, we can talk about use of delegations, working with the community, face to face meetings, careful consideration of the timing of the advocacy as well. For instance, to coincide with the lead up to the next state election, when policy positions are known to shift. For example, this amendment is brought in good faith as a means of Noosa Council being successful in achieving a position we and many groups in the community are seeking to achieve. And this does not negate our letter being a part of that. But I'm suggesting we have a chat about other things, ways we can achieve the same end, including ways of delivering the message about the three month trial. For example, with the council amends, face to face meetings with ministers,
01:38:00 there's an opportunity coming up in a couple of weeks where that can occur. I'm just saying we don't give up, but we don't keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And publicly signifying this notified motion, it's likely to make the minister give in deeper. But respectful, clear communication has been the hallmark of all communication to date. We all just need to... Think a bit more strategic. And I'm sure just in the council discussion forum, we can do that. And that's all this is asking. Let's think a bit harder. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order. I can't sit and listen to this. Excuse me, Councillor. What's your point of order? My point of order is that we are actually re-prosecuting an amendment that has just been voted against.
01:39:00 Changing three words does not change. And this is the part where I have requested through the chair whether we could actually just seek... Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor. We've already had that discussion. And councillors will vote according to their conscience on this. That's not a reason to stop debate on an amendment that's been moved and seconded and debate is underway. Councillor Lorentson: Question through the chair to the CEO. Why are we debating the same amendment? Mayor Wilkie: Excuse me. I can answer that question. It is substantially different because it does not involve staff time. A complex array of strategies. It's a councillor discussion forum, I propose. Councillor, I'm going to finish my speech. Uninterrupted, please. I'm drawing to a close anyway. And you know how it has.
01:40:00 Thank you. So councillors, this does not make up the original motion. It's... We all want the same things. It gives us an opportunity. And I've said enough. Thank you. Councillor Wilson, you have your hand up. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. I'm a little bit uncomfortable talking about this topic today. And I just want to acknowledge Nico and his family in New South Wales on the other 50 days. I am not sure if you're aware of the fact that we've been talking about this in the last few days. But just on a kind of admin kind of comment, the amendment should say, pardon me, that the kit should be from that council. So that council, councillors is thus arranged by the official method. So grammatically, it doesn't make sense for staff.
01:41:00 But also, because of the fact that they have been brought in from other places, we are If councillors discuss a range of advocacy methods, there's no action from that. There's no way we can actually measure whether that's happened. So I'm just not at all with this wording. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Now, councillors wish to speak to the amendment. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak. We talk a lot about, you know, advocacy, and we've sat here this morning, we've heard community come in and present to council very good points around community engagement and how we can improve that. On the attachment with the reading on this agenda item, we've got the... I'll just check what the reading is called. The meeting minutes for Oceans for All, the trial of replacing shark nets during whale migration season, dated 26-09-25, Sandy Bolt was in attendance, and there's quite a number of people present.
01:42:00 I won't go through that, but this is quite extensive, and people are able to see that. I do note that the NUSA World Surfing Reserve, Trevor Back, against proposed trial, the reasons he put were lack of consultation on the Merrill Minute, two, absence of non-biased data based on fact rather than emotion, and three, no evidence of what will replace the nets. Now, we've heard this morning around the table, community coming to us, and we have voted quite extensively.
01:43:00 We've talked through all our discussions, through all the leaders that we can pull on through council, which is open to councillors, to represent our community in a fair and effective way. I won't support this amendment on B, because as councillor Nicola has stated, there's no measurement around this. Our community is called for action. I, you know, we can't just keep having talk fests. I would prefer to see that this provides opportunity, and based on only one of the people that I can mention here today that I'm using for my debate. Again, it's back to our community. This also is a state issue. Happy to be advocating. We have supported around the table time and time again, we've done the letters, we've supported it, we're listening to our community. However, our community is also calling for action.
01:44:00 So if it means that our community wants to get together and advocate, and there's several opportunities that I feel is probably more effective and hear their voices heard than what we can do today, having a councillor discussion around advocacy methods. How do we measure that? We have to collectively come together and work together as a community. As an elected representative, I'm here today to represent fair and equity, every voice across the community, not just one, not just some, and go beyond council boardrooms, council advocacy groups, reaching into our community, who have told us time and time again what they want, and they want action. I feel the best way to support the action of the people that want to see a trial is again to write to the minister and then call upon the community to continue to advocate.
01:45:00 I will support where I can, I will put my hand to the plough, but I will not support councillors again just having a range of discussion around a meeting that we cannot even measure the effectiveness or how we reach that advocacy. And then, how do we then communicate that back to community? I think that it's ineffective, yeah we can have a discussion, but when we're reaching in for major change that leads the way of how from now and into the future, sustainable conversations, I talk about this all the time, we are in a point, we are facilitators of change. This is a challenging intersection that we sit at, and we have to look at new ways of being, new ways of conversations around the table, and new ways of governance. When we talk about the levers that we can pull on, yes there's many, but we are also limited, as all the people here at the table. We run out there for community, we run for election, and you land in here, and we have our own constraints.
01:46:00 Collectively, we need to pull together, to work together, to be a strong, united voice for generations, now and into the future. And I think we can do better than support councillors' discussion around advocacy methods. We all know what they are, we all know how to do them, and I think we need to have a stronger voice in supporting our community, and our ocean animals, and our environment, for future generations. These are very significant times that we live in. We're making major decisions for the future of our young people, of our families, of our ageing population, our environment, our wildlife. These are very significant times. These are very significant decisions being made by people like us around tables. We are at an intersection of change, from like babies, from the cradle to the grave, across the globe.
01:47:00 We see the unrest. Today, we're seeing as a nation, we're lowering flags, we're lighting candles. We're looking at being the light, overcoming the darkness. And we have to be, I am very mindful today, of the people around us. People across our nation who are suffering. And I will not be supporting another talkfest when our community has called for action. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Do you have a bit of a wish to speak to the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll give the balancing argument. And I do it from someone who's spent 25 years in state government, who's written the drafts for responses to ministerial letters, who's engaged directly with ministerial officers. And there's two levels. There's obviously the bureaucracy, who have done the report, which is referenced in Councillor Lorentson's speech. And there's the ministerial advisers who have critical appointments.
01:48:00 The first step in writing to the ministry is understanding who's going to answer it. And in this one, we've already had a couple of answers. So it's unlikely to get past the ministerial advisers. Councillor Wegener: So I'm going to give you a bit of an example. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So let's be rational. The chances of success of the original motion are generally quite low. Just in the way that the policy works. Writing letters to the minister is easy. It's simple and straightforward. But to suggest that it's taking action is probably not realistic in the perception that it's going to make a difference. And everyone around this table understands the importance of change. And I think it's important to understand the importance of change. And we've adopted approaches that have not been successful today. Hence why the mayor has suggested that we try and do more. So for me, the amendment is adding on to the original motion in that it's saying if we
01:49:00 are passionate about this issue, we should be trying to do more to enhance the likelihood of success of our advocacy. It's as simple as that. The original motion has a low chance. Do we want to spend some time trying to improve that chance? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Thank you for your opinion, Councillor Stockwell. I stand back. I'm not going to support the amendment. And I've already sort of made clear my reasons. This again, in my opinion, negates my original motion. My original motion is one single specific amendment. It's not a single action to write to the minister. Councillors can, regardless of whether this amendment goes up or down, they can still discuss a range of advocacy methods. I'm part of Oceans for All and members that have been sitting here. We've been part of this movement for the last six years. I'm part of Clean Oceans Foundation.
01:50:00 I'm part of Surf Rider Australia. I've been a member of the surf club for the last 16 years. My children are lifeguards. I'm in the ocean six to seven days a week. There are other opportunities. If you want to join the range of advocacy methods, our doors are open. Welcome to come and sit in a meeting at any time. Please give a respectful tone, Councillor. I'm passionate. Please give a respectful tone. Totally accept that. But in terms of discussing a range of advocacy methods, that's going to transpire. You're passionate in this space. There are tonnes of opportunities for you to get involved. Again, going back to my opinion is this amendment negates the intent of and the scope of my original motion. I also think it's a breach of standing orders 29. I'm not going to be supporting. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment?
01:51:00 Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener: I would just like to quickly note that the advocacy, we talk about we're not doing enough, but the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation has done incredible advocacy for learning about the situation, about learning about the behaviour of sharks, about learning about alternatives. They started with the symposium that sort of started this whole thing off. They have the current bull shark programme which is being funded partially by the Biosphere Reserve Foundation. And I think the best thing that the Biosphere Reserve supported was the Surf Safe Noosa campaign which educates people on shark safety. And that is a wonderful campaign, so we are advocating. That's why I think that this is meaningless in a way, that we're already doing stuff. We need to continue the pressure on, I think that the destination management plan will
01:52:00 address these things. In a better way, and with working with the NBRF and continuing their advocacy on learning about shark behaviour and working within the system is better. That's the way I think we should move forward. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Whitton. I will close. Look, of course, if we discuss a range of advocacy methods, it's discussing and implementing a range of advocacy methods. This is happening all the time. I've had face-to-face meetings with ministers about this. And that will continue. So even if this amendment doesn't get up, it signals to the community that we are thinking broader than letter writing. Letter writing that we know is going to get pushback from the minister, that we're not going to give up there, and that the advocacy is going to continue beyond letter writing. This is too important. This is not about us. This is about the marine mammals we're wanting to protect.
01:53:00 So I was wanting to give the original motion a greater chance of success by adding on other forms of advocacy for that idea, which is instead of a six-month trial over a wild migration season, a three-month trial. It is a different approach. It was about giving that idea to the state through other methods other than a letter. Front-on letter. Which we know is going to receive the same response. So councillors, thank you for your feedback on this. Councillor Wilson, I do note your comments about the shark attacks down south. And that is always the drawback with raising issues like this, only through a modified motion, which is a very public forum. Every time we have a different idea, whereas the advocacy can take different forms.
01:54:00 It doesn't need to be via a council resolution. All right. Thank you for your feedback, councillors. The important thing is that we continue to advocate. And that will continue beyond just letter writing. I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour. Councillor Wignell, Stockwell. Any opposed? Anyone against? Councillor Wilkie goes against. Councillors Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel and Wilson. Yes. The amendment is lost. We go back to the original motion to which Councillor Lorentson and Phillips has spoken. Anybody else wish to speak to the original motion? Councillor Wegener: Having been involved in the Shark Smart program and really watching all of this, I think it makes sense. I believe that we are far from taking an evidence-based position on the adequacy of
01:55:00 smart drumlines and drones. There is a lot of work to be done on these shark mitigation ways. And there's a lot of misinformation. When people say shark nets do nothing to stop sharks, stop especially white sharks, well, do we have an evidence-based, science-based opinion on that? I don't have an opinion or study that says that the shark nets don't, because really, really smart people put them there in the first place a very long time ago. So I think that there is a... I want to support evidence-based solutions to this very serious problem with shark attacks on the rise in Australia. Taking out the nets at this time is not based on what we consider evidence-based. That's my thought. And I think... So I won't be supporting the motion. But yeah. Yeah.
01:56:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Speaker 1: I'll speak to the motion. Mayor Wilkie: The councillor's wanted... If the councillor's wanted to write to the Minister again, we can do that. I'm not against advocating putting this idea to the Minister by the same name, but I'm But also, we ought to be investigating other methods of advocating as well. So if a letter is part of that, I've got no issue with that. A little bit of penning for the feedback. As I say, it's too important an issue to not think carefully about and not be persistent about it. So I'll be supporting the letter to the staff.
01:57:00 Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Wilson, you have your hand up. Is that your wish to speak? Councillor Wilson: Yeah, thank you. I'll support it. I think it's a little bit redundant given what we're already doing, but it doesn't stop us doing other advocacy. And I think it's good to keep the pressure on. I'm not sure at the moment that the Queensland State Government will support this, so I think it's good to just keep giving our opinion on this. So I will support it. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing this. I agree, I think we've got to keep the pedal on. I think, you know, writing letters to State, you know, they're free to respond in whatever
01:58:00 manner they like. We're here to represent the people. This is at the forefront of our people in our community. You know, we've done all our surveys, livability surveys, all surveys where we've engaged the community, you know, environment continually with consistency comes up number one. I support it. I think writing letters and keeping it front and centre for the State is, you know, advocacy, you know, at its best. It's not up to us what to measure those outcomes. The State will make their own decisions. It is redundant in a way because, you know, they aren't aware of where we stand but I'm happy to support it and with regards to advocacy, we are continually advocating in our role as councillors daily, every day of the week, calling on whatever mechanisms we have. Why I didn't support B was the same reason. I feel that we're already doing those jobs. I think it's back to community. I want to congratulate all the people out there every day that are out pulling junk from the ocean, that are looking after our beaches, that are looking after our environment.
01:59:00 All kudos to them and, you know, supporting a letter to represent their voice and the importance of what that is to them, to our community and to State, I'm happy to support. But I'm also with Councillor Wenda that we do need to have more discussions and I'm not an expert. We want to have the evidence. We want to hear from the scientists and the specialists and the people that are out there daily collecting the data, doing the measurements, being in the water. So I think, yeah, we can drive this forward. Probably next time there might be better ways that we can do this. But this is what's before us now and so I'll support the letter to the State. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just to address a few things that were raised around the table. In terms of the notified motion and with all sincere and due respect to the lives that have just been taken and those that have been part of the attacks down in New South Wales,
02:00:00 the notified motion was put to Council before those incidences so I would like that on record. Secondly, in terms of Councillor Wegener, the notified motion does not seek to remove the nets. It seeks to replace the nets with what the Cardmo report, which is the Queensland Shark Control Program review of alternative approaches that was commissioned by the Queensland Government in 2019. Part of their recommendations where they found that replacing, not removing, replacing the two nets at Noosa with additional drumlines, quote, could potentially maintain catches of the three most dangerous target shark species, which is the tiger, the bull and the white shark, whilst reducing catches of other sharks and by catch by approximately 97%. That is to date the most comprehensive, independent, scientific assessment of shark control equipment used in Queensland.
02:01:00 Thank you for the conversation around the table. Thank you for allowing me to speak over my five times. And also for pulling me up when I do get passionate. I respect the processes and I also respect my obligations as a councillor to speak respectfully around the table. What the motion in front of us, before I speak to that, I also want to acknowledge some incredible people that are sitting here in the chamber today. And that's Albie Curtis and Peppy Simpson. I have been walking alongside these two incredible people. Some of the most respected people in this community who live and breathe and who are literally the voice of our marine animals.
02:02:00 And I stand here proud to represent you. What the notified motion here is, is a refined three month targeted trial that has never, ever been put to the Minister. Not once. The question before us is simple. Is the small risk of creating political discomfort. Is the small risk of getting a no or from the Minister. Is the small risk of the Minister not even replying to us. Is that greater than the very real risk of seeing another whale or another calf entangled in our nets in five months time. I don't believe it is. What we're proposing in a letter, and again I've provided a template, which I really encourage everyone please to read.
02:03:00 It's a measured, respectful, modern letter that aligns with the State and Noosa Council's own priorities. Which is to prioritise human life. Replacing passive static nets with smart drone lines. Deploying pingas to deter whales and dolphins. Trialling alternative hooks. Expanding drone surveillance. Every one of these tools strengthens human safety. The State's and Council's number one priority. While also giving whales and their calves and other endangered species like turtles and dolphins a genuine chance at safe passage through our waters. We all know what will happen in five months. The migration will begin again. And if there is another entanglement, we around this table can say that we tried. That we took a responsible, evidence-based step to prevent it.
02:04:00 So again, take this opportunity to thank, great conversation around this table. And to the Councillors, you know, someone told me many, many years ago, you've got two choices in Council. Do the right thing, or do what's right. And every day I try to do what's right. Jane Goodall to end in with a quote. She reminds us that what you do makes a difference. And you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make. And today, let's do that. Let's make a difference, guys. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wilson? Yes. That's unanimous. The motion is carried. Now up to 10.2, independent review of community service surveys. Councillor Phillips, would you like to make your motion? Councillor Phillips: Thank you. I have a notified motion this morning, which I'll read.
02:05:00 My recommendation for independent review of community surveys, that Council requires community engagement surveys that are developed to support consultation and or decision making for significant Council projects. Undergo an independent review by a suitably qualified third party prior to release to ensure methodology, methodological integrity. Neutrality of framing and confidence in the reliability of the data used to inform Council decision making. And B, request the CEO to provide a report back to Council for further consideration and or decision that explores the potential opportunities and costs in line with Council's standing orders. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Could we have a seconder for that, please? I think she's second. I second. So, Councillor Lorentson, just shout out to you.
10.2 INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF COMMUNITY SURVEYS ¶
02:06:00 Sorry, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. First of all, I just want to start by acknowledging the staff that we do have in the space of community engagement. Because at no point through processes that I want to do in this role is to ever sort of undermine or question the credibility or expertise in the room. So, that's how I want to start today. But probably from day one, I've sat in here and heard deputations on community around consultations. We've heard it again today. And so, for the last few months with the CEO, I have been working on how to look at opportunities to rebuild trust with community around this, our engagement through the specific surveys that we do. So, that's how I want to start today. I want to just take you back to 2008 for a second when I graduated from the police
02:07:00 academy as a very young constable. And I got given all these proformas from the sergeants around how to have questions with community because I had to follow these sort of standard questions. And I remember standing at a break and enter reading through my sheet, questions, answers. And at the end, you know, I've... My senior officer sort of stepped in without a proforma and asked questions that I'd completely missed because I followed this proforma. And he took me aside after and he said, the proforma's are great, Jess, but you're not listening because you're just following this sort of process, right? And he sort of started my journey of what he said active listening looks like. And he said, if you're actively listening and the way you phrase a question will be clear, it will give you the outcome. And then sort of through my experience, then I gained so much more around how that actually
02:08:00 looks. So, I was part of a full review with the QPS around interviews because we used to interview with questions that were eliciting a certain response. And then we looked at this, the way they interview today, which is called investigative interviewing. And it's all around open-ended questions and how do we get the most from our questioning techniques. That took so many reviews and I'm sure you've watched, you know, movies where someone's sitting in, you know, the police officers demanding, you know, that the person locked themselves into a narrative or a story. So anyway, my point is, questioning is, the way it's phrased, can give you a certain outcome. And in my experience now, when I came to Council, I remember sort of standing up and you'll remember I would read from a sheet of paper because I felt like I've got to say the right thing. And if I fumble over it and say, you know, people are going to think I'm not an expert
02:09:00 communicator. But that's actually not reality. You know, communication is eye contact, it's body language, it's all of the things that come into play. And when we take offline or we're not face-to-face and you can't see my body language, that's so interpreted so differently because around 80% of our communication comes from non-verbals. So a smile, a head nod, the gesture, so I'm listening, the way we, you know, communicate. That's why when on paper, when we write an email or on Facebook, you might get a comment that says a certain... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're dealing with getting third party review of surveys, we appear to be having a speech on good communication. I think it's widely off what the motion is on. Councillor Phillips: I'll bring it in because I am going to... Thank you. I am going to talk about why. So through communication, when we're speaking like this, when we're doing our surveys, we
02:10:00 don't have that. We don't have someone from Council standing. Actually, through the DMP, we had that great response where community, when they were face-to-face with our director, she said to us how much different the communication was when they were out there. And we've heard it today around when they do pop-ups, it's different. So the purpose of today is around the actual surveys because when we put out a survey, the questions have to be really fine-tuned around what we're trying to achieve. So we're hoping that community can give us their honest feedback. And for me, the three major things that we've probably seen with DMP planning scheme, the foreshore plan, some of the feedback we got was the questions gave us the outcome. And today I just want to... The motion was more around if we have that third party, we've talked about the statistical valid information that comes out of the survey results, but we can't really confidently say
02:11:00 that prior to that, it's gone through a third party review that really gives us confidence that there's no unconscious bias, which everyone has, and it really gives us confidence that when we have that data and the outcomes from the survey, that it really gives us confidence. So sorry, I apologise for... I was on track until the point of order. I just want to bring it back to the point of order. I just want to bring it back to the point that I wanted to raise, because it did tie into effective communication. So I might go over my five minutes because I've been thrown off a little bit. The community are asking around the nation about trust between local, state and federal government. They talk a lot about feeling misheard, misrepresented. I worked with the CEO on this notified motion and he was...
02:12:00 He considered it, that it really will give us an extra layer. It's not going to please everyone. I know that there's no outcome today that's going to completely give us that, but I'm trying to build trust with our community. I'm trying to say every time we make decisions in this room, we have gone through a really robust process. I'm not saying that that doesn't happen today. I'm just asking for another layer. It's not about undermining the organisation or the process that we currently have, but it's actually simplifying and strengthening and making our process more mature and up-to-date with what can be done. So I do hope you consider what I've put up and support it. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors? Councillor Wood. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We should move an amendment, please.
02:13:00 Councillor Wood. So the amendment deletes the A and rewords B to request the CEO to provide a report back to Council for further consideration that explores the potential opportunities, implications and costs of obtaining independent review of surveys to be used as part of the community... Take out the... Of community engagement on... Oh, no. Of the community engagement on significant Council projects and plans. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for the amendment, please? Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I want to start by saying I support the objective that Councillor Phillips has outlined in her supporting information. Particularly with respect that what she is attempting in this motion is to support transparent and defensible decision-making processes. Align Council practice with recognisable standards in research, social science and community
02:14:00 consultation. And that it reflects Noosa Council's commitment to high-quality engagement and evidence-based policy. It's therefore unfortunate that it was raised as a notice of motion without any high-quality engagement nor significant evidence base. We've heard the justification is that there has been some issues raised by the community and I hear them. We heard some this morning. We heard that it's leading to lower participation rates, which, if we get the statistics, you'll find that probably we're probably one of the highest level governments in Australia in terms of participation on significant projects and the fact that we do get statistically valid responses to surveys suggests that participation isn't being affected. We've got massive participation. We've got very high expectations in the community. We've got people in our community who do know a lot about surveying.
02:15:00 We heard that, you know, that there's concerns about the, that not having the civil expertise. And we know that our community consultation coordinator has extensive experience in that discipline and a PhD. And if she was in consultancy, she'd be one of the people we'd be paying to do third-party reviews of surveys. So by raising it as a notice of motion. It doesn't give us the opportunity to fully consider the implications of this isolated approach to one element of consultation. There is no urgency to make this decision now. There is no significant consultation coming up or surveys that doesn't allow us to consider it in full context with the evidence base, with an understanding of how surveys are currently portrayed. The two biggest surveys we've run are done by the leaders in the field in Australia. So is that the target of, maybe not.
02:16:00 So what I've done is removed the direct developments. The direct development in A is basically saying, we're going to set the policy, then we're going to ask for a report about it. I've just suggested, let's get a report and actually that will come with a prior workshop or something around the table. So we all have an understanding of what this might mean. I would like to make my decision after receiving the advice of our qualified and experienced staff. And some have decades of experience in this field. I want to hear what our staff think about what is the most effective use of ratepayer dollars. Because A really commits us to higher cost consultation on significant projects. And as Havla said in response to one of the questions, quite frequently, we do make I want to say how do we best get community input and community engagement is it paying consultants to do third party review or is it investing in upskilling our staff because some may be part of the issue is not the community engagement area but other parts of council that could benefit from understanding how to construct surveys and that's a great example of building the capacity within rather than committing to paying consultants out into the future.
02:17:00 Is the amount of money we would spend on third party going to receive better results if we invest in other aspects of our engagement. We've heard recently we've upgraded our Our Say Noosa page and that's a platform now that we can receive a lot of informal inputs from the community and the page itself is leading edge and you can analyze the sentiment so maybe the importance of formal surveys aren't going to be as high in the future so the amount The amendment doesn't negate the motion. As I said, I understand where we have done surveys of some concerns and always we should be trying to encourage staff to have that process of continuous improvement and innovation.
02:18:00 But what it does say is if we are committed to good engagement, then notices of motion aren't the way to do it. Really clearly. And if we are committed to evidence-based, we don't do it on a one-paragraph background information to a notice of motion. We do it after considering all the facts. And I understand why it's raised, but I think we've got time to consider it in more depth and to come up with, it might be the same recommendation, but we will have considered the evidence-based and considered what is best to spend the ratepayers' money on in terms of improving the inputs from our community to our significant projects and our plans. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips: Question to the CEO. During the process, the lengthy process I've gone with the CEO, Larry Sengstock about this, I put to him questions around when we go for grants that it could be part of the process.
02:19:00 So I just want to clarify because he did say to me that it's certainly available to us that we, through the, you know, when we apply for the major, because I've specifically said it's for the major. Significant Council projects that, just to clarify that there's a really strong potential it won't imply any costs to Council because it'll be part of the consultation budget that's put to the projects. Mayor Wilkie: What's the question? Councillor Phillips: I just want to clarify because Councillor Stockwell's raised something that it's going to imply costs, but I already checked with this that it would be part of the consultation, like a budget that's already part of the project. Mayor Wilkie: So you're making a comment or you're raising a question? Councillor Phillips: I'm raising the question because it negates what? Mayor Wilkie: The question starts with how, what, why, when or when. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Can you? Can you? Okay. Could you? Could you? I still haven't heard a question in what you're asking. Councillor Phillips: Can you clarify?
02:20:00 Yes. When we go for our major Council projects that there is a budget that has consultation in it. The CEO to confirm for the Councillors around the room, he has told me that it can be part of that process, that it's an external third party rather, and it won't cost Council any more because it'll be part of that big, the project budget. Speaker 5: Through you. Councillor? Speaker 6: Yeah. Through you, Chair. I'm happy to give some advice on it. Obviously challenging in the sense that each project will attract different types of funding potentially. Some of it may be partial. Some of it may be co-contribution. So whilst Council as part of its request for grant can incorporate communication and planning as part of its budget bid, it potentially may vary. So I guess it's not a blanket confirmation that it'll be part of that. It will always be covered without any additional cost to Council, but in cases where we have
02:21:00 received grants, some of that can incorporate costs for private consultancies in terms of design, but also engagement as well. So there's no one fits all. It can be in certain situations, but also there may be situations where Council may need to fund that will co-contribute to the overall project costs. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Just a follow up question. And I appreciate, Richard, that you're not who I've had these conversations with, so I apologise. But when I was discussing this with CEO Larry Sengstock, that's part of B, which was going to come back to the report to us. So we weren't making financial decisions through this notified motion. I just want that to be very clear. Speaker 6: That's it. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I just want to speak. I was going to call quite a board up, but I missed that opportunity because I didn't want to interrupt. I just think that when you're addressing a Councillor, that you don't need to mansplain
02:22:00 to her what the question is. I think that is disrespectful, Mr Chair, to have to mansplain who, what, when and why to the Director. I apologise if I have to move out of that. However, I will rephrase that. When we come together around the table, I think it's, we're called to be respectful. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: And it is my job to ascertain a question when, if a Councillor is speaking for a long period of time, and a question still hasn't been, is not obvious, it's the Chair's role to evince that question, get that question clarified, so that the meeting runs according to standard orders. Thank you. And I'm going, please, if I explain something, let's not use gender-based discriminatory language to describe behaviour, if that's not appropriate.
02:23:00 So thank you, Councillor Phillips, for getting to the question eventually. And in response to your point of order, Councillor Finzel, that's the Chair's role to get Councillors to cut to the chase with questions. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate your interpretation of the standing orders and what's expected around the table. I just think that we can... Mayor Wilkie: Is this a point of order? Councillor Finzel: Councillor, there's no... I just, I am to respond to your comment. Mayor Wilkie: No, you are not. Councillor Finzel: Well, my apologies. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Now, I'm going to exercise my right to speak. I'm going to support the amendment for a simple reason, because it's the correct process. It clarifies the correct process, because Part A requires community engagement surveys take place with the... With review by a survey-qualified third party. Whereas the correct process is to have the report to Councillors first, be done first,
02:24:00 about the costs and implications of the process. So, it achieves Councillor Phillips' objective, but it puts it in the correct order of the process. The other reason I support it is because there's a lot of discussion in the community about Council relying a lot on consultants. So, it's very important that if we're going to get on the track of employing more consultants, the confidence that we're going to get is that we're going to get more consultants. So, the costs of that are understood, the costs and political implications of that are clearly understood by Councillors before we commit to that. The other reason is a cultural one. And that is culture starts at the top, and the tone set by Councillors, and the words and the language used by Councillors does have an impact on staff. So, we're talking about independent and neutral, neutral, unbiased language.
02:25:00 And Part A requires a more neutral approach to the process. So, the staff's work does mention, it does question the integrity and the neutrality and the reliability of the staff's work. So, by removing Part A, you go to Part B, which is a more neutral and unbiased resolution that's unlikely to impugn the integrity, neutrality, and the confidence and the reliability of the staff. So, it still achieves the same outcome. It's a correct process and uses more neutral and unbiased language. I'll support the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. Councillor Morrison. So, a question through the Chair. In terms of process and even language, Councillor Phillips, you've raised that you've been in discussions for some time with the CEO.
02:26:00 Can I ask, was any of this a decision made by the Chair? Was any of this advice supported to you? Councillor Phillips: Actually, we've been tic-tacking for months about the wording and the CEO was satisfied with the end result last week before. So, there was definitely a process around how to make sure that, as I spoke, to answer your question, he helped me through the process and satisfied with the wording. Councillor Lorentson: Another question through the Chair. You raised... Councillor Wilson: I've had my hand up. I'm sorry. Speaker 6: Oh, yes. Excuse me. Sorry. Councillor Nicholas. Sorry. Councillor Wilson. Sorry about that. You have the floor, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I want to speak against the amendment. I think it substantially changes the original motion put forward by Councillor Phillips. And also, unfortunately, I didn't hear most of what Councillor Stockwell said because there's been a bit of an audio issue. But I think, to begin with, he said that this wasn't in any way supported by community
02:27:00 feedback. And I don't think the amendment in any way helps that point. So, there has been community feedback that the surveys are biased and multi-pronged and lots of different issues with the surveys. And I don't think that's the case. I don't think this amendment actually goes in any way to solve that. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I might just speak to the amendment in front of us. I'm not going to support it either. I go back to section 29 of the standing orders. And I believe that the amendment materially alters the original motion because it changes an immediate requirement. The original notified motion, when you read it, requires surveys undergo independent
02:28:00 review. The motion, or the amendment in front of us, requests a report that explores opportunities rather than a directive to implement independent reviews. So, for me, what I'm reading in front of me delays action and weakens the original intent. And also, we've heard through Councillor Wilson that she's been advised over many, many months that the amendment requires surveys to undergo independent review. That the wording was fine, and that the CEO was satisfied with the original amendment as it stood. Mayor Wilkie: Question for Councillor Stockwell. Does your amendment, does that just require that there be a report to Council informing Councillors about the costs and implications of doing the independent review or surveys before Council makes a decision?
02:29:00 Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That is the intent. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. You're not saying that Councillors don't do it. You're saying you get a review of the implications of costs before deciding to do it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. It's to be informed by staff prior to making a decision in that. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak against the amendment, please. It does change the intent of my notified motion completely. The community continually taking time out to come and do deputations. I don't want another report. I want a part of it. But my point is, we actually, they just keep asking for us to do something. They want action. I feel that they're spending a significant amount of time coming in asking for us to review and look at how our surveys have been. It's been conducted today. Again, we've heard it.
02:30:00 So, it doesn't meet my intention at all around what I'm asking from the organisation. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Question through the Chair to Councillor Phillips. During those ongoing discussions, did you discuss the viability of putting the energy into when the survey is actually set up? So, when the survey is actually set up, did you discuss the viability of putting the energy into it? I'm interested to hear how those discussions went so that it was more of a set up stage rather than the review at the end. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. That's exactly right, Councillor Finzel. It's not about the results that we're getting from the surveys. It's the set up and the wording. And I didn't want to, again, with respect to staff, I wasn't wanting to highlight that we all have unconscious bias. And when they're working on projects. So, this was just more to give community real satisfaction that it has gone through
02:31:00 somewhat a third party to review that there's no leading questions or any type of wording used in our questioning that already sort of gives us an outcome. Because otherwise, we're relying only on the statistical valid information that has come out of the survey, not in the preliminary development of the survey. Does that answer your question? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: No questions for Councillor Stockwell. Your amendment is part of the Report Back to Council. In terms of explores the implications, is that about the work that's done for reading, this process is done for reading, and the impact on staff of going to a third party consultant? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What do you mean by implications? Oh, well, the first one, you said opportunities and costs. Implications are broader than just the opportunities and costs, because there will be implications
02:32:00 that are non-financial. So, it's about what are all the implications? For example, if we're in a tight timeframe and we've got this requirement and we have to go out to a third party review, quite often as councillors who set very tight deadlines, does that mean that this trumps the fact that we're going to a deadline? There's a range of different dynamics within the process, and so the implications is just broader. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And is your point that a notified motion doesn't give councillors all the background information they need to make an informed decision about whether they make this big change? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's what I said, yes. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Question through the Chair. This big change that you've made, have you made any changes to it? Yeah. At the moment, in terms of significant projects, so I'm referencing botanical gardens, Pomona placemaking, destination management plan, our state amendments, who currently designs
02:33:00 and writes council's engagement surveys? And my understanding is that we actually are already engaging with consultants to help design our surveying engagement processes. So, yeah. Is that correct, through the Chair? Speaker 6: Yeah. Through the Chair. Yeah. So, look, already council, and I think it was alluded to in response to a public question time this morning, but we do already engage consultants around public engagement strategies, and so we bring on highly skilled consultants to help us around different methodologies. And instead of that being one of those methods of how we garner and gather feedback from our community. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of engaging or outsourcing the engagement process, what's the criteria used to select providers, just out of curiosity?
02:34:00 Speaker 6: Through the Chair, I don't have the specifics on that at hand, so I can take that on notice and get back to you specifically around that, whether it's through a broader tender process or through a Q and A. Okay. But I'll come back to you on those for the response, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: And a question to the author of the notified motion. So, given that we already are outsourcing and engaging independent parties, can you just clarify that your notified motion sort of just mandates it for significant projects with huge public interest or concerns around it? Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Correct. That's why we, the CEO and I, worked on the significant part of the project. And it was kind of off the back of finding out through the DNP process that the questions
02:35:00 weren't actually written by the consultants, they were written in-house, and that was one of the most recent ones that we got feedback that they felt, because the community felt that the sort of decisions were made through that process rather than meaningful consultation. So, that was kind of off the back of finding out through the DNP process. And that was kind of what triggered the final part of me putting this this way. I've also raised it, you know, I've had community surveys on our council-only discussion forums quite a few times. I think we've spoken about comms. So, I think this was the only next step for me, and I worked with the CEO on that as well. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Anybody else who wants to speak to the amendment? I'll close. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So, I appreciate, I'll move closer to the speaker, that Councillor Wilson had difficulty hearing, but what she suggested I was saying was not correct.
02:36:00 What I said is I acknowledge that you do see community feedback and input around our surveys. And, you know, I think it's important for us as a community, as a community, as a community, I know that there is room for improvement in everything we do. And surveys is one that we have a number of people who quite frequently identify what they see as shortcomings. And I want to put it on record. It's, yeah, the process on big projects of getting a third party involved, I've got no objection to. But it's really important that when we have a third party involved, we have a third party
02:37:00 We can't just take informal input as being representative and we can't make decisions on policy on the run and this is what this would do. This is making policy decisions on the run and we can't say we're committed to high quality engagement if you've talked to the CEO about this for 4 months but haven't talked to your colleagues. It's poor practice. So if I'm going to make decisions about community engagement, a subject that I've had a lot to do with in my career, I've had many decades and worked with community to win many state and national awards for my community engagement and I'm not saying that I disagree with this being one of the options to improve the way we do it. What I'm disagreeing with is to put up a notice of motion and expect a decision without the evidence base and with the quality
02:38:00 of engagement with your colleagues to get there. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, those in favour of the amendment? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wilkie. Those against the amendment? Councillor Morrison, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilson. Yes. The amendment is passed. We go back to the original motion to which only Councillor Phillips has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: I understand Councillor Phillips' concerns. We've discussed it quite a bit around the table and informally. Yes. Yes. But I think this whole notice of motion thing is, in my opinion, a waste of time. We're
02:39:00 spinning our wheels so much time here. Next, I think that we're trying to force what we should be doing. I think our job is actually, when we're around the table and a big project comes up with us, we can sit down with the team and say, okay, the survey questions. We're not real happy with them in the past. Maybe we should have a look at that and look at it at that time. We don't do this notice of motion and create a new bureaucracy, a new level of bureaucracy when our job is to actually oversee and manage these big projects. So I'm not going to support this because, as you know, I'm very, very against micromanagement. I'm very against numerous layers of bureaucracy. I suggest that we'd be much more efficient and much more productive if we, in my opinion, did our job around the table better. And I think our job will evolve. As we learn, we
02:40:00 go forward. But through the next program, if we say we want the questions, our consultation to be, we can get our fingerprints on that consultation. That's what we do. That's our job as councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, councillor. Any other councillors wish to speak to the notice of the motion? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. I will support this. I think in my almost two years as councillor, this has come up several times already. And we don't get to see those questions before they go out. So I don't like micromanaging either. But this is really important that when somebody goes out to public consultation, that it's not biased. And I know from being in education, when I've been writing multiple choice questions for assessments, it's hard. This is not something
02:41:00 that, you know, this is something that has to go through lots of layers of review and testing. And you can be too close to it. And I just think we need someone independent to be part of this process. And that should just be a given every time. But I think that's a big kind of project. And we've gone through it with the foreshore plan. We've gone through it with the planning scheme. We've gone through it with the DMP. And I think now it's time to just say, okay, this isn't working. We're getting the feedback that it's not working. And we need to do something. We need to bring in some people who are not involved in these projects and get them to help us out here and make sure that every community consultation is best practice. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for the notice of motion. I think we can get better efficiencies than raising
02:42:00 through notice of motions. I do agree with that. But I will support this coming to the table today. And we've been passionate about that. We all know that. And I think we need to get better efficiencies. And I think we need to get better efficiencies. And I think I'll support it in terms of continuous improvement. Some of the conversation around the table today has been a bit like thought provoking about how we've arrived at this situation. But having said that, you know, I think with quite what council have alluded to is that, you know, we need to do our jobs. And yes, we've had significant things come through and it's all learning. So I think that's where we find ourselves that intersection today. Because we do have and have had opportunity to engage with staff and consultants and specialists at the table through processes. So I don't think it's completely broken. I appreciate where you're coming from, because it is about how can we do better? How can we engage with
02:43:00 the community in a more tangible way that really represents their voice coming back to us? You know, it's to be commended for everyone, all the staff, all the councillors, the CEO, everyone. We're all here for the right reasons to engage our community and have meaningful consultation to inform our decisions moving forward. So I'll support it today in terms of, you know, how we can do better, how we can give voice to our people better, how we can support our staff to do their jobs better. And how we can make it more trustworthy process, so that our community feels that we have all done the best we can in terms of continuous improvement. How we listen to what people say around the table, how we give significance to that voice, and how together we can move
02:44:00 forward to build that consistency and trust. That we will commit to rigorous process and reviewing what's before us. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: First, I'd like to just thank Councillor Phillips for exercising your rights to bring emergent issues to the table through notified motions. This is an emergent issue. So I've been in council now six years, and even today. The theme of all the deputations were some of the things that were centred around this very, very matter, community engagement process and perceived bias. So thank you very much for bringing this matter to the table. The motion in front of us is really quite simple. It's a motion about strengthening public confidence in our engagement processes. We already do this, but we need to do it more,
02:45:00 and particularly in matters that have significant public interest and matter to the community and the community. Independent review, and I need to make this clear, independent review has got nothing to do with questioning the staff. We have great staff, very skilled staff. Independent review is about supporting them. It's about ensuring that for significant projects, we have a second set of expert eyes to check for bias, clarity, and reliability. I've been in, you know, in universities for 10, I think possibly 12 years. It's a standard practice. In research, it's a standard practice to have a second set of eyes. Social science, as Councillor Stockwell mentioned, in policy development, and it's also increasingly common in local councils. So this is best practice. Again, especially for the new, not the new councillors,
02:46:00 they are experienced councillors, they are experienced councillors, they are experienced councillors. But the beginning of this term, we saw firsthand what happens when community surveys are perceived as leading or unclear through the Noosaville Foreshore Management Plan, even through the Destination Management Plan. So this motion in front of us helps prevent that. And again, I thank Councillor Phillips for bringing it forward to us. It protects the integrity of our data. It supports transparent decision making, shows the community that we take their input seriously. And most importantly, it supports our staff. Speaker 1: Thank you, Councillor Lyson. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I won't repeat my arguments within the, that I made in the amendments for why I can't support this, but I will support Councillor Wegener. The right time to make these decisions is when a particular project or plan is in front of us. It's not to have
02:47:00 a blanket without a challenge. Because in some instances it will be perfectly reasonable and as you suggested, it may be something that's filled into a grant application doesn't be for others. It may be that it isn't the appropriate way forward. That's the key to it. And that's the reason I can't support it is it's committing council to a policy position outlined for significant projects. But the term significant project isn't defined. It's defined as a policy approach. Is it just those projects that are highlighted in our corporate plan? Is it like we did last year, list a range of different consultations, some got more consultation than the other, but then one of those wasn't the botanical garden. So Councillor Lyson suggested it's a significant project. What does significant mean? We haven't set up that. These are all things that should be addressed if we're going to go down this
02:48:00 as a policy approach. We should have it clear. It shouldn't be left up to others to interpret what's intended. And I think it should be one that we make, you know, the best time to make it is when we've got significant project or plan in front of us and we're deciding how Mayor Wilkie: to do it. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson, you have your hand up. Thank you. I just had a question, sorry, before Councillor Stockwell goes. It's my understanding that this is common practice for Central and Coast Council. Could anyone confirm that, please? Speaker 6: Look, I can't confirm or deny that, specifically on, again, if it's on significant projects in terms of what scale that they do or don't do a third party review or survey. So I can't give that to you right now. But I could make some inquiries as to what scale they do or Advice back to councillors on notice. Mayor Wilkie: Question on notice. If there's a question on notice, Councillor Wilson, are we allowed to hear that?
02:49:00 Councillor Wilson: Yes, we're allowed to hear that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Just my understanding is that it is best practice in a few councils, and I would also be just a question on notice, having a look at Moreton Bay Council and Brisbane City Council. Mayor Wilkie: I will speak to the motion. I am relieved to see in there that it involves significant council projects only, but as Councillor Stockwell said, there is some wavering around what that actually means. So, as long as we're able to have a discussion around what constitutes a significant project, that will make it in line with what we understand is happening already.
02:50:00 The planning scheme amendments, for example, the Noosaville foreshore master plan. I did have concerns about something about the irony of a motion that seeks to have greater collaboration and engagement to come through a notified motion process, which doesn't necessarily involve councillors. Like a lot of these issues that we've seen come through as notified motions can be the subject of councillor discussion forums, where we have a collaborative understanding of what a councillor would like to achieve, and reports can be brought to the organisation, which gives the councillor the opportunity to make a decision on the background data and costs involved, rather than requiring councillors
02:51:00 to make that decision without that information before them. I note that part B there says that the CEO will provide a report back to council that mentions the costs and potential opportunities in line with councillors' standing orders, and perhaps that's where the implications can be made. So, I have some misgivings. I agree with the principal that significant surveys ought to be, have the independent third party analysis. I will support this notified motion, but I would like to hope that councillors can take a collaborative approach down the road. Which is in line with what we're trying to achieve with our community engagement through our council discussion forums, or council-like phone ring discussions, which is to talk when we're here together, that way we can all be on the same page and understand and help what we're trying to achieve and have a more consensus view on outcomes, which are ultimately for the betterment of the community and that's what we're all here for. So I will support the Noosaville Junction.
02:52:00 Councillor Phillips: Closed? Thank you. I'm with you, Tom. Actually, the notified motion process is not, was not my ideal. I really don't want to, I think this is really inefficient for staff and for us, especially for this. But I got to the point where I felt like I had raised it at councillor only and I'd raised it in discussions, so I kind of felt like, what's my next step? In the DMP, we did ask for the questions and that wasn't provided. So I got to a point, like, I really do think I'm someone that thoroughly tries other avenues because I'm really not in it for the politics at all.
02:53:00 So I really wanted to be able to go back out to community every time it's mentioned and back our staff. Like, I think that, like Councillor Lauren said, it's actually about saying, no, you're wrong. We, we, it's been through. Because we speak about this all the time, there is a lack of confidence in local, state and federal government at the moment. I can't control what they're doing, but I can only control what we do in this room. It's up to us individually to say what matters to our community, how do I do that effectively. Whether this wasn't the right process, maybe, maybe not. To me, it's just really being able to say, no, it's gone through independence. The staff knew, and if it comes out that it was completely clear that the questions were not leading,
02:54:00 then what a thing to celebrate as a council when we get the outcome and the data and we sit here and we endorse the project. We can stand confidently and put it part of our speech that we've done this year. We've seen the independent process through the whole thing, and that's what I wanted to achieve by it. Wording matters. The wording, the fact that we just got hung up on significant, is exactly why we should go through an independent review, because wording, the word, can be interpreted differently. I'm really happy to discuss offline what significant means, Mr Mayor, because, yeah, you're right, it can be broad. I'm happy to make sure that it's not... But I do hope that you can understand why it got to this point today and support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson? Yes. Councillor Phillips, Wilson, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against?
02:55:00 Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stockwell. The motion is carried. Now, councillors, would you like a break? Speaker 4: Yes, please. Mayor Wilkie: An adjournment, 15 minute adjournment. And we'll be back at 1.10. Thank you very much.
03:13:00 Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Thank you, guy. Councillor Wilson: You're welcome. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you.
03:14:00 Thank you. Briefing paper, 11.1.3 Workplace Health and Safety Annual Report, 11.1.4 The Crow Recruitment Management Audit Final Report, 11.1.5 Briefing Paper on Outstanding ICT Action Items, 11.1.6 Update on the Review of Outstanding Action Items, 11.1.7 Draft Annual Rolling Works Plan and Standing Agenda Item, 11.1.8 Discussion to Recommend New Chair of Audit and Risk Committee, 11.1.9 Complementary Fraud Event Analysis, Corrective Actions and Status Update, 11.1.10 Complementary Public Interest Disclosure Update, 11.1.11 Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations on Block. I have a move and a seconder of the Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations dated 12 December 2025, Councillor Wegener as a committee member. I give the second. And seconder, Councillor Wilson. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. The Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations dated 9th of January 2026, 11.2.1 QAO KPMG Closing Report, 11.2.2 2024-25 Annual Financial Statements,
11.1 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 12 DECEMBER 2025 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.1 CEO UPDATE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
11.1.11 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶
03:15:00 11.2.3 Mr Shire Council Annual Report Draft, 2024-25, 11.2.4 Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations on Block. Do we have a mover and a seconder for those recommendations? I have a move. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Then we have the General Committee Recommendations, 11.3.1 Endorsement of Noosa Local Disaster Management Plan, 11.3.2 Response to Notice of Motion, Trial of a Remote Rescue Tube Brings at Uncontrolled Beaches, 11.3.3 Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, November 2025, 11.3.4 Procurement Contracts Assessment Working Team Contracts Award under CEO Delegation, 11.3.5 Financial Performance Report, December 2025, 11.3.6 General Committee Recommendations on Block.
11.2.4 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶
03:16:00 Moved and seconded by the General Committee. Happy to move. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried. We have no reports. Yes. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. No reports direct to the ordinary meeting. There is no confidential session. The next ordinary meeting will be at Council Chambers, 9 Fogden Street, Tewantin at 10am on 19 February 2026. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. I believe it's 3am in the UK. Thank you for being here today. 3.17. And thank you, councillors, for your contributions today. I declare the meeting closed at 1.17. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Winstead. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councillors. Thanks, guys. Mayor Wilkie: Good meeting. Councillor Finzel: Yeah.
11.3.6 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC ¶
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.
12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS ¶
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.
14 NEXT MEETING ¶
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.
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.