$1.2 million on ‘Bring back the Fish’: Final decision to come

by Cr Ingrid Jackson

At Thursday night’s Ordinary Meeting, Noosa Council agreed in principle to spend $1.2 million to partner with The Nature Conservancy to go ahead with Phases 2 and 3 of the Oyster Reef (‘Bring Back the Fish’) Restoration Project.

I did not support the proposal for a number of compelling reasons. The Council was being asked to make a decision (1) without sufficient information, (2) without full evaluation of Phase 1, (3) without thorough financial analysis and (4) without due process.  My complete speech which expands on these points follows.

Of course I respect the democratic process and acknowledge the Council decision represents its majority view.

It should be noted that so far this is only an agreement in principle.  The $1.2 million expenditure of ratepayers’ funds will be further considered by Council for inclusion its 2019-20 budget. Furthermore, the CEO has been commissioned to negotiate a Partnership Agreement with The Nature Conservancy which will return to Council for a vote.

My speech to council

As with any Council decision, I take into consideration good governance, my fiduciary duty and community interest.

I will not be supporting the proposal [to spend a further $1.2 million on this project] because Council is being asked to make this decision without sufficient information, without sufficient evaluation of the oyster reef trial, without financial analysis and without due process.

The three-year pilot of the oyster reef project has only run for one year, so the effectiveness of the trial is not yet proven.  While [the University of Sunshine Coast] prepared a one-year monitoring report, there has been no independent evaluation.

The staff report points to:

• “some key areas where targets for success have not yet been achieved, and these would be better assessed after another year of monitoring”
• “lack of evidence to this stage of the current reef design forming a stable matrix”
• lack of “detailed results from fish studies being undertaken associated with the project”

There is also no evidence that previous promises of community engagement in the project have been fulfilled.

As part of good governance, Council should not be making one-off decisions but should start with having an overarching strategy which clearly defines priorities and the pathways to achieving them.

A decision to fund this proposal now pre-empts public consultation and finalisation of the Environment Strategy and Noosa River Plan, which are both yet to be approved by Council.

The expenditure decision is being made without consideration of other environmental funding priorities such as stormwater drainage upgrades, Noosa Spit erosion, remediating the newly acquired TAFE site, biodiversity improvements, climate change resilience and accelerating the program working towards zero net emissions.

Council is being asked to commit a further $1.2 million to an unproven project and could end up spending $2.4 million if presumed sources of external funding do not eventuate.

It has not even been decided where the money will come from – Environmental Levy funds or General Rates.

The proposal appears to consist of both funding a project and a consultancy, and yet there has been no public call for expressions of interest for grants and no consultancy procurement process.

I am committed to making expenditure decisions on the basis of strategic priorities, public consultation and full information, and I want to see open and fair processes when it comes to granting money for projects and engaging advisors.

________________

So that was the speech I gave. Since I made my views known I have noted significant concern about the need for this project and the processes that surround it. The community can be assured that I will continue my scrutiny of the important issues related to this matter and sustain my efforts to ensure that our Council makes decisions in the interests of all residents.