Noosa residents have commented that, since the March elections, council staff several times recommended closing meetings to the public when an appeal was on the agenda – the justification was the matters pertained to legal proceedings.
No such closure was mooted by staff for the June general committee meeting, however Cr Stockwell followed suit anyway and argued that debate about an appeal should be closed to the public. His rationale was that discussion of the merits of the case “might be prejudicial to Council’s case” in court.
Given that the previous council had debated the same matter at an open meeting (which was video recorded and live streamed), the need for secrecy was a moot point.
Nevertheless, the councillors acquiesced to holding the debate behind closed doors, with new councillors assumedly thinking this was standard practice.
It was not.
Decisions related to appeals were on the agenda 49 times during the last council term and almost all those debates were open to the public.
Over the last four years, council meetings were closed to the public only 15 times and those were for very specific reasons – council property purchases, electric buses, the Yurol/Ringtail Forest deal, the old TAFE site, a section of the new Noosa Plan, and settling appeals in advance of court trials.
The CEO regularly portrayed Noosa Council as a paragon of transparency because it rarely closed meetings to the public, except for when they concerned confidential legal or commercial matters.
What has changed? Are closed meetings being normalised? Is this council being encouraged to move away from transparency?
It could be that some councillors prefer closed meetings, because they can achieve their desired outcomes without public scrutiny.
Keeping doors closed prevents open debate and can free councillors and staff to put forward arguments that might be unpalatable to the community without risking their reputations.
The current local government legislation is not prescriptive, stating that a council may close a meeting to discuss starting or defending legal proceedings, but not that it must do so.
It is left up to councillors whether to be transparent or secretive.
Meanwhile the Queensland government recently legislated to enhance transparency and announced that from October council meetings about actions or decisions under the Planning Act – such as development applications and appeals – cannot be closed to the public, except if there is confidential legal advice.
In Noosa another step was taken to confine debate at the June general committee meeting.
When Cr Lorentson quite reasonably asked questions to help inform her vote on another appeal, Cr Stockwell called points of order to stop her – his rationale was that the Council decision had already been made and her questions were therefore not relevant to the decision to defend the appeal and might prejudice council’s case in court.
His interjections were variously supported and overruled by the deputy mayor as committee chair, at times denying Cr Lorentson the chance to garner the information she needed to make a decision in the best interests of the people of Noosa.
An assertion made by the previous mayor was reiterated: that any earlier council vote was “democratic”, implying that all councillors – including new councillors – must be committed to the original decision and vote to defend the appeal.
The subtext is that individual councillors are expected to relinquish their voices and fall in line – forgetting they are elected democratically and independently to act on behalf of the community.
Such attempts to gag questions and suppress dissent fly in the face of democracy.
The councillor code of conduct clearly states that councillors may publicly express their disagreement with a Council decision provided they acknowledge the decision represents the majority view.
There is also nothing to stop councils from revisiting or changing an earlier decision. This is part of the political process and occurs regularly with policy debates at local, state and federal levels, including at times in Noosa Council.
While the new Queensland regulations will ensure that council debates about planning matters are open to the public, the Noosa community will be best served if all councillors take such openness to heart.
Whether they care to admit it or not, decisions to close meetings or stifle open debate reflect the true nature of the Council’s relationship with the community.
