Public consultation

Sunshine and darkness in Queensland a year after the Coaldrake Report

by
Sunshine and darkness - the Coaldrake Report
Final Report of the Coaldrake Report

The South East Queensland Community Alliance Inc. (SEQCA) recently made a submission about proposed Queensland legislation that responds in part to “Let the sunshine in”, the Final Report of Professor Peter Coaldrake’s Review of Culture and Accountability in the Queensland Public Sector (the Coaldrake Report).

The reforms, set out in the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 are being considered in an inquiry by Queensland Parliament’s Economics and Governance Committee.

The Committee has now published various submissions to this inquiry.

Republished below is the SEQCA submission.

SEQCA submission on the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

The SEQCA is an umbrella organisation for various
community groups. Our focus is on planning and governance issues at all levels of government.

We welcome the reforms set out in the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which
are intended to implement some of the recommendations made by:

  • Let the sunshine in: Review of culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector (Coaldrake Report); and
  • Strategic Review of the Integrity Commissioner’s Functions (Yearbury Report).

We also note that other recommendations from these reports have already been implemented in
the Integrity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2022, passed by Parliament in November 2022.

Sunshine and darkness

While these various reforms may let a little more sunshine in, much of state and local government in
Queensland still operates in darkness.

The Coaldrake Report discussed Queensland’s Right to Information (RTI) laws and the role of the
Information Commissioner, and noted that:

“Decisions ultimately determined by the Information Commissioner influence the information
available to citizens who themselves are a valuable check on accountability of government” 1 .

However, the Coaldrake Report also noted that the “level of apprehension, even fear, within
departments about the consequences of being ‘caught’ by an RTI request” fosters a “culture
predisposed to nondisclosure” 2.

The Coaldrake Report recommended that:

“Cabinet submissions (and their attachments), agendas, and decisions papers be proactively
released and published online within 30 business days of such decisions” 3.

The Coaldrake Report also says that: “agencies should not be quick to agree to confidentiality
clauses which are proposed by sophisticated commercial parties to protect their own interests” 4.

The need for restraint in using confidentiality and commercial in confidence clause is then explained:

An agency can exercise its discretion to disclose information even where that information
qualifies for an exemption, but the RTI process cannot overcome a lack of transparency if
expectations are not clear in the procurement process about the openness and accountability
to the community that is required when dealing with government. Government procurement
policies provide that confidentiality and commercial-in-confidence clauses should not ‘be
used as a matter of course and only included where there is strong justification for
confidentiality’. As was noted in a 2018 report of the Queensland Audit Office, ‘the public has
a right to know how much public money government is spending, on what, and with which
vendors’ 5.

The Coaldrake Reports advocates a cultural shift to more openness in government, saying:

“It is to be hoped that acceptance of this Review’s recommendations, particularly the more ready
release of Cabinet documents, and its comments on the need for greater scrutiny over what is
deemed commercial-in-confidence, will provide the impetus for a cultural shift toward much more
openness in government” 6.

Government response to the Coaldrake Report

We note that in responding to receipt of the Coaldrake Report on 28 June 2022, the Premier said:

“We will accept all of his recommendations and we will implement them lock, stock and barrel”.7

The Premier also said that once these reforms were implemented, “Queensland will have the most transparent and accountable government in Australia’.

But a year later there seems to be no progress in ensuring that cabinet decisions will be made public
within 30 business days. Nor has the Government explained what measures it is taking to ensure
that commercial in confidence clauses will only be used “where there is strong justification for
confidentiality”.

Very recently, the Government said that more than $180 billion in procurement opportunities are
estimated to be available in the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games. 8

Before this spending spree gets underway, the community should be given confidence that it will be
done with exemplary transparency. The community and media should have genuine rights to obtain
information about “how much public money government is spending, on what, and with which
vendors”.

We suggest that greater transparency (and integrity) should be achieved through Parliament
amending Queensland’s RTI laws to ensure that they better meet community expectations.

Current RTI exemptions such as ‘commercial in confidence’ should be reviewed and clarified
legislatively to ensure that the community can find out about matters of public interest occurring at
both the state and local levels of government.

Local Government laws

On the subject of local government, we note that despite many worthwhile reforms legislated in
recent years there is still too much scope for local governments to act secretively by declaring
matters to be confidential, thereby restricting access to reports and discussions at Council meetings.

So, reforms to Queensland’s RTI laws should be accompanied by amendments to local government
laws which significantly curtail the ability and proclivity of some local councils to keep matters secret
from their residents and ratepayers.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Chris Walker
President
South East Queensland Community Alliance Inc.

References

1 Review of culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector | Final Report | 28 June 2022 p. 27
2 Ibid
3 Ibid p. 3
4 Ibid p. 65
5 Ibid
6 Ibid p. 29
7 “Lock, stock and barrel” Premier embraces Coaldrake Review, Government media release 28 June, 2022
8 Queensland businesses the big winners in lead-up to Brisbane 2032, Government media release, 20 July 2023

Cover image is by Fiktube

Identity crisis: Are Queensland’s towns losing their character because the community has no voice?

by

The Queensland government claims to value community engagement as a key part of planning. It’s Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning cites genuine public participation, transparency, accountability and community confidence as key principles of planning, but community members in Maleny, Sunshine Coast, believe these values were not reflected in a recent development assessment. They have been left feeling angry and frustrated with the code assessment process provided by Queensland’s performance-based planning system and the outcome it delivered.

Maleny, Sunshine Coast Source: Esta Knudsen 2019

Maleny has a unique character and strong sense of place. This identity gives Maleny a point of difference that supports its tourism and local economy. Community groups in Maleny have continually endeavoured to protect this identity by resisting pressures for commercial development which is inconsistent with the town’s heritage character. In 2012, it mobilised a campaign opposing a proposed service station at 19 & 21 Bunya Street and that proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

But their success in 2012 was not replicated in 2019. In April last year, the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (Council) approved a service station and food and drink outlet on the same site. In both campaigns, the location of the service station site was the primary issue, as it is opposite the Maleny primary school, 30 to 40 metres from classrooms, playgrounds and the pool.  This proximity to the school raised concerns about children’s exposure to toxic vapours from the site, the risk of fire and explosion associated with fuel outlets and the increased vehicle emissions and traffic congestion in the already congested school precinct.   

 In contrast to the laudable principles of the Community Engagement Toolkit, key community members felt completely shut out of the code assessment process. They also felt frustrated by the lack of Council action to amend the intended uses for the site after the 2012 campaign. This article examines two key barriers community members faced when opposing the service station development: the lack of weight given to the Maleny Local Plan (MLP) and the absence of any mechanism allowing them to challenge and raise concerns about the proposal. 

Amended and approved plans of Maleny service station. Source: Verve Building Design Co. via Sunshine Coast Development. 

Disappointment in the Maleny Local Plan 

The development site is located in the District Centre Zone and MLP area, so it was assessed against these codes in accordance with the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. The purpose and overall outcome of the MLP code is to “provide locally relevant planning provisions for the assessment of development within Maleny Local Plan area”. This and other language in the MLP code led the community to expect full compliance with the assessment criteria stated in the MLP code. They believed the MLP code would be strong enough and clear enough to defeat the proposal but, to their dismay, that was not the case.  Council’s interpretation of the MLP code was more subjective and discretionary than the community expected. When it actually counted, the MLP code seemed to be given little weight in the assessment process compared to the District Centre Zone code. And, as one disappointed community representative observed, the District Centre code is “so open, you could drive a truck through it”. 

With so much discretion and flexibility built into the assessment of code assessable development, the community’s faith in the MLP code was misplaced. Councils are required to consult communities when they prepare their planning schemes and codes. Why are these codes then so readily disregarded in favour of developer interests during the assessment process? Why should the community get involved and provide feedback on draft planning scheme codes? In the Maleny case, the subjective interpretation of the MLP code and its insubstantial weight in the assessment process made that local code useless in serving its intended purpose. It simply misled community members into thinking their interests were protected. 

Proposal concerns 

The development was code assessable, and as such excluded formal community submissions and appeal provisions. The code assessment framework still allows the public to make submissions, however the assessment manager is not required to give them any weight. Equally concerning, there are no legal mechanisms available to the public to challenge elements of the proposal which are risky, potentially unsafe or demonstrably incorrect in their assumptions.  

For instance, the MLP code aims to protect a future planned road upgrade and designated bypass route on Cudgerie Street. The developers argued the proposal would not compromise future road infrastructure and Council appears to have readily accepted that assertion despite exhaustively researched and well documented evidence to the contrary submitted by the community. 

The site is also located across from Maleny Primary School, raising health, safety and traffic concerns. Community members highlighted serious traffic issues including errors in the traffic impact assessment. The community group raised these issues through various avenues but felt both State and local government avoided or dismissed their concerns. This was particularly disheartening for the community when they will be the ones living with the development decision. 

There is a clear conflict between the messaging on community engagement from the State government and the existing code assessment process which excludes any form of public participation provisions. 

Protecting community interests 

One representative described the experience of being a community member up against a performance based planning system as “never being in the race to begin with”. While the intention for code assessable applications is greater efficiency, the side effect is the limitation of community rights when there are legitimate concerns. The emphasis put on the zone code over the local plan code in this case exposes Maleny to development applications that erode its character and identity, its point of difference and brand. The loss of character in hinterland towns will be inevitable should regional developments be assessed against criteria designed for urban areas.

If local area plans were applied more rigorously and took precedence over the zone code, perhaps they would better serve their intended purpose and community interests. Similarly, mechanisms enabling parties to challenge information in proposals they believe to be incorrect, in this case the traffic impact assessment, would give greater accountability and transparency to the code assessment process.  Increased genuine public participation would lead to better planning outcomes for Queensland’s hinterland towns, retaining character and increasing community confidence and trust in the planning system

Written by

Melissa Lane

Further reading: 

Community engagement toolkit for planning, 2017, State of Queensland.

Plans abandoned for new Maleny Service Station, 2013, Hinterland Times.

State planning policy, 2014, State of Queensland. 

Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014,  Sunshine Coast Regional Council. 

Acknowledgement 

I thank Esta Knudsen and Richard Francis in helping me establish the story behind this development, and how the service station development has affected the Maleny community. 

Is Council listening? What happens to your feedback when you comment on planning proposals

by

What is the point of public consultation on planning proposals? A recent development at Howard Smith Wharves suggests your participation in the planning process may not be considered in any meaningful way.

Howard Smith Wharves at Boundary Street, Brisbane

This article examines three types of public consultation on development plans for Howard Smith Wharves – participation in the making and amending of planning schemes; participation in a voluntary consultation exercise and public submissions on impact assessable development. All three had their strengths and weaknesses but, in every case, there seems little evidence public submissions have any bearing on final planning outcomes. 

Redeveloping Howard Smith Wharves 

Brisbane City Council’s plans to redevelop Howard Smith Wharves have gone through numerous revisions and have faced unrelenting community backlash. In 2011, the Council’s plans to redevelop the site were rejected by the State Government due to flooding concerns. Undeterred, in 2014, Council listed the redevelopment of the site as one of six priority projects for the next five years.  A revised plan included a river walk connection; redevelopment of the wharf buildings; improvements to the public realm and parkland; commercial redevelopment, and opportunities for a river hub. Public notice and /or consultations were conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2015 as described below. 

Reaching out: Planning scheme amendments

In 2010, Council proposed amendments to the City Plan to alter the New Farm and Teneriffe Hill Local Plan, and to make a new park management planning scheme policy. Council was required to publish at least one newspaper notice inviting the public to make submissions. In today’s world, this requirement fails to accommodate the various ways in which people receive information or recognise how often they read the news. It is a paltry and ineffective approach to public engagement that received only twenty eight submissions. 

Let’s party: the 2013 ‘ideas fiesta’

In 2013 Council tried a different approach to public engagement. It held an ‘Ideas Fiesta’, inviting the community to submit ideas that would supposedly influence the drafting of a new City Centre Master Plan. This Ideas Fiesta attracted over 16,000 attendees, and received over 1.2 million social media views. Quite a contrast on the law’s more formal methods of public notification! The ‘Ideas Fiesta’ more faithfully reflects Council’s Community Engagement Policy objectives and garnered much more community interest. But, when it summarised all the community’s responses into eight ‘most popular ideas for the city centre’ it clearly did not acknowledge the thousands of other responses that did not fall within these headings. At the end of the day, it seems there was little uptake of the ideas generated through public consultation.

Following the ‘Ideas Fiesta,’ in late 2013 the community were invited to contribute to a final round of feedback on the draft City Centre Master Plan. It listed the development of Howard Smith Wharves as one of six priority projects. Twenty-seven submissions were received during the formally required notification period, eight of which opposed the construction of a hotel on the site, zoned for commercial redevelopment. Council responded to those submissions by confirming the draft City Plan made no mention of hotel development. Nevertheless, a hotel was included in the final City Centre Master Plan. 

Do you have a concern? Making submissions on development applications 

In September 2015 Council received a hotel development application for Howard Smith Wharves. The application was classed as impact assessable development meaning the public would need to be consulted on the development proposal (not just the plan). The application attracted thirty-eight submissions opposing the development but the application was approved regardless. Council – which is obliged to respond to public submissions – defended its decision to approve the application saying it was acting within the guidelines of the Neighbourhood Plan. It gave no further details. Submitters were left in the dark about how their particular concerns had been considered and addressed. 

Once again, the number of submissions received as a result of the formal notification of proposed development was substantially smaller than the thousands received as a result of the 2013 voluntary consultation exercise (considered above). This raises important questions about how effective statutory engagement methods are in soliciting public participation on impact assessable development. The evidence points strongly to an overhaul of current methods. 

Conclusion

 Development at Howard Smith Wharves demonstrates how little weight is given to public input in whatever mode it is delivered. It appears public submissions are seldom considered in any meaningful way. This raises significant doubts about what the Council is really trying to achieve through planning consultation. We desperately need a system and government that listens to those most affected by the outcomes of the planning process, to restore community satisfaction and confidence in the system.

Written by

Hannah Laviano

Griffith University student 

Further Reading – 

The Queensland planning system: building for growth but not communities?

by

In 2017-2018, nearly 90% of Queensland’s population growth occurred in the south-east corner of the state – but is our planning system favouring growth at the expense of communities?

The Mt Coot-tha Zipline development saga demonstrates some of the problems with public consultation in our current planning system. It shows there are knowledge gaps in the community, feedback from Council is not always transparent or consistent and decision-making may be more responsive to short term politics than to the long-term aspirations of communities.

The Mt Coot-tha Zipline

In 1879, the Mt Coot-tha area was declared a recreational reserve for the purpose of “a public park for the recreation, convenience, health and amusement of the inhabitants of the City of Brisbane…and for no other purpose whatsoever”. Fast-forward to 2018, and following a mayoral electoral commitment, the Mt Coot-tha Zipline development application was lodged for a material change of use to establish a zipline and eco-tourism mixed-use development.

In accordance with the Brisbane City Plan 2014, the proposed uses were listed as impact-assessable development, requiring the application to be publicly notified for consultation. The application received 3,683 submissions during the public notification period. Submissions were also received outside the formal consultation period, demonstrating a lack of understanding from the community about when to provide comments but also the importance community members attach to having their voices heard.

Figure 1. Community members protesting the development (Source: Save Mt Coot-tha – Stop the Zipline Facebook)

Despite a large number of objections, Brisbane City Council (Council) approved the development. The community’s submissions were addressed within the assessment report, but the justification provided was contradictory and inconsistent.

The Planning Act 2016 allows submitters who made a properly made submission the right to appeal a decision made by Council. An appeal was filed with the Planning and Environment Court by the community group, Mount Coot-tha Protection Alliance Incorporated, to appeal the approval. In April 2019, Council decided to not contest the appeal resulting in the appeal being allowed and the development application refused.

News articles framed the decision not to contest the appeal as “scrapping the project in the face of overwhelming community backlash” and “based on the views of the community”. This suggests that community feedback was the primary reason, but Brisbane City Council had previously approved the development despite receiving adverse feedback during the assessment process. Does this raise the question, would Council have continued with the appeal had the timing not been so close to council elections?

Bridging the knowledge gap

The Mount Coot-tha Zipline proposal shines a spotlight on the knowledge gap that exists between local governments and their constituents. Academic sources state that “citizens have a lack of confidence in the local government to do the right thing” and “when facilitated properly and effectively, public participation can increase trust and improve relationships between citizens and public institutions”. The lack of community engagement in the concept development phase solidifies the academic literature. The general lack of knowledge about how and when to make submissions on a development application or what to expect from the appeal process fosters mistrust between the community and local governments.

Bridging this knowledge gap is critical to ensuring the public and local government have a positive relationship. A more front-loaded consultation period, prior to lodging the development application would allow for more community feedback. This would allow collaborative consultation with the community, council and the applicant promoting trust and transparency.

Decision making: clear as mud?

The submissions against the development application were dealt with in Council’s assessment report.

That report states:

“where there is any non-compliance with the assessment benchmarks, the application demonstrates relevant matters exist to overcome any non-compliance, including substantial community and economic benefits”. [author bold]

The argument for economic benefit was used again within the statement of reasons yet, the report responds to submitters’ claims there was no economic need for the development by stating “that is not a relevant planning consideration within the benchmarks”. This exemplifies the confusion that would be experienced by the community through Council’s decision-making.

To address these issues, planning schemes need to state relevant assessment criteria more clearly and

applicants should be required to meet all the relevant performance criteria. Confusion is exacerbated when applications that do not achieve complete compliance are approved regardless. As one community member stated;

“The performance-based nature of the Queensland planning system makes it difficult to understand what could go in any given zone with some justification. From the community’s viewpoint it is what was consulted on (at the planning scheme consultation stage) but people do not realise that they can be endorsing something that achieves the intent or purpose of a zone rather than the ‘healthy, wealthy communities’ they are promoting.”

Greater transparency is the key: if the community can understand why a development has been approved, they may be more receptive to the decision, whether they agree with the final outcome or not.

Pro-active planning is collaborative planning

The primary goal of planning should be to meet the long-term needs of the community. After all, it is the community that will have to live with the decision made about a development application. On paper, an application may appear to offer a good outcome but in reality, input from the community is needed to ensure communities are being enhanced and not fractured by development. Reform is required to ensure the community is heard and not just told what is happening in their neighbourhood.

Mt Coot-tha’s Zipline proposal demonstrates the need for reform of Queensland’s planning system to encourage constructive public participation on development applications. Good planning outcomes will only be achieved when the community and local government work collaboratively for a better tomorrow.

Written by

Jack Collings

Griffith University student 

Community Shut Out Again! TriCare – planning for success or planning for failure?

by

When are our voices going to be heard? More than 800 submissions, several public protest meetings and a comprehensive campaign by ‘Protect Taringa’ and still the reasonable concerns of the community were not addressed. 

The Residential Care and Retirement Facility, which was proposed by TriCare at 52 Seven Oaks Street, Taringa received major backlash when it was made known that Brisbane City Council (Council) was being asked to approve the construction of 3 high-rise buildings. The community identified many concerns about the development including the height, scale, bulk, traffic, parking and removal of existing protected vegetation onsite. These issues conflicted with several codes within the Brisbane City Plan 2014. Now, community members are opening up about the lack of involvement they were entitled to in the development application assessment process.  

Community notification or appeal not permitted

Monique Mayze, a corporate communications practitioner who led the ‘Protect Taringa’ campaign, believes the planning process did little to engage the community. This was mainly due to the code assessable rules the TriCare development was classified under. These rules don’t require the developer to give public notice of its application and don’t allow the community any right of appeal against Council’s decision. 

Despite this, the community did everything it could to make its voice heard. They voiced their concerns through a coordinated campaign of community meetings, social media, letterbox drops, informal submissions to Council and media engagement. The community tried everything.  

The Protect Taringa community group also invited representatives of the main political parties (LNP, Labor and the Greens) to speak at its community meetings which saw more than 300 members of the public attend.  In response to this outpouring of community concern, Council was forced into action. It initially refused TriCare’s application despite some amendments being made by the developer.  

pastedGraphic.png

“If the community did not take action, the Council would not have responded,” stated Monique Mayze. 

Yet this support from Council didn’t last long because, when TriCare commenced legal proceedings against Council, Council backed down and a negotiated deal was made between Council and TriCare with no opportunity for involvement by the community.  For the community the new deal did not adequately deal with the height, bulk and scale of the development and still allowed for the removal of protected vegetation.  

Despite the local councillor at the time, Cr Julian Simmonds, assuring the community that Council would defend its refusal vigorously to the Court, it failed to do so. The Planning and Environment Court was not given the opportunity to assess the development on its merits, but rather on whether the amendments to the plans, agreed between Council and the developer, represented minor changes. The Court found the changes were minor under the terms of the Act. The community’s concerns were not addressed as part of that decision.  

The community had no knowledge of this deal until a judgment was posted on the court website. The community’s reasonable concerns were not properly addressed in this final decision. Instead, they were completely shut out.

Concerns Not Answered

What was the purpose of making submissions if our concerns were not going to be listened to? Howard Briggs, a resident of the Taringa community stated that reasons given for a decision are rarely communicated in a form that indicates that the issues being raised have been addressed. The TriCare development was a clear example of this. Putting aside the fact that this was a code assessable development, the concerns of the community, made through submissions, were not all and clearly responded to by Council. 

Council did not justify the appropriateness of the reduced height, bulk, scale, the removal of 2 significant landscape trees, amenity or why some codes failed to be upheld – especially those mentioned in the Council’s refusal. So, the community is left in the dark as to what grounds actually led to the final approval of the TriCare development. 

Most of the community’s submissions raised relevant concerns that Council and planners should have taken into account. Community members agree their role in planning decisions should be taken more seriously, especially if they have the right skills and knowledge to comment on the suitability of the development on the intended site. Howard Briggs stated that this is a fundamental concern to consider due to there being no previous technical investigation undertaken on most developments. 

The TriCare development is one example of poor planning made without regard to the community’s voice. Because this controversial development application was classed as code assessable, there were no formal avenues through which the concerns of the community could be heard: the community was excluded from the process from start to finish. The Taringa community is fed up with the lack of community engagement it had in the overall decision-making process.  

pastedGraphic_1.png

Proposed Building/Development Elevation. 

Suitability for aged-care residents?


One major question that was raised in the community’s submissions is whether a high-rise development is suitable for aged-care residences. Based on best practice research into aged-care facility design, the Taringa development is not suitable for the vulnerable elderly. The Protect Taringa campaign made it clear that aged-care accommodation should be more low-set and home-like for these patients. They deserve a safe, secure and harmless site to wander around in and complete their daily routine, especially for those with a Dementia diagnosis – which is more than half of all aged-care residents.  

How are the elderly meant to be safe in these high-rise buildings? What happens if a fire breaks out, how will the manager get all these residents out in time? Where are the safe places for walking and needed for quiet time? These issues, which should have been considered when making a decision on the development application, were not completely addressed. The aged care code in the Brisbane City Plan 2014 was silent on these matters. It was more “building” oriented than “user” oriented. 

Planners should seek external advice from professionals who have the skills to comment on the suitability of a development. Here, planners should have sought medical advice on what is an acceptable development for these residents. High-rise buildings are not the answer. 

Seven Oaks Street is known for being busy due to the surrounding schools and the University of Queensland. There is usually constant traffic near the site. So again, the issue of safety for elderly residents looms large. Not convenient at all! Aged-care residents need to be in areas where it’s safe, secure and quiet. As the community knows, that is not the site at Taringa!  

Now, community members are wanting a change to the current planning law and system so their voices will be properly considered when these planning decisions are made. A time for change and a time for community voices to be heard! 

Written by

Anne-Maree Lofipo

Griffith University student 


Acknowledgment

I thank Howard Briggs and Monique Mayze in helping me establish the story behind this development, and how the Taringa community has been greatly affected by the overall proposal and process of TriCare.