17/07/2026
Discrepancies between TRC survey options vs. what they told the CCC.
1. In July 2024, TRC issued a two option survey, on the future of the Pavilion, (banning commenting). Both options clearly stated the REMOVAL of the Patrick English Pavilion:
(1) Removal of existing structure and reconstruction of similar ‘igloo’ type structure on similar footprint.
(2) Removal of existing structure and construction of new, fit for purpose building catering for current and future use.
There was widespread public anger surrounding the lack of a third option for repair (with many noting the restoration of the Rocky Ck Igloo).
2. In response, a formal complaint was submitted to TRC, which raised concerns over sham consultation and the skewed survey. It further requested that a third option be added. In response, the former CEO stated:
“A third option, namely the preservation of the Pavilion, was not provided because in the view of Council officers and external experts.. this is not a viable option. To list a third option promoting repair would only serve to raise unrealistic community expectations that the Pavilion could be restored when this is not the case and to attempt it would be an irresponsible use of limited Council financial resources, especially at a time when community is sensitive to cost-of-living pressures”
3. To which TRC was rebutted:
“It is not up to council officers to decide what is a “viable option.” The opinion of one engineer selected because it suits the agenda of council, is not “external experts” (plural), it is singular, and… contradicts the 2023 TEG report.” (and) “It is prudent that an independent review of this assessment take place, including a quotation being obtained to restore the building.”
4. TRC did not seek a second opinion. TRC did not obtain a repair quote. TRC did not allow the community access to the Pavilion to obtain an independent assessment nor quote. TRC did not accept any alternative options including a community ownership model.
5. The petition to save the Pavilion was formally raised within the complaint: “Be advised councils failure to provide this third option does not preclude its inclusion in the decision process. The petition will be formally submitted in September, and the concerns of all signatories must be carefully considered, and including in the officers report submitted to councilors. I seek written assurance .. that this will occur.”
The CEO confirmed this subject to a submission deadline (which was met).
6. TRC in responding to the July 2024 complaint assessed there was potential Corrupt Conduct involving the following points:
"It is unconscionable for council to be wilfully deceiving the public by stating there is no option to repair. Council must immediately cease and desist providing false information to the community."
As such, TRC was required to complete a Corrupt Conduct Assessment Form (CCAF) to determine if the above allegations were substantiated, thus requiring self-referral to the Crime and Corruption Commission.
7. What can now be revealed is in that assessment form TRC stated
“Option 1 in the Community Survey effectively mirrors what the complainant is asserting should be provided as an option to the community”
This is the sole “evidence” supplied by TRC to rebut this allegation. Here is the massive problem for TRC – that directly contradicts what the former CEO had stated!
Under section 218 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 A person must not give the commission a document containing information the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular. Maximum penalty 1 year’s imprisonment. This is yet another example of this occurring.
8. The Keep in mind the third option proposed within the complaint was: ‘Dismantle and RESTORE the Patrick English Pavilion, to as close to original condition as practicable.’ (The 'dismantle' being added to satisfy TRC's claim this was required).
Further, if what they'd stated to the CCC was indeed the case, then the petition signed by over 2000 people to restore the Pavilion - should have mandated that outcome. (Given this was near enough to 10 fold the number of people who chose option 2 on the survey).
Incidentally, when tabling the petition, TRC stated it was unclear which of the two survey options the 2000+ petitioners preferred. (Proving yet again the restoration was NOT option 1). From a legal standpoint - TRC stating this to the CCC - effectively also invalidates the mandate for the demolition and construction of a Multi Purpose Facility.
Have a good think about that TRC...
Yet another example why an administrator is needed.
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details/4484-26
