Noosa Truth

10/08/2026

𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗩𝗦 𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟
When it comes to development applications that are going to come to a Council meeting for decision, Noosa Council has a policy which outlines the roles and responsibilities of Councillors and council staff.

Unfortunately, these Council endorsed principles only apply legally to development applications. For other types of decisions, Councillors are free to choose to pre-emptively publicly advocate about matters about to appear on Council agendas.

That’s legal. But is it ethical? The Macquarie Dictionary defines ethical as “pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct”.

Individual councillors make their own choices about ethical behaviour.

For example, in advance of Tuesday's General Committee meeting, the Noosa mayor has opted to publish in Noosa Today and his page his arguments against the temporary use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for parking during Christmas and Easter. (Cr Wilkie does not allow comments on his page.)

Other Councillors are waiting to make their cases and listen to each others' views during formal debate at the General Committee on Tuesday 11th August and at the Ordinary Meeting of local government on Thursday 20th August.

Here are the principles outlined in the Council’s Development Assessment Policy. Under the law, these must be complied with. For other matters, Councillors have a choice . And their actions may reveal something about their ethics.

𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗥𝗦
• "The primary duty of a Councillor, and the Council, is to govern in the wider public interest of the community as a whole, and to pursue matters to the advantage of the Council and the Noosa Shire.

• "Councillors should not confuse their general representative responsibilities (advocating, lobbying, brokering) with the specific assessment manager role/legal determination responsibilities under the SPA.

• "For Councillors to avoid conduct which indicates a reasonable apprehension of bias they must ensure that they genuinely consider the relevant material, the development application and recommendations by Council officers prior to reaching a position.”

09/08/2026

𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗡'𝗧 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗢𝗢𝗦𝗔 𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗥𝗘
The Housing Monitoring Report - being presented to Noosa Council’s General Committee on Tuesday - shows that, in 2025, the households depending on the most prevalent Noosa occupations cannot afford to rent in Noosa. (The current 2026 census will provide more up-to-date information.)

Entry level units rent at $700/week and median units rent at $795/week. Median means midpoint, so 50% of units rent for even more.

The same with houses. Entry level houses rent for $800/week and median house rent is $960/week so 50% of houses rent for more.

Of the 10 biggest occupation groups, only retail managers, general clerks (admin), nurses and real estate agents can afford an entry level unit, and only nurses and real estate agents can afford entry level house rents.

If you’re a sales assistant, chef, receptionist, aged care worker, waiter/waitress, barista or bar attendant – forget it.

The Housing Monitoring Report indicates the things Council is doing to increase housing supply and housing affordability, including amendments to the Noosa Plan. But it also reports how much rents and house prices have gone up over the last five years.

This means that other solutions are needed for accommodating workers in Noosa, where business are struggling to recruit staff.

Some employers are providing accommodation for their workers. Other options might include businesses grouping together to provide shuttle buses to accommodation in less expensive places outside the shire.

Noosa Chamber of Commerce and Industry proposed cooperating with Noosa Council to implement an 'Adopt a Worker' program, whereby residents would let out room to workers. But that has not proceeded.

What else could be done?

The full Housing Monitoring Report can be read here, and it's very interesting:
https://noosa.resolve.red/portal/meeting/954/9693?type=1&docId=2939

08/08/2026

𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗞 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗜-𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗕𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗗𝗘
The Noosa Heads Lions Park grassy area has for many years been used for a few weeks of paid parking at Christmas and Easter. (It was made available more often during COVID.) The staff report to Council’s General Committee meeting acknowledges, “Council and the State have previously supported the temporary use of Lion's Park for overflow parking for more than 20 years.” But in July council staff, the mayor and some councillors recommended stopping the Christmas and Easter parking.

The Tewantin Noosa Lions Club has always organised the parking and collected a fee with the revenue most of the time split 50/50 between the Club and the Council. The Lions Club has contributed its share to address community needs. Council has used its 50% to pay for traffic management initiatives and to remediate any damage caused by the few weeks of parking. When it rained, parking was not allowed, in order to protect the grass.

The parking next to the Noosa Heads Surf Club is being taken over again by Council as a drop off point over the Christmas period, and, if at the August Ordinary Meeting a majority of councillors agree to stop the Lions Park parking, that will be gone too. It's on the agenda for initial debate at the General Committee meeting on Tuesday 11 August.

In more recent years, there has been frequent Council disagreement about whether to continue this temporary parking.

The anti-parking brigade once even manufactured a faux community group (an 'astroturf') which made petitions to Council against Lions Park parking. Amazingly, Council accepted the petition of the fake group! (Does that indicate Council bias about this matter?)

Former mayor Tony Wellington used to quote previous former mayor Noel Playford as saying it is best not to provide parking and to leave traffic congested in order to put off visitors who therefore would stop coming. Yay, they said. But of course that hasn't worked. Traffic congestion continues and people drive round and round looking for a park.

And the theory that visitors will know to park at the AFL ground and take the bus is also dubious. Anyone who wants to go to the famous Hastings Street, Main Beach and the National Park will drive straight there and find themselves driving round and round looking for a park.

When at the Doonella Lake Bridge works the one-way single lane solution was first introduced by council staff and cars going to Tewantin were diverted to Beckmans Road, many people questioned why Council would do this before the traffic problems at Beckmans are fixed.

Lions Park temporary overflow parking is similar. Why remove this temporary solution, when no good alternate permanent parking solution has been put in place?

Many solutions have been suggested and rejected by the anti-parking brigade on Council. And there are no doubt some really good ways to offer parking at Noosa's auspicious precinct where residents and visitors alike love to go.

The photo is of the glass entry to an underground parking station at an oceanfront park at Puerto Mont, Chile. There's a smaller one like that near the oceanfront in Barcelona too.

Aside from Lions Park, there's the car park between the bus interchange and Rococo's - perfect for unobtrusive expansion underground or even above ground. Any other ideas?

Pending a proper permanent parking solution, refusing temporary parking at Lions Park is likely to just add to the traffic chaos. Meanwhile, before a Land Management Plan is completed for this State land, the temporary parking could be allowed, as it has been in the past.

06/08/2026

𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬 𝗢𝗗𝗗. Noosa Council's communications about the Doonella Lake Bridge works state: "𝗣𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀: Access remains available via the adjacent shared pathway and pedestrian bridge."

Yet on the Tewantin side of the bridge, there's a sign now saying "Cyclists dismount".

This seems contrary to the 𝗡𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗮 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 which is to encourage "active transport", that is, walking and cycling.

The pathway is certainly wide enough. It's at least 3 meters wide.

The 𝗡𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗮 𝗖𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆's definition of 'Shared Path' is "A path which is off-road and is shared space with pedestrians and cyclists. The minimum width for a shared path is 2.5m."

Even the State government's new 𝗲-𝗯𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 state:
"On all footpaths, e-bike riders must keep to a speed of 12km/h maximum. On all shared paths, e-bikes must keep to the signed speed limit and slow down to 12km/h when riding past a pedestrian."

So what gives? Why are the Noosa Council fun police more stringent than existing government rules and strategies?

02/08/2026

Hello Noosa! The 2017 91.1 Hot FM song makes a comeback...Sometimes you just gotta laugh 😂

01/08/2026

Hello Noosa! The 2017 91.1 Hot FM song makes a comeback...Sometimes you just gotta laugh 😂

It's the song about Noosa, Queensland that we've all been waiting f...

31/07/2026

𝗙𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗕𝗬 𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗙𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗘𝗗 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗𝗢𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗬
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗮 𝗕𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗚𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻: 𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝘀
- contributed by Nick Hluszko

Let me be clear about what this post is NOT SAYING:

• It is NOT saying the Botanic Gardens are unworthy of investment
• It is NOT saying ratepayers shouldn't fund things they don't personally use
• It is NOT arguing against the role of government in providing public goods
• It is NOT singling out the Gardens as an example of a "pet project"

And let me be clear about WHAT IT IS SAYING:

• The consultation methodology used to claim "overwhelming community support" is statistically indefensible
• Council is claiming 91% of 73 self-selected respondents are in support, to create a false impression of mandate
• This pattern—flawed consultation followed by claims of community endorsement—is systemic, not unique to the Botanic Gardens
• Ratepayers deserve transparent, honest methodology before multi-million-dollar decisions are made.

The distinction is crucial: I'm not arguing against spending on the Gardens. I'm arguing for better process—process that doesn't manufacture consent from a microscopic sample and then claim it represents the community.

_______________________________

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬

The Noosa Botanic Gardens Masterplan has been incubating for years. It's not a whim. It's not a pet project. It's a long-planned strategic direction that has been on Council's radar since well before the current council term.

And that's precisely why the methodology problem matters more, not less.

When a project has been in development for years, there's a significant risk that community engagement becomes a tick-box exercise—because the direction has already been set internally. The engagement isn't genuine input seeking to shape the outcome; it's validation seeking to confirm what has already been decided.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦

Council is claiming "overwhelming community support" for a multi-million-dollar, 25-year Masterplan based on:

Shire population: 60,000 residents

Total of engaged consultation participants (all channels): 550 [a generous estimate]

Percentage of whole community 0.9%

Phase 2 online surveys completed: 80

91% of 80 surveys completed: Just 73 people

That's right. Council is claiming "overwhelming community support" for a project that will shape how $$$millions of ratepayer dollars are spent over a generation based on the explicit approval of just 73 human beings.

That is 0.12% of our community.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗖 𝗦𝗞𝗘𝗪

What did the report itself disclose about who those 73 people actually were?

• 76% were aged 45+ (mostly retirees and near-retirees)
• 66% were female
• More than half visited 5+ times a year ("super-users" who already love the space)

This is not a cross-section of Noosa. This is a narrow, self-selected cohort of people who already have the time, interest, and proximity to engage.

Young families? Renters? Working professionals? Men? Statistically written out of the conversation.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗞𝗘𝗪

The Masterplan reveals that Council offered free wellbeing activities (yoga, art therapy, nature play) to encourage participation.

Think about what that means:

• You are not capturing random community members; you are capturing people who already have time for daytime wellness activities

• This biases the sample heavily toward retirees and stay-at-home parents—which aligns perfectly with the 76% over-45 demographic

Imagine if a private company tried to justify a multi-million-dollar investment based on a survey of people they bribed with free yoga classes. They'd be sued for misleading investors.

But Council gets away with it—and calls it "community engagement".

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗟 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧

The report does contain serious, valid concerns raised by residents in the qualitative feedback:
• Warnings against over-commercialisation and "turning the Gardens into a theme park"
• Demands for better botanical curation and long-term stewardship
• Concerns about losing the tranquillity that makes the Gardens special

But because Council can now wave around the "91%" in-favour figure, they can easily dismiss these written concerns as "minority views".

Let that sink in: The very people who took the time to engage are having their legitimate concerns dismissed — because Council is using the numbers from the same tiny sample to silence them.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗜𝗖

This isn't just about the Botanic Gardens.

How many times have we seen Council claim "community support" for a project based on a consultation process that:

• Relied on self-selected respondents to online surveys with tiny sample sizes

• Skewed heavily toward older, whiter, wealthier, already-engaged residents

• Failed to reach renters, young families, working professionals, and other under-represented groups

• Dismissed legitimate concerns as "minority views" while waving around a percentage from a statistically invalid sample

We see this pattern repeated again and again.

A QUESTION FOR EVERY RATEPAYER
Shouldn't we be demanding a minimum standard for community engagement before any major project is endorsed?

Something like:
• A statistically valid sample size (or a genuine explanation of why that's not feasible)

• Demographic reporting that shows who wasn't reached

• Transparent disclosure of incentives or biases in the methodology

• Clear distinction between "support from those who engaged" vs. "support from the community".

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘

Council made genuine efforts across multiple channels — pop-ups happened, stakeholders were consulted, submissions were received. That should be acknowledged.

But even aggregating every engagement touchpoint, we're still looking at less than 1% of Noosa residents shaping a 25-year Masterplan that will influence how millions of ratepayer dollars are spent.

The "91%" headline is being used to imply overwhelming community consensus, when the honest figure is "91% of the tiny, self-selected group who chose to engage."

Ratepayers deserve honest statistics, not convenient ones.

This isn't about the Gardens. It's about process.

The Masterplan may or may not get funded. But if it does, Council will point to that 91% figure as a mandate.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝!

31/07/2026

𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟 𝗪𝗘𝗗𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗠𝗜𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗦
𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬
(FROM ABC NEWS): Mrs O'Dea said, "Even though the fees were quite high for the land, we were willing to book it given the sentimental significance and also being locals."

Noosa Council charges a non-refundable $799 fee for a three-hour permit for the Noosa Main Beach foreshore area.In the days leading up to the wedding in April, heavy rain caused the couple's ceremony site to become waterlogged.

"The day before we tried to get hold of the council to see if we could cancel that booking — we just couldn't reach anybody," Ms O'Dea said.

They ended up having their ceremony at the reception venue, which cost an additional $3,000.

The council also did not refund their permit fee.

"I appreciate there are terms and conditions," Ms O'Dea said.

"Seventy of our 80 guests flew into Noosa for the wedding. They ate, shopped ... I did a kind of ballpark [figure] and I reckon we probably injected $50,000 to $80,000 into the local economy."

Wedding permit fees at Queensland's holiday hotspot have increased fivefold in just 12 years.

30/07/2026

DOONELLA BRIDGE PEAK PERIOD THURSDAY 3:45PM
Cars backed up almost to the Tewantin Bowls Club,before the traffic signal turns green again and lets most of the cars through.
Patience is a virtue.

30/07/2026

𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀.
- Why does council announce that those on a minimum general rate will only see a 6.1% rate rise, when so many have experienced more?
- Why are the true rate rise ranges not communicated by Council, instead of just the "cents in dollar" figures that mask the true quantum?