AN Ormiston resident who campaigned against Redland City Council’s $1.70 fee for paper rates notices says her side of the story has been misrepresented after she was formally restricted from contacting the organisation.
In a letter dated October 23, Council chief executive officer Louise Rusan advised long-time resident Emmanuelle Rousseau that her communications about the levy had been “ongoing for a number of months” despite multiple responses from senior officers.
Ms Rusan said Ms Rousseau’s behaviour showed “unreasonable persistence” and “unreasonable lack of cooperation”, prompting Council to impose restrictions on her future contact.
Under the order, Ms Rousseau is barred from making phone calls to Council or its officers, with any such calls to be “terminated”.
She can communicate only in writing—by email or mail—and is prohibited from raising further questions about Council’s power to charge for paper rate notices.
The restrictions take effect immediately and will remain for 12 months.
“These steps have been taken with the greatest reluctance; however, equity and the impact on time and Council resources leaves me no alternative,” Ms Rusan wrote.
Ms Rousseau, who has lived in Redlands for more than 30 years, has been an outspoken critic of the paper notice fee, which she described as “unfair and discriminatory” when addressing councillors earlier this year.
“This fee punishes those who are not digitally connected,” she told the meeting.
“While encouragement to go digital may work for most, penalising residents for circumstances beyond their control is unfair.”
Ms Rousseau argued the charge undermined Council’s stated commitments to accessibility, equity and inclusion, and said only seven of Queensland’s 77 councils imposed a similar levy.
“Paper notices are not just about convenience – for some residents they are the only way to receive their bill,” she said.
“Without them, people face the risk of confusion, costly missed payments and unnecessary hardship.”
A councillor who spoke on condition of anonymity told Redland Bayside News: “It was bound to happen. I must’ve dealt with about 25 emails from her alone as one councillor — and that’s not even counting the hundreds of responses she received. She just wouldn’t let up. She had multiple email accounts she was writing from, yet still claimed she couldn’t possibly receive her rates notice by email.”
But Ms Rousseau has rejected those claims, describing them as inaccurate and dismissive.
“Cr Golle was, in fact, the councillor who engaged with me the most,” she said.
“Whenever I replied, it was only to seek clarification or to indicate that my question had not yet been answered.
“I certainly did not receive ‘hundreds’ of responses, as claimed.
“Over a three-month period, I would have sent him no more than 20 emails, and perhaps 3–4 to other councillors (mostly as a group).
“Cr Golle regularly told me to reach out again if I had further questions.
“In his final email to me on September 22, he wrote, ‘I remain happy to clarify any further questions.’”
Ms Rousseau said she stopped communicating after that date, providing a copy of her final email to the councillor on October 22, in which she wrote: “I will refrain from further contact, as it seems my requests for information and clarifications may not be welcome. A response to the above question in BOLD would be appreciated. What are residents and ratepayers of Redland City meant to do when legitimate questions are ignored by all in Council?
“I thank you for the engagement you have provided so far. I hope you will bring forward a motion at the next budget cycle to remove this fee should the mayor fail to do so. However, I hope this will not be necessary, and that the mayor will instruct the CEO to remove it, and that if a vote is required, all councillors vote for its removal supporting the mayor, taking into consideration not only the principle of inclusivity they are meant to uphold but also their responsibility to advocate for those who are not digitally connected.”
Responding to the claim she had “multiple email accounts”, Ms Rousseau said: “In truth, I had only two email accounts, not ‘multiple.’ One was created so my son could assist me, as I had to return my computer to my daughter who moved interstate. My own computer had been stolen during a robbery in late 2024,” she said.
“As for ‘she wouldn’t let up,’ Cr Golle chose to engage and reply, but often ignored my questions. When I sought clarification, it was simply because I had not received answers. I also find his remark quite dismissive. As a councillor, he should be open and transparent, not dismissive of legitimate inquiries. Why is it so difficult to obtain straightforward answers from Council?”
Ms Rousseau also rejected Council’s argument that the fee could be avoided by choosing electronic delivery.
“This argument is entirely beside the point,” she said.
“I have been advocating on behalf of residents without email access or digital connectivity, not for myself. One key question that remains unanswered is: ‘does this fee meet council’s guidelines to inclusivity,’ and were those guidelines considered when councillors voted to implement it?”
“Regarding the statement ‘The council informed Ms Rousseau that the fee could be avoided by choosing electronic delivery’ — again, this is irrelevant for those who do not have email or a computer. This matter has never been about me personally, but about the residents who cannot speak for themselves.”
She also questioned why her inquiries had gone unanswered, saying: “As mentioned, my last email was sent on September 22. Yet, after following up a month later, Ms Rusan’s only response was effectively a gag order, still without addressing the questions. Why the secrecy and lack of transparency from Council?”
Ms Rousseau has called for the CEO to publicly respond to her questions: “What recourse does a resident have when their legitimate inquiries go unanswered? Does this fee meet council’s guidelines to inclusivity, and were those guidelines considered when councillors voted to implement it?”
