Redland City Council has moved to correct a minor procedural glitch in its meeting agenda templates, following intervention by Russell Island resident Stephen Lather.
Lather identified a discrepancy between Standing Orders 6.11 and 6.9 regarding how petitions are classified.
The issue came to prominence in relation to a petition due to be presented by Cr Paul Bishop, requesting Council withdraw support for the Birkdale Olympic Whitewater Centre and prioritise a new public swimming pool.
The council agenda stated that “In accordance with s.6.11 of Council Meeting Standing Orders, Cr Bishop will move that the petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration, acknowledging its operational nature.”
However, s6.11 refers to a Motion to Alter the Order of Business.
S6.9 covers Petitions or Presentations.
Following Lather’s input, Andrew Ross, Executive Group Manager of Risk & Legal Services—effectively the council’s in-house lawyer—thanked him for bringing the issue to Council’s attention.
Ross confirmed that he had issued directions to his team to amend the relevant templates to ensure correct classification going forward.
Lather, who has long monitored Council processes, said the change addresses a minor procedural issue but noted that he continues to watch for action on broader petition-handling matters.
He feared the Council was incorrectly referring policy-related petitions directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) instead of being considered by councillors in a general meeting.
Lather has argued that petitions of this nature should always be treated as policy matters, not operational issues.
“The petition (whitewater facility) plainly appears to address a matter of “Council Policy” – and as such is a matter to be considered (in due course) by a general meeting of Council,” he said.
“In other words, the matter is clearly NOT of an “Operational Nature” – hence it woud not be appropriate to refer the petition to the CEO on that basis.
“Referring the matter to the CEO for consideration as being of an “Operational Nature” would not be appropriate – and indeed, would be embarrassing to the CEO.
“It is certainly NOT for the CEO to decide whether Council withdraws its support for the Birkdale Olympic Whitewater centre.”
Council Standing Orders provide clear guidance: policy-related petitions can either be received and adjourned for future discussion or referred to the CEO for preparation of an officer’s report, with the final decision returned to Council.
Misclassifying petitions risks bypassing proper democratic processes and placing unnecessary pressure on staff.
“I am aware of at least one other case in relatively recent history where another petition which clearly related to a “Policy Issue” was side-tracked to the CEO under the incorrect/inappropriate label of being “of an operational matter”, however – I have not conducted any sort of “Audit” of all petition dealings,” Mr Lather added.
Lather has said that he was entirely neutral about the contents of the petition as such, and has no connection with either the petition or the petitioner.
His interest in the matter was limited to questions around “due process” with Council management of petitions in general.
However, Cr Paul Golle said he was struggling to understand the logic behind the latest petition.
“It suggests Council should now take on the responsibility of pulling the rug out from under the State and Federal Governments and their proposed Olympic venue — only to divert that project into a Council-funded and Council-operated public swimming pool,” he said.
“What’s being proposed here effectively shifts a fully funded State and Federal initiative directly onto Redland ratepayers, where the current arrangement does not.
“I find it concerning that such a petition is being entertained at all, given the clear financial and operational implications for this organisation.”
Cr Golle said petitions are received and referred for consideration, not debated, as per long-standing Council policy consistent with the Local Government Act.
“They are “considered operational” on the basis that they may not even be relevant to Council business, as has been demonstrated to officers in the past, yet they continue to be accepted,” he said.
“So perhaps it’s time we look at this more closely.
“I’m 100 per cent ready to argue that many petitions have absolutely nothing to do with Council, and in the interest of saving ratepayers money, I’d be more than happy to see them ruled out immediately.
“If the argument is now that we should debate petitions, then perhaps we go all the way — let’s change the standing orders so that every petition presented to Council can be debated on the floor.
“And while we’re at it, let’s also amend standing orders to allow elected members to immediately challenge public speakers’ statements during Public Participation, since we’re often subjected to commentary that bears little resemblance to fact, yet still ends up reported in the media untested.
“Furthermore, let’s also change standing orders so that when a petition is presented to a divisional councillor — irrespective of its subject — that councillor must declare any potential conflict of interest arising from their association with the primary petitioner or the circumstances of how that petition came about.”
The petition concerning the Whitewater Centre is expected to be formally debated at an upcoming Council meeting.
