Advocate encourages Council to meet its own transparency commitments

Helen Tagg: “The expectation is already there in their own plan,” she said. “What we are asking is for those commitments to be applied in practice.”

NAMBOUR Now chair Helen Tagg is calling on Sunshine Coast Council to meet the transparency and accountability standards it has already set for itself, saying the issue is about how those commitments are reflected in real-world decision-making.

Mrs Tagg said Council’s corporate plan outlines a clear pathway to building community trust, including commitments to open access to information, clear accountability and transparent decision-making.

“The expectation is already there in their own plan,” she said. “What we are asking is for those commitments to be applied in practice.”

This advocacy work began because the community was not satisfied with the current approach. Mrs Tagg said her advocacy has focused on understanding, in clear and practical terms, how decisions are made and applied so they can be shared with the community. 

The group’s position follows months of correspondence with Council seeking clarity on how decisions are interpreted and applied, particularly in relation to community safety and homelessness. While responses have been provided, Mrs Tagg said key questions about how decisions are applied in practice remain unresolved. “There is a difference between receiving a response and getting a clear answer,” she said.

Mrs Tagg said her intention from the outset was to work collaboratively with Council to ensure community concerns were properly understood and addressed.

However, she said there has not been meaningful direct consultation with the Nambour community, despite a community petition and a subsequent homelessness forum.

In her view, earlier consultation would likely have led to clearer understanding, stronger outcomes and reduced the need for ongoing correspondence.

As outlined in her correspondence to the CEO, Mrs Tagg said she submitted formal requests not to burden staff, but as a last-resort attempt to obtain clarity after multiple interactions where her questions were not directly addressed or were answered only in general terms. “This has been my experience from the outset of the petition process,” she said.

“My concern, based on my dealings with Sunshine Coast Council to date, is that a risk-averse approach and institutional caution may at times have outweighed timely, community-focused responses.”

Nambour Now says it is seeking constructive engagement and views the situation as an opportunity for Council to strengthen community trust. “We are not trying to create conflict,” Mrs Tagg said. “We are trying to achieve outcomes that benefit the community. That starts with open communication and genuine consultation.”

The group is calling on Council to engage directly with residents, provide clear explanations of how its decisions are applied in practice, and work collaboratively on solutions.

The call follows a formal letter from Council dated April 30 stating it considered the matters raised to be adequately addressed, and advising that further repeated correspondence may be managed under its Unreasonable Conduct policy.

Mrs Tagg said her review of correspondence was prepared to explain why the issue remains unresolved. “I was asking Council to explain the rules, thresholds and criteria they say guide their decisions,” she said.

“If clear rules or criteria guide those decisions, the community should be able to understand how they are applied in practice. If not, Council should explain how consistency and accountability are being maintained.”

Mrs Tagg said that, to better understand the responses received, she undertook a detailed review of one representative correspondence chain with Council, comparing the questions asked with the responses provided.

She said the assessment was intended to provide a clear, factual overview of that exchange and demonstrate why key questions about how decisions are applied in practice remain unresolved.

Helen Tagg’s Assessment of Council Response to Community Questions

Reference: Correspondence to CEO (12 February), Integrity acknowledgement (16 February), and response (27 March)

This review compares the questions and requests for clarification raised in correspondence dated 12 February with the acknowledgement and response subsequently provided.

This example is presented to illustrate the nature and quality of responses received.

Summary of Outcomes

The correspondence raised a number of distinct issues relating to decision-making, risk, and community safety, supported by multiple questions and requests for clarification.

The review found that:

    •    A small number of issues were directly answered

    •    Some were addressed in general terms

    •    A significant proportion were not directly answered

Overall, approximately 40% of the matters raised were addressed in some form, while the majority of substantive issues remain unresolved.

Mrs Tagg said complaint handling was acknowledged separately on 16 February but remained unresolved. She said detailed and specific questions were raised about how public spaces were being managed in practice.

The response primarily outlined Council’s legislative framework and general approach.

Where questions sought clear positions, operational detail or defined actions, responses were either general in nature or not provided.