2016-01-11 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                 11 JANUARY 2016


Council provided the community with considerably more information and education about the topic
for the Noosa River Jury than it did for the organic waste Jury because of the necessity to introduce,
inform, educate and explain the Community Jury innovation at the outset. In other words, more
energy was expended in the first jury explaining the process while the second jury had less
emphasis on the jury process and more on the subject matter. This was a natural evolution and to
be expected.

There was not enough information for the community in the first jury process about the topic and
towards the end of the organic waste Jury, Council saw the need to take out a full page informative
advertisement in the Noosa News to explain the magnitude of the issue more clearly.

Local news publications devoted several front page stories to key issues highlighted by the Noosa
River Jury. Over 30 articles have been published so far. This has sparked public interest and a
number of letters to the editor and articles from various community groups. Individuals (including
the local MP) and organisations have appeared in front of the jury. Jurors were interviewed by the
media “humanising” the Jury.

In total to date, 62 articles have been published about the organic waste Jury in the local press.
These have continued well beyond the Jury’s completion. References to the organic waste
Community Jury are still appearing more than 6 months later as Council works to implement
recommendations and maintain a high level of community engagement on the topic.

For both juries Council attempted to involve the community in the process through open invitations
to attend stakeholder briefings and Community Jury sessions and by calling for submissions.
Stakeholder briefings were sparsely attended for the organic waste Jury and significantly attended
for the Noosa River Jury.

Observer levels were low for both juries and dwindled after the first two meetings. This could be
attributed to the rules of the process which prevented observers from participating directly in Jury
sessions, but also to the timing of the mid-week evening sessions.

Council increased the number of methods the community could use to get involved in the process
in the second Jury. Council manned several face-to-face “pop ups” at the libraries and opened the
online “forum” and “stories” tools on Your Say Noosa for the Noosa River Jury.

The Noosa River Jury online forum was popular with 90 comments received and 19 community
submissions were also received.

In comparison, 30 community submissions were received for the organic waste Jury with a
percentage of those simply selling organic waste technologies. The number of non-commercial
submissions received was similar for both juries.

There was greater overall community participation in the second Jury process, due, in part to the
extra opportunities provided, but also due to the nature of the issue.

Councillors were kept better informed with run sheets prior to each meeting and media releases
during the second Jury.

The Healthy Waterways report card awarding the Noosa River with a rating of A- appeared in the
media during the Noosa River Jury’s deliberations. This did influence some juror’s thinking
regarding the need for better management of the Noosa River in the future as evidenced in the
Jury’s report.




                                                                                      Page 15 of 50