Annex 6 - Public Information Sessions Report

Table 2: Participants List

 1. Peter Thompsett                  15. Roland Hill
 2. Wayne Carlson                    16. Wesley Manson
 3. Bruce Hallett                    17. John Lobb
 4. Richard Howard                   18. Peter Riley
 5. David Jones                      19. Greg Sheen
 6. Prue Mcgowan                     20. Amelia Lorentson
 7. Patrick Lloyd                    21. Trevor Clarey
 8. Bruce Davidson                   22. Judith Still
 9. Jennifer Marohasy                23. Craig Doolan
 10. Peter Morris                    24. Rex Halvorson
 11. Alana Morris                    25. Tom Wegener
 12. Alana Roland                    26. Lloyd Gamble
 13. Alison Cooper                   27. Maureen Riggs
 14. Sharon Wright                   28. Clent Kempsal

Community feedback
Some 17 participants of the 28 participants were formally interviewed about their perspectives of the project. The
results are presented in Table 2 below. In summary, 15 of 17 respondents expressed unequivocal support for the
project and its plans. 2 respondents expressed lingering concerns that were unresolvable on the day. Of the 28
participants, we estimate that 24 of 28 participants expressed strong support for the project and for the projects
plans.

This support echoes the outcomes of virtually all 70+ one-on-one meetings the project has held with stakeholders in
the past 12 months and represents a fantastic result.

From the public consultation sessions, four participants however, expressed strong objections to the project, objections
which were unreconcilable at the time. Two of these participants raised matters unrelated to the project (access to
historic water quality data + the projects potential contribution to the spread of 2378 Tera-chloro-dibenzo-dioxin).
Another participant strongly objected to the project having linkages to the Noosa Parks Association. The fourth
participant raised concerns about a raft of issues relating to oyster abundance, river health, project partners and the
results of past river management actions. Although TNC invested heavily in this individual, looking to find some common
ground or agreement, the participant remained unconvinced about the project’s relevance.

Table 2: Survey Reponses


            Questions              Women          Men                                 Comments

                                  YES    NO     YES    NO
                                                             The ‘no’ person was very focused on water quality and access
 Q1. Did you receive the                                     to water quality information they thought we were hiding. It
 information about the project      4     1     12           was difficult to convince the individual that we were not
 you were seeking today?                                     responsible for this information, even after one of the other
                                                             workshop participants cleared this up and provided details of
                                                             where the information is available.
                                                             One ‘no’ individual struggled to uncouple this project from
 Q2 (a) Are you happy for the       5           10      2    the past NBRF/USC project and our relationship to the Noosa
 project to proceed?                                         Parks Association

                                                             One ‘no’ individual raised issues beyond the scope of the
                                                             project to address
                                                             Concerned about the project with the presence of netting and
 Q2 (b) If no, what are some of                              the commercial fishing.

                                                                                                                             3