The Members National Dust Disease Taskforce

20 Tingara Street
                                                                             Macleay Island 4184

                                                                             Mob: 0432 216 405

The Members
National Dust Disease Taskforce

SUBMISSION: SOUTHERN MORETON BAY ISLANDS ROAD AND DUST DISEASE
TASK GROUP
I am writing to you as a resident of Macleay Island and as a member of a small Task Group of
Southern Moreton Bay Island (SMBI) residents. We are concerned about our health due to
ongoing exposure to airborne Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) from the light greyish road
surface material that the Redland City Council has been placing on our unsealed SMBI roads
for at least the past 5 years. RCS, like asbestos is a declared Group 1 human carcinogen.
Recently it was established that following the introduction of the road material in 2014, a ‘cluster’
of serious medical problems has been witnessed within 100 metres of an unsealed 400m long
Macleay Island street. The cluster comprised:

   7 cases of lung related diseases; and

   3 cases of autoimmune disease.
In total 6 people have died and those that remain require significant ongoing treatment. Most
sufferers believe their illnesses were caused or aggravated by the dust from the light greyish
road material. Russell and Macleay islanders have informed our Task Group of many other
residents who have developed and/or died from lung and auto immune diseases over the past 5
years.
Medical research has established a strong link between Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) and
both respiratory (lung) diseases and other (autoimmune) diseases. There is an urgent need to
establish the extent of such diseases on the SMBI and whether they are caused by the silica we
know is the principal component of the road material.
In March of this year I provided information to the Council about significant equity,
socioeconomic, road infrastructure, health and safety issues - not to mention the possible
disease ‘cluster’ and deaths on the SMBI. In the 9 months since then more deaths have
occurred and serious lung and autoimmune diseases continue to be diagnosed – the Council’s
only action has been to cease funding for the islands green road sealing program in the 2019-20
budget.
We know there are laws designed to protect the public from being exposed to airborne RCS and
other dangerous substances/materials and to ensure public health, safety and wellbeing.
Equally, there are laws that prescribe the duties, responsibilities and requirements of those that
control or perform certain activities that may involve dangerous materials at locations where
workers and others are to be found. Unfortunately, we see little evidence that the laws are being
complied with.

                                                                                                   1

It appears that the following laws are relevant to the situation we find ourselves in. They are the:
       QLD Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011
       These laws provide protections for workers and the general public so that their health
       and safety is not placed at risk by work activities conducted by a Person Conducting a
       Business or Undertaking (PCBU) at a workplace. In the islands situation, the PCBU is
       the Council, its CEO and/or responsible executives and the workplace is the SMBI.
       QLD Civil Liability Act 2003 and Civil Liability Regulation 2014
       These laws provide for a duty of care to be owed by Public authorities to members of the
       public. In our situation the Council, Councillors, CEO and/or senior employees are the
       Authorities.
       QLD Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012
       These laws provide the basis upon which Local Governments operate. The Act is
       founded on five Local Government principles and a Ministers Code of Conduct with
       which Councillors must comply when performing their roles.
Based on our experiences and understanding of what Council, Councillors and responsible
Council executives may, or may not, have done in the past, we residents of the SMBI are not
confident that they have acted in our interests or in accordance with the duties, responsibilities
and requirements contained within the relevant laws or the Ministerial Code of conduct.
       I have attached background information for your information.
On December 20, in acknowledging the role played by the Minister for Local Government and
appreciating that he too has a duty of care to the residents of the SMBI, we wrote to him
seeking his assurances that (1) everything related to the administration of the roads on the
islands was proceeding in accordance with relevant laws, (2) we were not being exposed to
airborne RCS and (3) our health and wellbeing was not being compromised. To this end we
requested that he:
1.     Refer the issues covered in the background information to the Minister responsible for
       the administration of the QLD Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and QLD Work Health
       and Safety Regulation 2011 for his action and advice – and, based on that Minister’s
       response, that he satisfy himself as to whether the Council and/or relevant responsible
       executives had complied with the WHS legislation;
2.     Ensure that, should breaches of the WH&S laws be found, appropriate action (including
       prosecution) be pursued by the relevant Authority(s);
3.     Determine whether the Council, Councillors and/or relevant responsible executives had
       complied with their legal obligations to take a reasonable standard of care when doing
       acts that could foreseeably harm others or whether, through their negligence or
       omission, they had failed in that obligation and breached their duty of care to the public;
4.     Consider the findings under 1 and 3 above and, where it may be in the public interest, he
       or his Department’s Chief Executive take action on behalf of the State under Chapter 5
       Part 1 Section 113 of the QLD Local Government Act 2009 by gathering information
       and/or monitoring and evaluating whether the Council or Councillors had performed their
       duties and acquitted their responsibilities in compliance with relevant laws, Local

                                                                                                   2

Government principles, Councillor obligations and/or the standards of behaviour set out
       in the Minister’s Code of Conduct;
5.     if it is found that the Council or Councillors had failed to perform their duties or acquit
       their responsibilities consistent with 4 above, and should it be in the public interest, take
       appropriate remedial action under the QLD Local Government Act and Regulation;
6.     Ensure, as a matter of urgency, that Council, Councillors and/or responsible executives
       conduct air quality and health testing consistent with Australian Standards, their duty of
       care and all other legal requirements; and
7.     Ensure, subject to the nature and seriousness of findings related to 6 above, that the
       Council immediately seals all unsealed SMBI residential roads or takes urgent action to
       bring forward the completion of the green seal program.

As at 20 January 2020, no response has been received from the Minister.

We thank you for the opportunity your Task Force has provided to our Group. In excess of 9000
citizens reside on the SMBI and they are very concerned that they have been exposed to
airborne crystalline silica by their Council and possibly contracted dust or silica dust related
diseases – but due to very limited resources we are not in a position to verify this. We believe all
levels of government have a duty of care to investigate such situations and ensure the health
and wellbeing of all citizens.

I will keep the Taskforce informed of any further developments.

Yours sincerely

Ross Byrne
Resident and Task Group Member
SMBI Roads and Dust Related Diseases

                                                                                                       3

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
                “WHEN YOU CAN’T BREATHE...NOTHING ELSE MATTERS”

The Southern Moreton Bay Islands
The SMBI (rated more disadvantaged) is at the bottom of the scale in terms of its
socioeconomic status and adequacy of infrastructure relative to other mainland Redland
divisions (advantaged/more-advantaged).
Of the 276 towns in Queensland with a population of 500 or more, only Macleay and Russell
Island residential roads are not fully sealed. The SMBI population is 9,000.
Due largely to ‘self-imposed’ Council funding restrictions, little has been achieved in terms of
completing the green seal program over the past 5 years. Only about 40 of 100kms of
residential unsealed roads have been sealed. Council has now ceased its funding.
According to one Councillor, the Mayor and more recently the Federal Member for Bowman, a
group of Councillors have, for reasons only known to them, consciously blocked many SMBI
infrastructure initiatives including the green seal program - notwithstanding that the Council has
sufficient funds to complete them.
The Council and Councillors appear to have been, at best, ‘inconsistent’ in terms of complying
with the Local Government Principles, their obligations as Councillors and the standards of
behaviour set out in the Code of conduct.
However, of more concern to me, the Task Group and other SMBI residents is the Council and
Councillors are placing budgeting and ‘personal political’ considerations ahead of the amenity,
health, safety and welfare of Island residents. They are for all intents and purposes, failing in
their duty of care over the 9,000 residents of the SMBI.

Unsealed Road Surface Material
A light greyish road material has been used by the Council to surface SMBI roads since 2014.
For much of that time the Council, Councillors and Council executives would have seen analysis
reports, residents’ health complaints, media reports about silicosis etc and even asked Council
staff about the safety of the road material – I also raised these issues in my march document to
the council. They would have been aware that:

   the surfacing material contained high levels of silicon dioxide (up to 70% - 80% or more) that
    is likely to be Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) - a declared Group 1 human carcinogen
    like asbestos; and
   many SMBI residents had complained to the Council of illnesses and lung related diseases
    they believed were linked to the road dust.

Dust Related Lung and Autoimmune Diseases
Since the light greyish road material was introduced, a ‘cluster’ of serious medical problems has
been detected within 100 metres of a single unsealed Macleay Island street. These included:

   7 cases of lung related diseases (4 x lung cancer, 1 x COPD,1 x emphysema and 1 x
    unspecified lung disease); and

                                                                                                     4

   3 cases of autoimmune disease (1 x lupus and 2 x liver disease – these are very rare
    autoimmune diseases).
In total 6 people have died and those that remain require significant ongoing treatment. Most
sufferers believe their illnesses were caused or aggravated by the dust from the road material.
Russell and Macleay islanders have informed our Task Group of many other residents who
have developed and/or died from lung and auto immune diseases over the past 5 years.

Linkage between Respirable Crystalline Silica Dust and Diseases
Medical research has established a strong link between Airborne Respirable Crystalline Silica
(RCS) and respiratory (lung) disease and other (autoimmune) diseases.

   The respiratory (lung) diseases include silicosis (an irreversible chronic respiratory illness),
    lung cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases including
    emphysema), chronic bronchitis, simple pneumoconiosis (dust in the lung) and a number of
    other serious lung diseases;
   Autoimmune diseases are frequently linked to genetically predisposed individuals (heredity)
    and caused by an environmental trigger (such as exposure to respirable crystalline silica).
    There are over 80 identified Autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis;
    scleroderma; lupus; autoimmune liver, kidney and thyroid diseases; Multiple sclerosis; etc
There is an urgent need to establish the extent of such diseases on the SMBI and whether they
are caused by the silica we know is the principal component of the road material.
At present, in the absence of any action by the Council, the local Task Group is endeavouring to
obtain some ‘exploratory’ information via a community leaflet campaign on the islands. This
should be the role the Council and even the State takes up – they are far better resourced than
our few volunteers.

Road Material Testing and Air Monitoring
By way of explanation, the benchmark for dust is that its particles have a diameter of 100
microns or less – it is essentially the dust that is in the air on a windy day. In relation to
Respirable dust, the International and Australian standard is that the dust particles have a
diameter of 10 microns or less - small enough that they can reach or penetrate the alveoli of the
lung without being stopped by the lungs’ biological defences. Crystalline silica is simply a form
of silica that is potentially dangerous. Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) is silica dust that has a
diameter of 10 microns or less - it is a declared Group 1 Carcinogen. Once RCS has reached
the alveoli, it cannot be cleared by the lungs.
The Council does not appear to have conducted road material testing or air monitoring over the
past 5 years to ascertain or otherwise, if there is a risk to residents from exposure to silica dust.
The local SMBI Councillor did recall that a scientific report and an analysis was provided to
Council ‘about 3 yrs ago – from memory it showed the material contained 70% and 80%
crystalline silica (Si02)’. He believes he was advised by Council staff at the time that these ‘silica
levels were within acceptable Australian standards’ – however, no such standard exists.
Repeated requests to Council staff by the Councillor for access to these documents have been
unsuccessful – it appears they are either being withheld or never existed.

                                                                                                       5

For 5 years the Council, Councillors and Council executives have been silent or secretive on
matters related to SMBI unsealed roads, the extent and forms of testing that may have been
done, any results related to silica content and particle size of the surface material, whether
residents are being exposed to dangerous levels of silica dust and the possibility that the silica
dust is causing lung and other diseases.
Responding to community pressure, in October 2019 (less than 2 months ago) Council chose
‘selected sites’ and performed tests to, as they describe it, ascertain what the levels of
Respirable Crystalline Silica were in the surface material.
       Note 1: Such testing is not designed to detect the level of airborne RCS over a given
       period nor the risk of airborne RCS exposure to residents – as required by Australian
       and International standards.
       Note 2: Air monitoring is the only accepted method for determining this and to my
       knowledge has never been performed by the Council or anyone on the SMBI.
Nevertheless, the tests did reveal that:

   the road sample comprised on average 50% of crystalline silica; and
   the dust taken from the sample comprised 45.2% respirable dust.
       Note 3: The Council ‘selected’ four low traffic, sloping roads for deep core sampling. The
       slope, traffic volumes and core sample depth have a significant bearing on results.
       Note 4: The light greyish resurfacing material is likely to be found in the top 2” of the
       road as it is placed on top of the pre-existing rocky road base – a core sample will
       therefore include the resurfacing material but also a significant amount of deeper rocky
       road base. Traffic promotes ‘crushing’ which can further reduce particle sizes –
       particularly in the top 2”. Gravity will also cause smaller sand/dust particles to rise to the
       surface over and above larger particles. However, dust/sand particles found in the top 2”
       of road material on a slope are more likely to be washed away by rain and deposited
       further down the slope.
       Note 5: Having regard to the high 70-80% SiO2 levels of the earlier samples and bearing
       in mind the Council’s subjective location selections and sampling methods, it is likely that
       the recent results significantly under-stated the real RCS position. For the Council, a
       ‘best case’ result.
However, for illustrative purposes, a simplistic interpretation of these findings would be that, on
a windy day, if a representative amount of the dust particles (i.e. those less than 100 microns)
were airborne, then 45.2% of that dust would be respirable (10 microns or less) and capable of
reaching or penetrating the lung’s alveoli. Half (50%) of that could be Respirable Crystalline
Silica (RCS) – a Group 1 Carcinogen that cannot be cleared by the lungs.
This level of RCS, if replicated in the air, would be sufficient indication that a dangerous
exposure risk existed for residents. Under the WHS law, it would need to be confirmed by air
monitoring and analysis and likely lead to a situation that required remediation and/or mitigation.
Air monitoring is the only accepted method for determining the airborne concentration of
respirable crystalline silica. Urgent road sealing would go a long way towards exposure
remediation and mitigation.

                                                                                                      6

Council Communication and (IN)Action
I am unsure how many public complaints have been sent to the Council over the past 5 years
about the dust and its effect on health, but have been told by residents there were many.
However, advice has generally been that most were either ‘fobbed off’ or any health issues
simply ignored. In fact, information related to the number of complaints, extent and types of
health issues reported, composition of the material and whether airborne silica dust levels
comply with Australian health standards has never been released by Council - notwithstanding
the importance of such information to residents.
In March of this year I had several discussions with my State MP’s office. They covered (1)
inadequacy and timeframe of the Islands’ green seal program, (2) low levels of SMBI sealed
roads vs other QLD towns, (3) the apparent disease ‘cluster’ and local deaths, (4) high SMBI
lung cancer levels vs Redlands mainland and (5), possible linkages between SMBI road dust
and silicosis. My MP considered these issues to be ‘Council matters’ and referred them to the
relevant Councillor who provided them to Council.
Subsequent dealings have been with the Council’s lawyer who has communicated with me via
emails and telephone calls.
On 6-7 June 2019 I received emails from the lawyer wherein he informed me there were no
known medical clusters or reportable conditions with Qld Public Health.
       Note: this is understandable as only ‘occupational’ dust diseases are ‘reportable’ under
       the legislation- a recent but in this case inadequate State Government initiative which
       does not address the residential situations like we have on the SMBI.
The lawyer also stated that ‘feedback’ from the ‘roads team’ indicated a much lower silica
content of the base material – he asked if I had any information to show if the silica level was
higher. No confirmation or analyses reports were provided by him to confirm his statement.
Being the Council’s lawyer, his objective appeared to be to ease or overcome my concerns
rather than to address and resolve the problems. The significance of islands equity and
socioeconomic issues and matters of health and safety did not seem to be of concern – not to
mention a possible disease ‘cluster’ and related deaths. After informing him that I had problems
with his approach the lawyer now chooses to ignore all attempts at communication.
The Council has a well earnt reputation for secrecy, not just in relation to individuals but the
public in general – for example an extraordinary 86 items were listed as confidential business
(without public and media present) on agendas for Redland City Council’s general meetings
over the past 12 months. That’s an average of more than four confidential business items per
general meeting – so much for the ‘five Local Government principles’.
I note that immediately following the June 6-7 email a different surfacing material (brownish rock
aggregate) has been used by the Council to resurface unsealed Russell and Macleay Island
roads – the light greyish road material has simply been ‘pushed to the side’ at island storage
areas - presumably in response to the matters I had raised with the Council lawyer.
In mid-October I spoke by phone to one of the Councillors and was informed, amongst other
things, that in his view:

   the green seal program should never have been stopped;

                                                                                                   7

   a group of Councillors are against spending on infrastructure for the SMBI - they effectively
    form a block in Council; and
   the Council has ‘plenty’ of funds and could easily reseal all of the island roads now if they
    decided to.

What was Needed - and Didn’t Happen
A Council needs to be proactive and accept that it has a duty of care under the Civil Liability Act
to protect and support its residents as well as duties and responsibilities under the Work Health
and Safety Act and Regulation in relation to its activities, workers and others at its workplace.
The Redlands City Council needed to, but failed to do exactly that.
The Council needed to address the issue of dust exposure as a matter of urgency, it needed to
establish:

   the levels of crystalline silica in the light greyish road material on SMBI roads
   the size of the dust particles - are they respirable (10 microns or less)
   what the RCS exposure levels were and whether they were within acceptable standards
   how frequently and for how long residents have been exposed to the dust
Council needs to identify the impact, if any, of such exposure, including how many people are
presently effected, or have been effected by dust related illnesses/diseases. The public needs
to be informed of the situation and encouraged to report instances of lung and autoimmune
disease diagnoses. Finally, the Council needs to introduce measures to monitor, mitigate,
diagnose, assess, record and respond to exposure risks and disease events. This has not
happened.

The Law
QLD Work Health and Safety Act 2011 - QLD Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011
The WHS Act and WHS Regulation provide protections for workers and the general public so
that their health and safety is not placed at risk by work activities.
The WHS Act and parts of the WHS Regulation places the primary duty of care and various
other duties and obligations on a ‘Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking’ (PCBU). The
meaning of a PCBU is set out in section 5 of the WHS Act.
A PCBU can be a public authority (e.g. Redland City Council), the CEO or relevant responsible
Council executives. In terms of the WHS Act they are responsible for activities related to
constructing, operating and maintaining Island Roads and infrastructure at its workplace being
the SMBI.
A PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers at
the workplace. A workplace is defined as being a place where work is carried out for a
business or undertaking and includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at
work.
The object of the Act and Regulation is to provide for a balanced and nationally consistent
framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces by:

                                                                                                    8

   protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety and welfare
    through the elimination or minimisation of risks …….;
   promoting the provision of advice, information, education and training in relation to work
    health and safety;
   securing compliance …. through effective and appropriate compliance and enforcement
    measures; and
   ensuring appropriate scrutiny and review of actions by persons exercising powers and
    performing functions under this Act.
In furthering this object, regard must be had to the principle that workers and other persons
should be given the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety and welfare
from hazards and risks arising from work or from particular types of substances .... the
substance in this case being Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS).
PCBU Duties under S19 of the WHS Act are qualified by the term Reasonably practicable.
Reasonably practicable means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be
done to ensure health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters
including:

   the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring
   the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk
   what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk,
    and ways of eliminating or minimising the risk
   the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk
   after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising it,
    the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, including
    whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk.
PCBU duties imposed by the Act in respect of health and safety requires that:

   the health and safety of workers and other persons is not put at risk
   risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable, are eliminated
   risks to health and safety, if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate them, are minimised,
    so far as is reasonably practicable.
   a work environment that is without risks to health and safety is provided and maintained
   information, training, instruction or supervision necessary to protect all persons from risks to
    their health and safety is provided; and
   the conditions of the workplace are monitored for the purpose of preventing illness or injury
    of workers
PCBU Responsibilities imposed by the Regulation in respect of Airborne RCS requires that:

   silica hazards are Identified
   risks posed by airborne RCS are managed and personal protective equipment is provided
   airborne RCS exposure standards are not exceeded and airborne RCS levels are monitored
   exposed workers’ health is monitored
   air monitoring records and health monitoring records are kept
   silica control measures are reviewed
   information about airborne RCS is provided to workers and other persons

                                                                                                     9

The Council, CEO and relevant responsible executives – being PCBUs, may have complied
with some of these duties and responsibilities in relation to workers – but appear to have
completely overlooked those necessary to ensure the safety of ‘others’ in the workplace – they
being the 9,000 SMBI residents who, prima facie, reside ‘on the workplace’.
QLD Civil Liability Act 2003 - Duty of Care
The common law test as to whether a breach of the duty of care has occurred can be found
under Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 2003.
Established duty of care relationships include Public authorities (including Councils) to members
of the public. Councillors and Council employees are also subject to this duty.
A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on any person to take a reasonable standard of care
when doing acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is an element of the tort of negligence.
Negligence generally comprises the following elements, (1) a duty of care owed by the
defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an actual causal connection between the
defendant's conduct and the resulting harm; (4) proximate cause, which relates to whether the
harm was foreseeable. If a person suffers injury as the result of another party’s negligent act or
omission, the injured person is entitled to be compensated for their injuries. If each element
is established responsible Council, Councillors or employees would be liable to pay the
compensation.
In Queensland a person will breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of harm if:

   a risk is foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought reasonably to
    have known); and
   the risk is not insignificant; and
   in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the person would have taken
    precautions
The Council, Councillors and/or responsible executives appear to have clearly breached their
duty of care to the public on the SMBI in that, having reasonable knowledge that:

   the road material contained high levels of crystalline silica;
   silica dust causes silicosis and other dust related diseases; and
   many islanders had complained of suffering dust related illness or diseases,
They ought to have suspected that:

   the road material was dangerous; and
   the risk of exposure to airborne silica dust and development of dust related diseases was
    not insignificant.
They then should have then taken appropriate precautions by having the material analysed and
air monitoring tests conducted in accordance with Australian standards and if necessary, taken
action to immediately remedy and/or mitigate the risks - this did not happen.
QLD Local Government Act 2009 - Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland
The Local Government Act 2009 (the Act) and Local Government Regulation 2012 provide the
basis upon which Local Governments operate. The Act is founded on five Local Government

                                                                                                   10

principles which Councillors must comply with while performing their roles as elected
representatives. These principles are:
    1. Transparent and effective processes and decision-making in the public interest;
    2. Sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of
       effective services;
    3. Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement;
    4. Good governance of, and by, Local Government; and
    5. Ethical and legal behaviour of Councillors and Local Government employees.
Under section 150D of the Act, the Minister for Local Government is required to make a Code of
Conduct stating the standards of behaviour for Councillors in the performance of their
responsibilities as Councillors. Councillors are required to understand and commit to complying
with the Local Government principles and the obligations of Councillors in accordance with
section 169 of the Act, as well as the standards of behaviour set out in the Code of Conduct.
The Code of Conduct sets out the 3 standards of behaviour applying to all Councillors in
Queensland that are consistent with the Local Government principles and their associated
values. They are:
    1.     Carry out RESPONSIBILITIES conscientiously and in the best interests of the
           Council and the community;
    2.     Treat people in a reasonable, just, RESPECTFUL and non-discriminatory way; and
    3.     Ensure conduct does not reflect adversely on the REPUTATION of Council
Simply by observing Council, how it has performed and considering the experiences of SMBI
residents in this document - particularly in relation to roads, infrastructure, residents’ health and
safety, it is difficult for one to conclude that the Council, Councillors or its executive have
complied with their Local Government obligations. For example:

   There are many instances where Council processes and decision-making has been far from
    transparent or in the public interest. The decision to, in effect, ‘ignore’ exposure risks
    associated with dust and the many complaints by residents is the best example.
   The actions of Councillors (particularly when voting in ‘blocks) is far from democratic and
    responsible – and examples decisions being made without adequate and/or effective
    community engagement.
   In terms of Good Governance, it is clear that Council and Councillors are not committed to
    open and transparent processes and procedures as evidenced by the 86 items listed as
    confidential business over the past 12 months. The fact that many complaints to Council are
    ignored, ‘fobbed of’ or inadequately responded to is further evidence.
   The extent and frequency of legal non-compliance exampled throughout this submission is
    of major concern.
   When considering the Council and Councillors’ observance of Standards of Behaviour, the
    terms: conscientiously, best interests of the …. community; reasonable, just, respectful and
    non-discriminatory; and Council reputation do not seem to resonate - certainly with island
    residents.
Something needs to happen – Action under Chapter 5 Part 1 of the QLD Local Government Act
2009 appears to be an appropriate course of action.

                                                                                                   11

QLD Local Government Act 2009 - Monitoring and Enforcing the Local Government Acts
Chapter 5 Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2009 allows for the Minister or the department’s
chief executive to gather information, monitor and evaluate whether:
(i)        a local government or Councillor is performing their responsibilities properly; or
(ii)       a local government or Councillor is complying with laws applying to the local government
           or Councillor…. ; or
(iii)      it is … in the public interest for the Minister or the department’s chief executive to take
           remedial action; and
to take remedial action. A decision of the Minister is not subject to appeal.
In the circumstances and subject to the findings of the Minister or his Department Head,
Chapter 5 of the Legislation would appear to contain the appropriate course of action for the
Minister to pursue in relation to the Council and/or Councillors.

Postscript
On 4 December I made a (7+ minute) presentation to Council concerning silica contained in the
road material, possible silica related deaths and diseases on the islands and the fact that the
Council are not complying with the Work, Health and safety Act and Regulation. I also
emphasised that Council, Councillors and relevant executives may have failed in their duty of
care to the SMBI community and seriously breached the law. Their actions/inaction could result
in civil and criminal offences being established, significant pecuniary penalties being handed
down by the courts and even result in an enquiry being initiated into Council/Councillor
performance by the Minister for Local Government.
Following the presentation, I and the Mayor were interviewed by ABC radio and she was asked
‘can you name the Councillors who are blocking funding for the roads’. She said she ‘didn’t
know but it was available on Council records’. In fact, the vote on road funding was another item
classified as ‘confidential business’ and not publically available. I took the opportunity of
emailing the 10 Councillors and asked each of them “if you can tell me if you supported the road
sealing program for this financial year”. The result was:

       The mayor had already made the point that she supported the sealing program.
       Four Councillors replied that they supported the road sealing program and voted for it
       One ignored my request (on 2 occasions – presumably a non-supporter)
       The remaining five would not reveal their support or otherwise (presumably non-supporters).
The responses say a lot about the Councillors and how they view their role. Those who
responded but did not reveal their support or otherwise, thanked me for the presentation but
referred only to budget processes, departmental priorities and the fact that SMBI road sealing
was a significantly lower budget priority. They saw their role as being to juggle the priorities and
then to approve the budget as presented.
Not one of them mentioned Island health, safety or death issues. Neither did they concede there
may have been a failure in their duty of care, breaches of laws, civil and criminal offences
committed or even whether they may be liable for penalties. It is as if they completely missed
the thrust of the presentation – a ‘not my problem’ approach.

                                                                                                   12