1

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.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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.

6

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.

7

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;

8

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:

https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/laws-and-compliance/workplace-health-and-safety-laws/laws-and-legislation/work-health-and-safety-act-2011

9

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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.