Save the Malanda Pavilion "The Igloo".

Save the Malanda Pavilion "The Igloo". Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Save the Malanda Pavilion "The Igloo"., Landmark & historical place, PO Box 874, Malanda.

A page dedicated to saving the Malanda Pavilion - a hugely significant building rich in history dating back to WW2, and a much loved landmark at risk of being demolished by Tablelands Regional Council.

5th March TRC put up a facebook post surrounding the Feb 26th ordinary council meeting. That post has a link to a summar...
09/06/2026

5th March TRC put up a facebook post surrounding the Feb 26th ordinary council meeting. That post has a link to a summary page which states:

‘A report presenting a list of forty-eight (48) land parcels for investigation and fifteen (15) parcels listed for divestment was considered. The list of assets was prepared as a result of Councillor prioritisation and Council resolved that officers progress with the next stages of the asset divestment process, being the internal and legal review, and consultation with user groups.’

The problem – that statement is false. The motion passed in relation to the 15 parcels of land (including 42 Mabel Street) ACTUALLY stated:

‘Resolve to dispose of each of the parcels of land set out in Table 2 below, subject to
completion of appropriate due diligence’

NO MENTION OF CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER.

Despite the following comment being immediately made on TRC’s post:

“Yet again TRC deliberately deceives the public. The motion to divest did NOT resolve to conduct community consultation.”

No attempt was made to correct the article.

This vote was 7:0.

So, while the article in this week’s Express is interesting and frames Cardew, Spanos and Baade in favourable light, (for rightly objecting to the division of 42 Mabel street without public consultation), – they had already voted for the divestment with no consultation in February..

As such, one must ask if this objection now is all about appeasing public pressure at a time of unprecedented scrutiny. Why vote in support of the motion three months ago?

Further, now that it is clear the CEO has yet again presided over misleading information being dissipated by TRC, and took no steps to correct the record on the matter, perhaps now she would like to address this ongoing, very serious issue...?

If she won’t – I will.

More to come..

TRC has misled the community by the blatant omission of key points:1. There has been a massive increase in the number of...
21/05/2026

TRC has misled the community by the blatant omission of key points:

1. There has been a massive increase in the number of meeting agenda items held in secret (closed sessions).

2. These secret agenda items exclude public access of all discussions and deliberations. Therefore, there is no independent oversight and no transparency.

3. This secrecy included item number 17.2 ‘Asset Divestment Process and Investigation’ Jan 2026 concerning the process that led to the unanimous decision to list 44 community assets including public toilets for potential divestment/ disposals.

4. The official reason given for the ‘divestment’ secrecy above (3) was: ‘negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the local government for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government.’ This defies logic and in my view has no credible basis whatsoever. (Accordingly, this matter is being referred to external oversight bodies).

Additionally, it has been separately stated the reason was to protect the privacy of residents in housing being considered for divestment. This excuse has no merit either. If this was a legitimate reason to close the meeting (which I would argue was not the case), this singular issue could have been discussed behind closed doors separately – rather than the entire asset disposals portfolio.

5. The Express Newspaper reported 14/10/25 the number of agenda items discussed in closed session from Feb 2025 - mid Oct 2025 was 43. (Up from 24 in the previous eight months before current CEO Nikola Stepanov arrived).

The Express further reported: ‘In comparison, neighbouring Mareeba Shire Council has only put one item – a staffing issue – into closed session in the past eight months.’

6. I have verified that between 30th Oct 2025 and 30th April 2026, an additional 28 separate agenda items were conducted in secret closed sessions.

7. TRC state in their response: ‘People are welcome to attend for all or any part of the meeting to watch the deliberative process.’ This is manifestly false. The public must leave a council meeting for the discussion of closed (secret) meeting agenda items.

And just like that the public toilets are demolished. Yet again this council refuses to listen to community concerns. Co...
20/05/2026

And just like that the public toilets are demolished. Yet again this council refuses to listen to community concerns. Consultation? Yeah right! How are our elderly and those with medical conditions - that rely on the buses and close access to these facilities, supposed to feel?

15/05/2026

Why hasn't TRC released the results of the 'Customer Satisfaction Survey' yet...?
Got something to hide TRC???

Tarzali is a forgotten part of our region. With new residents to the area, and young families with children, the town is...
15/05/2026

Tarzali is a forgotten part of our region. With new residents to the area, and young families with children, the town is clearly massively lacking in infrastructure. This is obvious to anyone who even passes through.

It's been four years since residents first contacted council asking for some play equipment to be installed in the park. For young families with stay at home parents, grandparents and carers – and busy working families alike - travelling to Malanda or Millaa to take the little ones to the park is not always viable. Many of us enjoyed walking to the local park pushing a pram or with children in hand.

Residents are not asking for anything outlandish – just some safe, enjoyable equipment to keep smiles on kids’ faces and provide the socialisation, and healthy exercise kids need.

MN Carson who has been advocating on behalf of the community, arranged a meeting with Cr Bilney this Wednesday 13th May to discuss the issue. There was hope that in the leadup to the budget, funding – or at least considerable part funding – could be allocated to this worthwhile cause. (Again, we are not talking about a lot of money here).

Alas, today residents were advised by Bilney: ‘I could not get sufficient support at this point as some considered in not to be a priority project’.

First question is how in less than two days this could go to council – all councillors – and be rejected..

Another question is why Tarzali was not considered for all the playground equipment ripped out of the closed park in Atherton..

This page firmly supports the advocacy of the Tarzali community on this issue and calls on councillors to allocate the funds necessary to make this park a reality in the upcoming budget.

THE FACTS: (Even a young child would understand some of these -but alas apparently not TRC!)1. Providing public toilets ...
12/05/2026

THE FACTS: (Even a young child would understand some of these -but alas apparently not TRC!)

1. Providing public toilets in public areas is a fundamental responsibility of council.

2. Public toilets are essential for public health, the environment and sanitation.

3. Public toilets provide a critical service. Noting in particular parents with young children, seniors, those without transport and people with certain medical conditions – regularly rely on these facilities.

4. TRC’s statement - in response to this question - that it’s acceptable to be ‘closing and disposing of old assets when they reach end of life’ is utterly reprehensible! Toilets should not be allowed to get to the stage they are at ‘end of life’, with replacements not planned in advance!

5. TRC has allowed public toilets in the region to fall into a putrid state of disrepair.

6. Anyone that travels to Ingham or Cardwell will likely be aware of and appreciate the vast difference in facilities between these areas and TRC. These and other councils offer single cubicle unisex toilets, in corrugated buildings with stainless steel toilets. These facilities are easy maintenance and deter vandalism.

7. TRC’s excuses relating to ceramic toilets shows just how out of touch they are. Other councils have used stainless steel toilets (referred to above), for decades!

8. TRC uses copper pipe theft as an excuse. There is no need for copper pipe even to be used inside these areas! Public toilets in other council areas use stainless steel pipe. Cross-linked Polyethylene is a low cost alternative. There are multiple options available, other than copper.

9. Other councils provide security cameras (outside public facilities) to further deter vandalism.

10. At least two public toilets blocks in Atherton are already closed. This has caused significant impact to some locals and the travelling public.

11. Rest areas such as Archers Creek and Rocky Creek provide a safe stop for travellers to use the facilities, and take a rest break. The government and police tell us to ‘Stop, Revive, Survive!’ The removal of these facilities raises safety risks. An Australian government website states ‘most experts estimate that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of fatal road crashes could result from driver fatigue.’

12. The fact TRC believes that it is acceptable to attempt to palm off public toilets to community groups at their ‘end of life’ defies belief. Why would community organisations with limited funds want to divert their limited resources to such an absurd idea?

13. TRC in stating YES it is acceptable to consider divesting / disposing of public toilets suggest council is incapable of conducting a basic cost/benefit analysis.

14. While technically – disposing of anything is 'in the financial interest of ratepayers', the impacts of doing so far outweighs any ‘benefit’.

15. Public toilets should NEVER have been put on the divestment/disposals list and it is a shameful indictment on all councillors and mayor that they voted unanimously to do so!

It is clear TRC has started their 'Is it true?' campaign in an attempt to prevent an administrator being appointed to co...
11/05/2026

It is clear TRC has started their 'Is it true?' campaign in an attempt to prevent an administrator being appointed to council. To make it ‘appear’ as though [cough, cough]

Yet TRC are providing false and misleading information, including in response to questions. Hence, from today, we will aim to at least once a week, publicly expose the lies and misrepresentations for all to see.

Before we start, it is important we deal with claims being widely circulated that;
1. Councillors have no power / control under the current CEO (and);
2. Not all councillors supported the divestment list of 44 assets.

To deal with the first point. The six Councillors and the Mayor are the ONLY individuals allowed to vote on resolutions put to council.

In other words, every decision made at Ordinary and Special Council meetings requiring a vote – is solely decided by Councillors and the Mayor. They have full control over the decisions made (motions passed).

Councillors have the absolute power to propose amendments to motions, and have the absolute right to speak on every issue being proposed.

Sometimes, Councillors rights may be impeded at a meeting. In this event Councillors still have the right to raise their hand and be heard.

If the mayor [as chairperson of the meeting] acts inappropriately, (as it can be argued occurred at the April 30th council meeting), there are protections in place.

Section 150IA of the Local Government Act 2009 ‘Dealing with unsuitable meeting conduct of chairperson’ covers this scenario.

Section 150IA states:
‘The councillors at the meeting, other than the chairperson [Mayor], may, by resolution—
(a) decide whether the conduct is unsuitable meeting conduct; and
(b) if the conduct is unsuitable meeting conduct—make an order reprimanding the chairperson for the conduct.

At the April 30th meeting – this right was not invoked. Personally, I believe it should have been – but Councillors had the right to do that – but elected not to.

Point two – all seven (all Councillors and the Mayor) voted UNANIMOUSLY to put the 44 assets up for potential divestment / disposal.

I will provide a copy of the motion passed – including the unanimous decision in the comments section.

It has been reported that certain Councillor/s have stated they did not support the divestment list. The unanimous passing of the motion to do so - unequivocally refutes this claim.

If they didn't support it - why would they have voted for it?!

So TRC will answer questions - here's over 80, compiled in a rush over the last couple of hours. Over to you TRC....QUES...
06/05/2026

So TRC will answer questions - here's over 80, compiled in a rush over the last couple of hours. Over to you TRC....

QUESTIONS FOR TABLELANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL
1. Is it true, that in June 2023, TEG engineers supplied TRC with an independent engineering report on the Patrick English Pavilion, that outlined multiple potential safety risks - and an actual risk - to public safety?

2. Is it true the June 2023 TEG report warned of the potential structural failure of the Pavilion within 12 months?

3. Is it true that TRC failed to take any action to address any of the structural defects raised in that report – including those posing public safety risks?

4. Is it true that TRC failed to close off parts of the Pavilion despite being warned of the actual risk to public safety in 2023?

5. Is it true that TRC failed to table the TEG report to council?

6. Is it true Councillor Bilney was the only elected official apprised of the contents of the TEG report in 2023?

7. Is it true that TRC failed to have an independent engineering inspection carried out on the Patrick English Pavilion after cyclone Jasper? (The wettest cyclone in Australian history) – despite being aware the roof and supporting structural truss frame was already compromised?

8. Is it true the Patrick English Pavilion had a Local Heritage Overlay that prohibited the destruction of the building unless an independent engineer found the building was not structurally sound and not 'reasonably capable' of being made structurally sound?

9. Is it true that TRC failed to take any action to repair the structural defects of the Pavilion, in order for the building to reach the point where an engineer would provide the opinion needed for the Heritage Overlay to be overridden enabling demolition?

10. Is it true that TRC repeated stated that they had no ‘prior knowledge of any risk to public safety’ posed by the Patrick English Pavilion, prior to May 2024?

11. Is it true that the above statement (question 10) was an absolute fabrication?

12. (Further to 10-11), Why has TRC continued to repeat this claim, despite substantive evidence being on the public record showing the claim had no factual basis?

13. Has TRC taken any actions to coverup it’s failure to act on the TEG report?

14. Is it true that a senior council officer, in seeking to discount the TEG report;
• Asked an engineer to respond to an abstract comment from a different engineering firms report;
• TRC then misrepresented that comment to the public, as though it was referencing TEG’s report;
• Then improperly used the comment as justification to override the findings of the TEG report?

15. (Further to 14), Is it true that TRC then used this misrepresentation to deceive the community as to why TRC did not act on stated potential (and actual) risks to public safety?

16. Is it true that the above (question 10-15) amounts to serious misconduct, by Tablelands Regional Council?

17. Is it true that statements made by a Councillor asserting TRC had maintained the Patrick English Pavilion to ‘keep it safe’ were manifestly misleading?

18. Why did TRC recklessly endanger members of the public by failing to act on – nor warn of any risk to safety posed by the Patrick English Pavilion?

19. Why did TRC fail to warn the public in March 2024 when council officers raised concern - and provided evidence of - the structural failure of the Pavilion?

20. (Further to 19); When preliminary action was taken in March 2024, to close the Pavilion on safety concerns, who overruled this plan and decide to keep the building open without warning the public?

21. (Further to 19-20); Were attempts ever made to destroy evidence pertaining to instructions given, to overrule the planned closure of the Pavilion?

22. Has TRC supplied false or misleading information to media outlets in response to the Patrick English Pavilion and / or the departure of the former CEO?

23. Did the mayor mislead council and/or the community over the circumstances leading to the departure of the former CEO?

24. Is it true that TRC has refused to respond to questions surrounding indisputable evidence it provided false information in response to formal complaints?

25. Did TRC officers provided false, misleading and/or fabricated information to the Crime and Corruption Commission?

26. (Further to 25), was this false information provided as justification as to why council officers failed to refer a complaint containing allegations of misconduct?

27. Is it true that a member of the public contacted the mayor in June 2025, offering to meet to hand over documented evidence of allegations of corrupt conduct?

28. (Further to 27), is it true the Mayor refused to meet to receive this evidence?

29. (Further to 27-28), is it true that the Mayor did not write the refusal letter, but instead delegated it to the CEO?

30. (Further to 27-29), is it true the CEO delegated authority to the senior council officer, later identified at being at the centre of the allegations of corrupt conduct, to write the refusal letter?

31. (Further to 27-30), Is it true that neither the Mayor or CEO, took any steps to ensure the complaint was not compromised by delegating authority on such a serious matter – without knowing the officer/s involved?

32. (Further to 27-31), Is it true the letter refusing to meet, was drafted by the officer at the centre of corrupt conduct allegations, and then sent by the mayor as if it were his own response?

33. Is it true there has been a pattern of trying to silence an individual who has exposed serious alleged council misconduct, by threatening to cut off access to council officers and information?

34. (Further to question 33), Is it true that these actions were undertaken in an attempt to;
• Cut off access to information (including through RTI);
• To prevent the releases of further evidence / documentation likely to further damage and incriminate council?

35. (Further to 33-34), Is it true a senior council officer at the centre of alleged corrupt conduct (question 25), is the same officer who was advocating for a new policy, to be implemented to prohibit access to council officers and by default RTI document access?

36. (Further to 25-35), Is it true the officer involved in the alleged corrupt conduct, made false claims in internal documentation attempting to justify the enactment of this policy?

37. (Further to 25-36), Is it further true that the council officer at the centre of alleged corrupt conduct, specifically listed RTI access and CCC complaints in internal documents as justification to try and enact this policy?

38. (Further to 25-37), Is it true that in April 2026, this senior council officer succeeded in having this policy applied to the complainant by the current CEO?

39. (Further to 25-38), Is it true that in enacting this policy, the CEO misrepresented a letter of complaint, to attempt to justify the implementation of this policy?

40. (Further to 25-39), Is it true that the above actions likely violate the human rights of the complainant, and explicit protections enshrined under the Human Rights Act 2019?

41. (Further to 25-40), Is it true that after the CEO was expressly warned not to allow the officer at the centre of allegations of corrupt conduct to have any further contact with the complainant, on April 16th 2026, this officer improperly made further contact?

42. Is it true the current CEO has repeatedly failed to respond to lists of questions and allegations that have never been addressed / responded to by council?

43. (Further to 42), is it misleading for TRC to setup a new website page and claim answers to questions will be provided within 2 business days, when the organisation has failed to answer questions for two years?

44. Is it true that in June 2025, immediately following the Mayor’s refusal to meet to receive evidence of corruption, TRC maliciously defamed a community member?

45. Is it true the CEO personally edited a proposed post (drafted by council officers) to specifically include false and fabricated claims [the defamatory material] designed to cause harm and severely damage the reputation of a community member?

46. Is it true that in the lead up to the 2024 Council elections the Mayor publicly stated his support for a proposal for a dedicated online portal. Whereby any council decisions that would impact the community, would be uploaded three weeks in advance to allow community input/feedback (consultation) prior to the vote?

47. (Further to 46), Is it true the Mayor failed to respond to emails surrounding this portal after being elected?

48. Have any current serving elected representatives, had to revise their register of interests, due to holdings/interests not being previously properly disclosed? If so who, when and what?

49. Is it true that potential conflicts of interest were not declared at the Sept 2024 council meeting, in relation to the motion on the demolition of the Pavilion?

50. Is it true that secret council meetings and meeting agenda items have increased significantly under the current CEO?

51. Is it true that the divestment of the first 44 assets was discussed and decided in a secret, closed meeting?

52. (Further to 51), Why was this meeting conducted in secret, given this matter is:
• Strongly in the public interest and;
• There was no valid reason for the entirely of this discussion to be conducted in closed session?

53. Has the CEO previously been employed as a CEO of any other local government area?

54. Prior to employment, were all councillors made aware of controversies surrounding the CEO, pertaining to a previous role working for the state government?

55. Why does TRC consult special interest groups over, - and at the exclusion of - the wider community?

56. Is TRC’s selective, two tiered consultation in breach of the Local Government Act 2009?

57. On what factual basis, did a council officer state in Feb 2026, that select special interest groups invited to participate in closed meetings on the Pavilion replacement ‘represent the vast majority of residents in and around Malanda?’

58. (Further to 57), why did the CEO fail to address this claim when responding to a complaint on the matter in April 2026?

59. (Further to 57-58), why was this claim again published as part of the agenda of the April 30th, 2026, council meeting?

60. (Further to 57-59), why were school representatives included in invitation only meetings pertaining to the future design of the Malanda multipurpose facility, when they are state funded, and have their own facilities?

61. Has TRC ‘consultation’ with skewed surveys, limited options and prohibiting commenting, complied with the Local Government Act 2009 principle of democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement?

62. Has TRC, at any stage over the last eight years, properly investigated perceived conflicts of interest and failures in its consultation processes?

63. Is it true TRC misrepresented the findings of the Crime and Corruption Commission?

64. Is it true TRC provided false and misleading information to the QLD Ombudsman?

65. Is it true TRC provided false and misleading information to the Office of the Independent Assessor?

66. Is it true that senior council officers, identified in documentation, as having direct involvement, in alleged serious misconduct pertaining to the Pavilion – still hold their positions with TRC?

67. (Further to 66) Is it true that not one single officer identified, has faced internal disciplinary actions for their conduct?

68. Is it true that TRC has a wages & entitlement bill approximately 10 million per annum higher than Mareeba Shire Council?

69. Are TRC’s attempts at comparing Tablelands Regional Council with Cairns City Council and Ipswich Shire council, (to justify a claimed a low rates base) – farcical and highly misleading?

70. Did TRC attempt to deflect and mislead the community over the identity and future of 248 undeclared assets, when it stated 6th May 2026 ‘Those 248 assets, along with the rest of the assets in our portfolio, are not currently being considered for divestment?’

71. (Further to 70), Why does TRC refuse to release the full list of 248 additional assets that face potential future demolition / divestment?

72. (Further to 70-71), Is it true that the construction of three planned ‘Multi-Purpose Facilities’ in Atherton, Malanda and Ravenshoe:
• Are part of a rationalisation of assets policy, and;
• Council has refused for the last two years to reveal which community halls etc., will be disposed of to make way for these new facilities?

73. (Further to 70-72) Is it true that in April 2026, TRC stated that they would not release the details of the buildings to be disposed of until AFTER the new ‘Multi-Purpose Facilities’ are built?

74. (Further to 70-73), Can TRC explain how this secrecy aligns with its explicit obligations under the Local Government Act 2009 relating to transparency, accountability & meaningful community engagement?

75. (Further to 70-74), Given plans are underway to build the first of three Multi-Purpose Facilities;
• Without declaring which additional buildings (not on the list of 44), will be demolished;
• Is TRC playing word games by inserting the word “currently”;
• Is TRC too afraid to release the list of 248 buildings, fearing unprecedented community backlash?

76. Have TRC officers shown bias when responding to comments on the TRC page and in doing so have their breached their obligations under the Local Government Act 2009?

77. Is it acceptable for a Councillor to make false claims about the Express Newspaper?

78. Will the Councillor who made false claims regarding reporting by the Express Newspaper at the 30th April 2026 council meeting, (and has made similar comments misleading the community), unreservedly apologise?

79. Did the CEO and/or Mayor act inappropriately towards Councillor Cardew at the April 30th, 2026, council meeting? Specifically in relation to Cr. Cardew’s stated intent to propose a motion removing the Archers Creek toilets from the divestment list?

80. Does TRC believe that closing and disposing of public toilets is in any way in the interests of the wider community and the visiting public?

81. (Further to 80), Why did TRC, 6th May 2026, refer only to the partial closure of one toilet block and fail to mention the closures of multiple other blocks in Atherton?

82. (Further to 80-81), Is it true, that TRC in providing limited information, and not addressing current and future toilet closures, is attempting to deflect and mislead over this issue?

83. Finally for now, and doing away with formality, why does it appear as though TRC does not give a flying #$ #$ about the wider community, beyond the collection of rates, (and votes once every four years)?

84. Did Cr Bilney sign a petition stating:
‘Tablelands Regional Council are not maintaining the building [The Pavilion] as required’
‘TRC want to demolish this building and rebuild a brand new multipurpose building that will offer no more than the current one does’?

85. (Further to 84), How does TRC explain Cr Bilney’s actions in signing this petition, that directly contradicts his public statements on the issue?

86. (Further to 84-85), Did Cr. Bilney allegedly initiate unsolicited contact with the female principal petitioner, seeking to have petition withdrawn (so as to not be submitted)?

87. (Further to 84-86), Do Cr. Bilney’s alleged actions regarding this matter raise serious concerns as to his conduct as an elected representative?

88. Is it true the Malanda Chamber of Commerce has alleged Cr. Bilney knew more about the Music in the Streets than they did - and / or had involvement with organising this scheme?

89. Further to 88), Is it true that Cr Bilney’s official TRC email address was used by the Malanda Chamber of Commerce in relation to Cr. Bilney’s alleged involvement in this matter?

90. (Further to 88-89), Is it true that Cr. Bilney’s alleged involvement with this scheme was orchestrated without any community consultation first being carried out – despite the fact the policy directly impacted on the wider community?

91. (Further to 88-90), Is it appropriate for a Councillor to allegedly have involvement with an advertising scheme - that benefited the chamber – without any community consultation first taking place?

92. (Further to 88-91), Did TRC ever pass a motion authorising Cr Bilney to act on behalf of council – to organise the Malanda Chamber of Commerce, ‘Music in the Streets’ advertising scheme?

93. (Further to 88-92), Did TRC comply with its mandatory reporting obligations, and refer Cr. Bilney to the Office of The Independent Assessor, when first made aware of Bilney’s alleged involvement with this scheme?

94. Is it True that TRC officers approached the Malanda Show Society regarding a proposal to move the Malanda Show to the Malanda State High School?

95. (Further to 94), Did TRC officers approach the Malanda Bowl Club, regarding potentially moving their facility?

96. (Further to 94-95), Why did council officers approach the Malanda Show Society and Malanda Bowls Club about moving their facilities?

97. (Further to 94-96), Did TRC make this contact due to undeclared proposals for the potential future use of the block of land comprising the Malanda Show, Bowls Club (and/or Caravan Park), that have never been made public?

98. Does the CEO unequivocally retain the confidence and support of all Councillors?

99. Is it true TRC, under delegation of the current CEO, refused to investigate a complaint referred from the Crime and Corruption Commission?

100. (Further to 99); Is it correct that TRC, under delegation from the current CEO, provided false or misleading information to the CCC as reasons as to why it would not investigate the complaint?

101. Why has TRC recently invoked a policy to turn off commenting on social media posts, and how is this compatible with council obligations for transparency and accountability under the Local Government Act 2009?

102. What legal exposure do ratepayers face in relation to actions taken (or authorised/delegated by) the current CEO?

103. Is it true that three former councillors have signed Statutory Declarations concerning TRC conduct over the Patrick English Pavilion?

104. (Further to 103); Did these Statutory Declarations include the following statement:
‘As a Councillor, I believe that the lack of presentation to Council of any reports such as the Engineering report outlining significant safety issues amounts to dereliction of duty by Council Officers.’

105. (Further to 103-104); Did council actions over the failure to table the report from TEG amount to a dereliction of duty by council officers?

106. Why has TRC not publicly demonstrated the same level of commitment to weeding out alleged corrupt conduct and misconduct from within its ranks, that it has put into trying to silence, cut off and discredit community members exposing misconduct?

107. Which council officers are responsible for answering questions submitted under the [email protected] email address?

108. Are comments made by TRC on the “Is It True” website page pertaining to Priors Creek false or misleading?

109. (Further to 108), Is it true that prior to the current petition to the state government being launched, community members were advised an RTI would be required to obtain information on the costings of the Priors Creek Development? (Petition link: https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details/4484-26)

110. (Further to 108-109); Did TRC belatedly supply information on Priors creek due to escalating pressure from the petition referencing this issue, calling for an administrator to be appointed to council?

111. (Further to 108-110), will TRC provide: Total anticipated cost of completion to the Prior Creek Development (and);
Total cost to be borne by ratepayers (and);
Reliable estimate on annual costs associated with maintaining this development?

112. Is TRC’s “Is it True” website page false or misleading RE: ‘Is Council Trying To Silence Criticism’;
• In failing to admit commenting is being disabled on social media posts – before any comments are made?
• By directly contradict TRC’s claims that:
‘People are entitled to criticise Council’ (and);
‘Moderation is used to keep discussion lawful, respectful and relevant’;
• When in fact, commenting is banned to prohibit any such criticism of council.

113. Is it appropriate for council to set up a so-called “Is it True” website page then provide false or misleading information in responses?

114. Is it true that TRC’s belated invention of the “Is it True” website page and email address is a farcical and desperate attempt to:
• Discredit accurate information on the public record that is highly critical of – and - damaging to council (and);
• Appear to be proactive and compliant with legislation (and);
• Try and prevent the appointment of an administrator to council by the state government?

Address

PO Box 874
Malanda, QLD
4885

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Save the Malanda Pavilion "The Igloo". posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Save the Malanda Pavilion "The Igloo".:

Shortcuts

Share

Category