Is it true?

The short answer is it depends – it is true that Councillors and Council officers are personally responsible for their own legal costs for any private matters. Legal representation for matters arising from a Councillor’s or officer’s official role, however, is generally provided through TRC’s insurance arrangements, subject to the policy terms and applicable legislation. In such cases TRC is then usually only responsible for the insurance excess which may be recovered from the Councillor if the allegations are substantiated.

The category of councillor conduct breach that was referred to the OIA was recently abolished (under the amendments to the Local Government Act 2009 that took effect from 1 July 2026).  Under the previous section 150AH of the LG Act, if a conduct breach was found to be substantiated the subject Councillor could be required to reimburse TRC for all or some of the costs arising including insurance excess and legal expenses incurred by TRC.

Councillor misconduct is dealt with by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal, which has the power to take various action against a Councillor where allegations are found to be substantiated. This includes the power to require the Councillor to reimburse TRC for all or some of the costs arising from the Councillor’s misconduct.

For corrupt conduct matters referred to/from the Crime and Corruption Commission, depending on the outcome of the matter and the nature of the specific conduct involved, TRC may be able to recover some of its legal costs incurred in such matters.

No that is not true. The report was tabled at the Council meeting yesterday and the MacGregor Tan report was intentionally loaded to the website on the day the report was tabled.

Yes, that is true.

Under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is responsible for managing administration and operations, serving as the conduit between elected councillors and staff. The CEO manages the day-to-day operations of TRC in accordance with the decisions of, and policies set by, the Mayor and Councillors. You can find out more about the respective roles of Council and the CEO from the Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers website here —  https://www.dlgwv.qld.gov.au/local-government/for-the-community/community-guide-to-local-government-in-queensland.

No. The public record shows that Deputy Mayor Dave Bilney formally declared a prescribed conflict of interest regarding the Vacuum Truck Operations register during the Ordinary Council Meeting in June 2025.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 2009, he identified the family connection, vacated the meeting room, and took no part in the discussion or the vote.

The minutes of that meeting are a matter of public record and remain available on the Council website — https://www.trc.qld.gov.au/council-meeting-minutes-ordinary-26-june-2025.

No, it is not true that Councillors (not even the Mayor) receive $185k per annum.

Yes, the specifics of the CEO’s salary are confidential, however under section 201 of the Local Government Act 2009 TRC is required to report on the total remuneration packages paid to senior management. This information is on page 22 of the 24-25 Annual Report which is published on the TRC website.

Yes, that is true.

Like all QLD Councils, we publish information about Council and CEO remuneration every year in the annual report (available on the TRC website). The CEO’s actual salary is confidential and is set by Council as part of the terms of the employment contract. The Mayor’s remuneration is set by the independent Local Government Remuneration Commission.

Yes, the Mareeba Mayor and Councillors are paid the same as TRC Mayor and Councillors.

Yes, all Councils are required as part of their statutory reporting obligations to report Mayor and Councillor remuneration in the Annual Report, and TRC also includes training costs. This is on page 38 of the TRC Annual Report on the TRC website.

Yes, Councillor remuneration is set by the independent Local Government Remuneration Commission established under the Local Government Act 2009. The Commission’s Annual Report determines the remuneration to be paid to all QLD Councillors and the reports can be viewed at https://www.dlgwv.qld.gov.au/local-government/for-councils/governance/local-government-remuneration-commission.

That is true. The position of CEO is the only position in a Queensland council that is required by law.

The formal requirement for a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position in Councils was introduced in the Local Government Act 1993. While the term Shire Clerk was historically common, the 1993 Act formalised the shift CEO.

Major structural reforms in 2008 led to the amalgamation (and in some cases de-amalgamation) of many councils, but the legislative requirement for a single CEO to head the administrative arm of each new regional or shire council remained.

No. All decisions of Council are made in a public meeting.

Under the Local Government Regulation 2012, every Queensland council is legally required to meet formally at least once every month. These statutory meetings are called Ordinary Council Meetings because they are the ‘ordinary’ way the council functions. Our Ordinary Council Meetings are held in the Coordination Centre in Vernon Street, and are open to the public and also live streamed.

People are welcome to attend for all or any part of the meeting to watch the deliberative process.

Agenda reports (with all of the information that is provided to Councillors to inform their decisions) are published on our website before the meeting.

There are some matters that Council have to decide on that must be discussed confidentially, but the actual decision on the matter is always made in a public forum.

Special Meetings of Council are meetings which are held to deal with urgent items that cannot wait for the next Ordinary Council Meeting. Special meetings are usually held in the TRC Boardroom and are open to the public, but are not live streamed.

You can watch the livestream of past meetings on our website.

No. Some responsibilities have been reorganised, and vacant positions repurposed. We haven’t added chairs to the executive table; we’ve just changed the labels on them to better reflect what the community actually needs. For example, the former ‘Executive Manager Economic Development’ role is now ‘General Manager Placemaking.’ The number of positions has not increased.

We provide information on the number of employees every month in the Finance Report, included in the Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and available on our website.

Not only does TRC work for the residents and ratepayers of the Tablelands community every day, but the people doing that work are themselves residents, ratepayers, parents, neighbours, volunteers, and in many cases lifelong Tablelanders. They live in the same towns, use the same roads, pay the same rates as everyone.

In fact, even these IsItTrue@TRC responses are written by staff – not the Mayor, not the CEO. Regular people from your community who repair roads, run libraries, manage waste, respond to customer requests and support the community in many other ways.

Staff are consistently working to make better and more efficient use of resources. In the most recent budget review, officers identified over $1.1 million dollars of operational savings this financial year.

Yes, that is true. Information released in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application is public information. TRC’s Disclosure Log contains details of documents released in response to RTI applications and can be found on our website here https://www.trc.qld.gov.au/download/disclosure-log/.

You can request access to information released under a previous RTI application by submitting your request in writing to info@trc.qld.gov.au, including the application number you would like to access.

If the original application accessed information that includes or contains the personal information of the applicant themselves, additional redactions may be necessary before the information can be released to you, and additional processing charges may apply.

The intent of the ‘Is It True’ service is to provide simple, factual responses to genuine questions about TRC operations and services. It presents an opportunity for people to fact-check rhetoric that is published elsewhere in an apparent attempt to escalate suspicion without providing concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

Your question does not appear to be a fair or honest request for facts as it uses biased language to push a negative conclusion.

Calling Dr Stepanov’s past work “controversial” is misleading. As Queensland Integrity Commissioner, she was actually known for speaking out against illegal lobbying and government interference. Labelling her public service as a “controversy” distorts the truth.

Using serious legal terms like “fit and proper person” alongside vague accusations is a tactic to raise suspicion without proof. Asking “If not, why not?” tries to trap officers into a defensive position by implying a cover-up occurred.

Finally, council officers did not recruit or screen the CEO candidates. That entire process was managed directly by the Mayor, the Councillors, and an independent recruitment agency.

No. The CEO is a bona fide North Queenslander. She was born in Townsville and adopted by the Stepanov family of Mt Isa at an early age. She went to public schools in Mt Isa, Cloncurry, and Maryborough.

She has never been approached to act for a foreign country and has maintained very high-level security clearance in Australia, requiring that she be properly vetted by relevant authorities many times.

Also, the KGB ceased to exist in 1991.

The first part is actually an allegation which, to our knowledge, is untrue. By which we mean the CEO has NOT  ‘demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information’. We understand that people make such allegations and may hold (and share) strong opinions on the matter, but sentiment is not a substitute for fact.

CEO performance is assessed annually in accordance with the CEO Annual Performance Appraisal policy, adopted by Council in November last year and available on the TRC website. A performance review was conducted in early 2026 and the recommendations of that review adopted by Council at the 19 March 26 meeting. The purpose of the ‘Is It True’ initiative is to provide evidence and facts rather than subjective opinion and speculation, and this outcome of an assessment of performance against agreed standards is the most objective and evidence-based way to respond to a question about whether the CEO is a fit and proper person to continue in the role.

In accordance with TRC’s Complaints about the Public Official Policy, should a member of the community believe the CEO has engaged in corrupt conduct, the allegations should be referred to info@trc.qld.gov.au marked for the attention of the General Manager Community & Corporate Services; General Manager Infrastructure and Environment; or Manager People & Culture, to enable the allegations to be dealt with as required by the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld).

No, that is not true.

Management of the ‘Is It True’ email is a collaborative effort with a focus on the timely provision of factual responses. The intent is to provide objective and evidence-based responses to real questions. This ensures that no false or misleading information is provided. If you believe that responses contain incorrect information feel free to let us know.

One of the local government principles (as defined in Section 4(2) of the Local Government Act 2009) is “transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest”. This means publicly sharing information about, for example, financial performance, budgets, registers of interests, policy and the reasons for the decisions of Council. It does not refer to the personal identities of officers and doesn’t stop councils protecting individual staff from community-driven bullying and harassment.

Claims for damage to property resulting from trees located on TRC-owned or controlled land are referred to TRC’s insurer and assessed by the insurer on a case-by-case basis. If you believe that a tree on TRC-owned or controlled land poses a potential danger to you or your property, please let us know so we can assess and address any risk. You can lodge a CRM on our website here or by calling 1300 362 242.

TRC Councillors decided by majority vote to close and remove the Mount Garnet pool at their public meeting in October 2024 as it was unsafe for use and unable to comply with modern safety standards. The high cost of rebuilding the pool and the liability risks involved in managing the facility were key factors in the decision.

You can read the agenda for the October 2024 meeting on the TRC website. It includes all the information provided to Councillors to inform their decision.

No. The Atherton and Malanda show societies are independent of TRC and make their own plans, but TRC has no plans to combine shows.

No. Council meets all obligations regarding engagement and makes use of engagement approaches best suited to the scale, impact and stage of each project.

Not every decision requires the same level of consultation. Some matters require broad public engagement. Others require targeted consultation with directly affected users, landholders, businesses or community groups. The method depends on the decision being made and the level of community impact.

Engagement practices can always be improved, and work is continuing to make consultation clearer, earlier and more useful, including better internal planning so communications and engagement are considered before projects reach the final stages.

No. Council aligns its engagement approach with IAP2 principles, which recognise that different decisions require different levels of engagement.

For some projects, Council may inform the community. For others, it may consult, involve or collaborate. The appropriate level depends on what is genuinely open for influence, what is constrained by legislation, budget or technical requirements, and who is affected.

Good engagement does not mean every person gets the outcome they prefer. It means people understand what is being considered, how they can contribute, what can and cannot change, and how feedback is used.

Not necessarily. Social media can highlight issues, but it is not a reliable measure of the whole community.

Comment sections can over-represent people who feel strongly, people who post frequently, and people already connected through similar views. They may not reflect residents who are neutral, supportive, disengaged, offline, time-poor or waiting for formal information.

Council considers a range of inputs, including formal submissions, surveys, service requests, customer data, consultation results, meeting processes, direct correspondence and community engagement. The best way to engage with council remains by contacting the council directly.

Council may choose not to respond to every individual comment, especially where a matter has already been addressed, involves confidential information, is part of a formal process, or contains allegations that cannot be properly resolved in a social media thread.

Responding to every claim can also spread misinformation further. Council’s focus is on providing accurate information through appropriate channels and correcting significant misinformation where doing so is useful.

Because, tragically, the comments section has not yet become a formal instrument of government.

No. People are entitled to criticise Council, disagree with decisions and raise concerns.

Moderation is used to keep discussion lawful, respectful and relevant. Comments may be hidden or removed if they are defamatory, abusive, threatening, discriminatory, misleading, unrelated, spam, or disclose personal or confidential information.

Criticism is allowed. Abuse, misinformation and personal attacks are not the same thing.

The purpose of the page is to give the community a clear place to ask questions and find factual answers.

Council recognises that rumours and partial information can spread quickly, particularly online. A central question-and-answer page helps residents check claims against reliable information, understand Council processes and see where further information is available.

The page is not intended to stop debate. It is intended to make sure debate starts from facts.

No, that is not true. The decision to demolish the pavilion was made at the September 2024 Council meeting and included a requirement for salvageable components be preserved for later use. Salvage efforts were completed as per Council’s resolution and included the floor, porte cochere and a wooden truss.

All salvaged components are now appropriately stored – ready to be reused, showcased, or incorporated into future design elements of the new building, helping preserve a connection to the hall’s history and character.

Yes, that is true.

The approach to designing and constructing the new building is deliberately structured in stages to protect ratepayers from bearing the full financial burden.

The new Malanda multi-purpose facility is included in Council’s 10-year capital plan. For projects of this scale, responsible financial management requires securing state or federal grant funding rather than exhausting local cash reserves. In addition to contributing to our financial sustainability, using grant funding ensures that long-life assets are not being paid for only by today’s residents.

Grants for a significant project like the Malanda multi-purpose facility are usually competitive and application based. That means that we have to apply for the funding and that our application will be assessed for things like alignment with the stated intent of the grant, project readiness, and ability to complete within the required timeframe. It will also be assessed against projects from other councils who are all competing for the same money. These types of projects are usually required to be “shovel-ready”, which means that completed, detailed designs must accompany the application.

Right now we are working on the design phase. We have the bulk of the information to inform our application and will keep watch for funding opportunities as they become available.

No. To manage the region responsibly, Council must know what it owns. Council manages a wide range of over 800 community assets across the region. To be responsible stewards of ratepayer funds, we cannot simply let every structure sit on the books indefinitely without checking if it still serves a purpose.

The process worked this:

1. The Lot (800+): The total pool of assets Council maintains.
2. The Candidates (292): A shortlist of buildings and structures identified through the audit for a “fitness check” to see if they were still providing public value. This was the start of the process.
3. The Investigation List (44): After reviewing the 292 candidates, Council narrowed the focus down to just 44 assets for further investigation.

The Status of the ‘Other 260’
The difference between the initial 292 candidates and the current 44 assets is approximately 248. Those 248 assets, along with the rest of the assets in our portfolio, are not currently being considered for divestment. They are staying exactly as they are.

If any asset outside of the current 44 were to be reviewed in the future, it would be a new process, requiring a new public Council decision. We are focusing our energy on 44 specific cases identified through the current process.

No. Council is reviewing its asset portfolio as part of long-term financial sustainability planning. Council owns and maintains a large number of community assets across the region. Some are heavily used, fit for purpose and clearly support community needs. Others may be underused, costly to maintain, duplicated by other facilities, or no longer suited to current service needs.

Officers are investigating 44 assets for possible divestment – which might include gifting, leasing, or simply maintaining to end of life without further major investments. The outcome of the consultation and investigation is not yet known.

No. The current asset review is an investigation and assessment process. At the time of writing, final decisions have not been made.

No. These toilets are now locked when the Visitor Information Centre is closed due to unsafe behaviours and vandalism, but they are open when the Visitor Information Centre is open.

Yes. It is the responsibility of all councils to provide fit-for-purpose facilities to meet the changing needs of their community. Sometimes that includes closing and disposing of old assets when they reach end of life, regardless of how they were paid for when first built. The ongoing costs – including insurance, routine maintenance, repairs and cleaning are high. Toilets in particular are a target for frequent vandalism, with copper piping removed and ceramic pedestals smashed rendering them completely unusable. New public toilets like those installed at Priors Creek are designed to reduce long-term maintenance costs and improve safety.

No. The Patrick English Pavilion was identified as approaching the end of its operational life in 2018, due to deterioration of the curved roof trusses. This meant that the building required either significant renewal work, or a plan to replace.

In late 2019 TRC initiated community discussions and design concepts for a new multi-purpose facility in Malanda. This concept was part of the broader Malanda Town Centre Masterplan finalised that same year in partnership with James Cook University.

In 2020 Councillors decided not to fund the renewal work required for the Patrick English Pavilion and committed to the development of a replacement “multi-purpose” facility, subject to budget. In the meantime, the use of the building continued.

Officers were required to manage the risk of an end of life building by carrying out routine maintenance and conducting inspections including structural engineering assessments. These assessments identified continued deterioration and in 2024 advice was provided that the building was no longer safe for use, and the Patrick English Pavilion was closed.

The answer to your question is – mostly – yes!

 

Priors Creek Parklands is a perfect place for dog-friendly on-leash walks, and does feature litter bins for waste disposal. It does not currently offer dog waste bag dispensers.

 

Dog owners are encouraged to bring their own bags whenever they visit Atherton town centre and Priors Creek Parklands. Bagged waste can be disposed of in our litter bins conveniently located throughout the Parklands and the wider Atherton CBD.

The Priors Creek Parklands project has been planned for since 2018, when Council endorsed and adopted a master plan for the development of the Priors Creek Precinct to create a family-oriented mixed-use and leisure area. We manage assets in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), which mandates the sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure to ensure effective community service delivery. This means the responsible development of new assets and the disposal of aging, no longer fit-for-purpose facilities.

Disposing of assets is one of the most difficult decisions Councils have to make, because there will always be people who are unhappy with the decision. The problem is that over time, the cost to repair and maintain older facilities increases dramatically, while the suitability to changing community needs reduces.

Councils are required to make decisions about assets that are based on long-term financial sustainability and community need. TRC simply has too many under-utilised, aging facilities for the community to afford to maintain. By divesting some of those assets, we can redirect limited ratepayer funds into fit-for-purpose, more durable alternatives.

The road from Millaa Millaa to Atherton is another matter entirely, because it is a state (TMR) controlled road. TRC receives a set amount of funding each year from TMR for minor maintenance of their roads (mainly for roadside slashing and minor defect repairs like pothole filling) and has to prioritise how this is spent across all the TMR roads we look after. TRC are generally not involved with pavement rehabilitation or capital upgrades on state roads. This year has been particularly challenging for TMR and TRC to keep on top of road defects due to the extended wet, which is impacting road condition and hindering repairs. We definitely work to rectify hazardous defects as quickly as we can and will continue to advocate with TMR for increased funding for roads in our region, as patching is only ever a temporary repair to allow time for TMR to plan for more permanent solutions. We don’t use ratepayer funds on these roads.

That is a great question! It is true that we continually evaluate and implement cost savings and efficiency improvements, both when developing our budget and throughout the year.

We provide a Finance report to Council each month which tracks our actual spend against the operational and capital project budgets. These reports are published in the Council Meeting agenda on our website.

The efficiencies and savings we make are essentially reflected in one of two ways.

1. Direct savings – where we achieve improved utilisation of our resources, better pricing on materials and contracts, and reduce reliance on contractors for things we can do ourselves etc. For example, the materials and services budget for 25/26 was $38.230 million. Throughout the course of the year, savings were achieved and the budget revised down to $36.899million. This year’s budget for materials and services is $36.983million, which is only a 0.2% increase, despite many of the materials we use in high volume have price increases of 25% or more.
2. Improved efficiencies – doing more with our resources. Our wages are largely fixed, with increases determined through either the certified agreement or individual contracts. Variable items such as overtime are managed to balance service delivery and cost. We review each vacancy before recruiting to make sure the work is needed and being done in the best way. We have ongoing work across all services to ensure we are doing things in the most efficient way with a strong focus currently on roads and project delivery.

Our revenue (of which rates is a significant component) is not just required to fund operational expenses each year, but also to build our cash reserves towards outer years’ capital projects. Future Councils will need to make decisions about when those projects are committed to, and when funds will be borrowed to pay for them. Over the past two budget years a lot of work has been done to prepare for this, including divestment activities which has resulted in the most recent confirmation from the Queensland Audit Office that TRC is financially sustainable.

Council’s strategic divestment program has delivered meaningful savings by reducing the ongoing costs associated with maintaining assets that are underutilised or surplus to community needs. These savings strengthen our long-term financial sustainability and allow more resources to be directed towards essential infrastructure, community facilities, and services that provide greater value to our community.

When setting rates and charges each year, we consider all changes in service, savings made and the operational and capital cost of maintaining and delivering assets and services to our community. We advocate for funding wherever possible, consider revenue from chargeable services provided then determine the required revenue from rates and utilities. To adequately fund requirements of 2026/27, support capital development and maintain financial sustainability some increases to rates and utilities were required.

Our budget document has a lot of information about our planned activities, and our annual report, which will be published as soon as our annual external audit is completed and the financials approved by the Queensland Audit Office (usually around October) will have lots of information about our achievements in the 25/26 year. Past annual reports are available on our website if you’d like to take a dive in there.

No. The Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers publishes reports each year that compare data for each Queensland Council. Ratepayers can independently check how the average rates for their town stack up here — https://www.dlgwv.qld.gov.au/local-government/for-councils/resources/local-government-comparative-reports.

No. There is a page on the TRC website dedicated to the Priors Creek Parklands project. It is regularly updated with all of the information about the development including the actual costs.

No. The Queensland Audit Office is responsible for appointing an external company to conduct a comprehensive audit every year. The results of our annual audit are published in our Annual Report which is adopted by Council and available on our website.

The Queensland Audit Office also undertakes their own review of all councils in QLD. You can view the results for each Council on the dashboard on the QAO website — https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/reports-resources/reports-parliament/local-government-2025.

No. Rate increases are linked to the cost of maintaining services and infrastructure.

Like many regional councils, TRC must manage long-term asset renewal obligations. This means funding not only day-to-day services, but also roads, drainage, water and wastewater infrastructure, waste services, buildings and public facilities. In order to meet statutory obligations regarding long-term financial sustainability, Council is required to make difficult decisions about revenue, expenditure, asset management and service levels. Rate adjustments are part of that work.

No. Ratepayers are legally required to pay rates. Disagreeing with a Council decision does not remove that obligation.

Council encourages anyone experiencing financial difficulty to contact Council early to discuss available options. Refusing to pay rates may result in recovery action, additional costs or other consequences under legislation and Council processes.

There are appropriate channels to raise concerns, including contacting Council, making submissions, attending meetings, engaging with Councillors, lodging complaints or using external oversight bodies where relevant. Withholding rates is not a risk-free protest tool.

That is not true. Painting symbols makes absolutely no difference. Repairs are prioritised based on risk, intervention levels and road safety. Risk is determined via criteria such as the road rating, pothole size, depth, alignment and visibility.

For example:

A pothole on Atherton-Malanda Road, 30cm in diameter, 5cm deep, in wheel line, located on a bend with poor visibility would be prioritised over a pothole on Atherton-Herberton Rd, 10cm in diameter, 3cm deep, on road shoulder, located on a 200m straight section of road.

We definitely discourage people from painting anything on the road – it’s really unsafe!

At last count we maintain approximately 345 km of TMR roads and 1840km of TRC-owned public roads which include 837km of sealed/asphalt roads and 1003 km of gravel, formed and unformed roads. We are managing a lot of potholes throughout this network — the extended wet season has contributed to this, and has also hindered repairs.

While we can’t confirm the number and size of all potholes across the region we are currently reallocating resources to increase our rate of pothole repairs. We don’t have any Customer Requests in the system associated with your email address. Please report any specific concerns by either calling our customer service team or lodging a request through the website.

No. It is true that at a recent traffic forum held in Atherton, the Mayor agreed to undertake a review of parking, including looking at the feasibility of parking meters (noting that such a thing would require community consultation)

This is what the Mayor actually said at the March Ordinary Council Meeting.

Atherton Parking Review

Following last week’s Atherton Tablelands Chamber of Commerce Traffic and Parking Forum for Atherton’s CBD, I have directed the Chief Executive Officer undertake a review of Atherton’s CBD parking in the new financial year.

The review will include, but might not be limited to:

• car park usage
• the possibility of paid/metered parking
• adequate disability parking, and
• appropriate parking requirements for development.

To ensure the voice of the community is heard, in particular regarding the possibility of paid/metered parking, community input will be sought.

Given the growth, the review is timely and will inform the new planning scheme for the local government area that will be undertaken next financial year, and this important review can be included as part of that process/material.

You can watch this in the recording of the March meeting or read the minutes of that meeting on the TRC website.

Great question!

The industry defines these packages as Liquid Paperboard (LPB). At TRC transfer stations, the UHT / Tetra packs have to go in general waste. We send our recyclables to Cairns and the Cairns Recycling Facility cannot process them.

It might be worth checking with Containers for Change in Atherton. Their webpage indicates they accept some LPB products.

No, that is not true. TRC charges for delivering water to the property boundary, and for the amount of water used. It might be reasonable to expect that water is drinkable, but that is not always the case and it is not a legal requirement. We do monitor water quality and notify residents when water is not suitable for drinking, by way of boil water notices.

TRC manages 13 water supply schemes. Under the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 providers like TRC must have a Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP) which is reviewed, audited and approved by the regulator.  The DWQMP provides details about each service, including infrastructure, risks and hazards and the measures that we take to manage those risks and hazards.

Council maintains an approved Drinking Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008. Information on our drinking water quality performance is available in the Annual Drinking Water Report published on Council’s website here —  https://www.trc.qld.gov.au/drinking-water-service-provider-annual-report.