procedural purists into pragmatic rebels
‘Follow The Law’ Brigade Suddenly Finds An Asterisk In The Land Act
Councillors Who’ve Spent Four Years Saying ‘We Must Follow The Law’ Suddenly Discover A Seasonal Exception Called Christmas Parking.
Have we witnessed one of the rarest events in Australian local government this week?
the spontaneous migration of procedural purists into pragmatic rebels. The extraordinary transformation occurred during debate over whether Christmas overflow parking at Lions Park could continue despite staff advising that an inconsistent use of recreation reserve land requires a Land Management Plan under the Land Act.
For years, several councillors have developed an almost supernatural ability to detect legal risk from distances exceeding 500 metres. A missing comma? Better get legal advice.” An ambiguous policy? Too risky.”
A report with the words “may expose Council”? Absolutely not. We must follow the law.”
But faced with Christmas parking, it seemed those same councillors suddenly discovered what experts are calling “Festive Statutory Interpretation. It’s important we don’t let process get in the way,” one was imagined saying moments after spending the previous term insisting process was literally everything.
Staff patiently explained that if Council, as trustee, wants to approve an inconsistent use of recreation reserve land, the Land Act requires a Land Management Plan (LMP) considering impacts on the reserve’s purpose and the public interest. The chamber reportedly fell silent. These plans cost money and this is not in approved Budget. The need for LMP was covered in the report and previous meetings - but had been overlooked by those trying to remember whether “must” had recently become advisory. One constitutional lawyer watching the livestream admitted he checked twice to make sure he hadn’t accidentally opened an episode of Utopia. Some seem to be asking whether the law requiring a Land Management Plan can be ignored… because they want illegal parking.
“I’ve seen more robust legal arguments from toddlers negotiating bedtime.”
A local resident confessed they were struggling to understand the new legal framework.
“So let me get this straight,” she said.
“When residents build a deck, it’s ‘Rules are rules.’
When someone trims the wrong tree, it’s ‘Compliance is non-negotiable.’
When some on Council want Christmas parking without the statutory process, suddenly it’s ‘Let’s not be prisoners of process.’
Independent observers have dubbed the phenomenon The Yuletide Exemption, a little-known constitutional principle under which legislation becomes significantly more flexible once tinsel appears in Hastings Street.
Meanwhile, staff gently reminded councillors that Parliament had already written the rules. Council’s role was simply to follow them. The reminder was received with roughly the same enthusiasm as a parking inspector at a Ferrari owners’ convention. Adding to the theatre, the loudest historical advocates of “avoiding any legal risk whatsoever” were now urging colleagues to proceed first and ask legal questions later.
Legal compliance from a few seems to have gone from ‘We cannot expose Council to any legal uncertainty’ to ‘What’s the worst that could happen?’ in the time it takes to find a parking space in Hastings Street.”
The Mayor continued arguing the merits of returning Lions Park to green space, pointing to evidence that the one-way loop bus had carried around 74,500 passengers over Christmas and that traffic modelling suggested overflow parking actually increased congestion.
As one weary ratepayer observed while leaving the 6 hour plus meeting:
“Apparently now there are people fighting for two kinds of laws in Noosa - those that absolutely must be followed… and those that depend on whether you can still get a park at Christmas, or where the votes lie”