Redland City Council General Meeting 17 June 2026
17. Notices of motion
17.1 Notice of motion – Councillor Shane Rendalls – Reaffirmation of respectful conduct and independent review consideration Item 17.
In accordance with section 16.1 of Council Meeting Standing Orders, at the General Meeting scheduled Wednesday 17 June 2026, notice is hereby given that Councillor Shane Rendalls intends to move the motion as follows:
MOTION
That Council resolves as follows:
1. To reaffirm its commitment to fostering a respectful and professional culture consistent with previous Council resolutions relating to appropriate conduct, including initiatives addressing bullying and respectful behaviour.
2. To request the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Director-General Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers, seeking consideration of whether an independent review is warranted in relation to concerns raised regarding conduct at a meeting held on 27 April 2026, in alignment with Council’s commitment to maintaining appropriate standards of behaviour.
Moved by: Cr Shane Rendalls | Seconded: Cr Jason Colley | Approved 7/2
BACKGROUND
On Wednesday, 29 April 2026, Mayor Jos Mitchell publicly reported an alleged incident said to have occurred at a meeting on Monday, 27 April 2026, stating that she was “treated in a way that is entirely unacceptable” and that she felt it was “well and truly time to draw a line in the sand”.
Mayor Mitchell further stated: “Many excuse poor behaviour in this realm by calling it politics. However, there is a difference between politics and behaviour that is rude, disrespectful, belittling, threatening, intimidating, bullying and harassing.”
A screenshot of the public statement is attached to this motion.
INTRODUCING THE MOTION – Shane Rendalls
At the outset, I want to be very clear about what this motion does and does not do.
This motion does not ask Council to make findings, to determine fault, or to reach conclusions about any person. It asks for a proper, measured and independent consideration of whether a review is warranted in response to serious concerns that have been raised publicly.
The reason this motion matters is because the Mayor’s public statement used very serious language. It referred to behaviour she alleges to have experienced as “rude, disrespectful, belittling, threatening, intimidating, bullying and harassing”.
These are not minor words. They go directly to the standards of conduct expected of us as elected representatives, and to the culture that Council is responsible for upholding.
This Council has previously affirmed the importance of respectful behaviour and appropriate conduct. We have spoken about bullying, professional standards and the need for a safe and respectful environment. If our commitment to Respect is to mean anything, then when serious allegations are raised publicly, as this one was, Council should respond in a way that is mature, fair and consistent.
This does not mean accepting every allegation as fact. It means recognising that serious allegations should not be ignored, minimised or left hanging over the organisation or those being accused. A proper process protects everyone. It protects a person who has raised concerns by ensuring those concerns are treated seriously. It also protects any person or group who may be affected by the allegation by ensuring that facts, not assumptions, guide the outcome.
In this case, there has also been uncertainty about the full circumstances and about who may have been involved. That uncertainty is one of the key reasons an independent pathway is appropriate. It is not fair to the Mayor, to councillors, to staff, or to the community for serious claims to remain unresolved in the public domain without an appropriate and independent authority considering whether further review is warranted.
I also want to acknowledge that matters involving threats, intimidation and abuse are not abstract issues. I have personally experienced threatening and abusive conduct, including being called vermin, being told that I and fellow councillors should be eradicated, and being threatened with stabbing. That experience reinforced for me that institutions must respond carefully and clearly when serious allegations of intimidation, threats or bullying arise.
In my own case, formal action by the police and the courts sent a clear message that threatening behaviour has consequences. The broader principle is that people should be able to carry out public duties without being subjected to bullying, intimidation or threats. Equally, people should not have their reputations damaged by claims that have not been properly tested.
That is why the motion before us is deliberately measured. It does not seek to conduct an investigation from the chamber. It does not ask councillors to sit in judgement. It simply asks the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers, seeking consideration of whether an independent review is warranted.
This motion is an appropriate and balanced step. It respects the seriousness of the concerns raised. It respects procedural fairness. It avoids Council attempting to determine facts itself. And it places the matter before the appropriate external and independent authority for consideration.
Public confidence depends on standards being applied consistently, regardless of position or office. If behaviour of the kind described occurred, then it should be properly addressed. If the allegations are not supported by evidence, then an appropriate process can help remove doubt and protect the reputations of those affected. Either way, the community is better served by clarity than by speculation.
This motion is therefore about institutional responsibility. It says that Council takes respectful conduct seriously. It says that allegations of bullying, intimidation and harassment should be handled through an appropriate process. And it says that fairness must apply to all involved.
For those reasons, I commend the motion to Council.
ARGUMENTS PUT AGAINST THE MOTION
Arguments raised against the motion included whether the Mayor had been consulted, and whether the matter should be deferred until the Mayor’s return. It was also suggested that the matter should be left to the Mayor to pursue, should she wish to do so on her return.
In response, I noted that the motion does not prescribe what the Mayor should or should not do in relation to the behaviour she alleges she experienced. The Mayor remains free to take whatever action she considers appropriate in relation to the alleged conduct, or to withdraw or clarify her allegations if she chooses.
Rather, the motion is directed to the broader principle that, as the Mayor herself has argued, a clear line should be drawn about what is acceptable conduct towards councillors and Council staff.
I also noted that leaving serious allegations unresolved in the public domain is damaging to Council, to councillors, to staff, and to the Mayor. In my view, Council has a responsibility to respond in a measured and appropriate way where allegations of bullying, intimidation, threats or harassment have been raised publicly.
I further noted that placing the entire burden on the person who has raised concerns may be inappropriate where serious allegations of abuse or intimidation are involved. In other contexts involving allegations of harm, institutions are expected to consider whether a proper process is required, rather than simply leaving the matter to the individual affected.