On 19 August 2026 Redland City Council will vote on approving the mayor’s fourth consecutive leave application as part of a 31-week medically supported absence, which, if denied, could start a process to declare the position vacant. While the mayor maintains the right to medical privacy, the prolonged paid absence raises ethical questions regarding community expectations and public funding.

Background

At the Council General Meeting on 19 August 2026, councillors will be asked to vote on the mayor’s application for a leave of absence from that meeting.

So far this year, of the seven general meetings held, the mayor has been present twice (21/01/26, 15/04/26), attended once by teleconference (18/03/26) and been absent with leave four times (18/02/26, 20/05/26, 17/06/26, 15/07/26). The meeting on 19 August 2026 would be the mayor’s fourth consecutive absence from a general meeting of Council. All absences have been supported by a medical certificate.

For clarity, the absences relevant to this decision are the mayor’s absences from the consecutive general meetings leading up to and including 19 August 2026, and the projected absences covered by the current medical certificate for 19 August 2026, 16 September 2026 and 14 October 2026.

The current certificate provided by the mayor indicates that she is unfit to return to duties before 31 October 2026. Together with the preceding period of absence, this would mean the mayor will have had, in total, 31 weeks of leave supported by medical certificates. The mayor has stated publicly on social media that the leave has been necessitated by ill health and surgery, and that she intends to return to work once recovered.

On each occasion, councillors have been notified of the request shortly before the expiry of the existing medical certificate. Councillors have not been provided with a copy of the medical certificate nor the particulars of the mayor’s medical condition.

All local councils have internal arrangements for the appointment of a Deputy Mayor. This position receives an additional payment above that of a councillor, and the Deputy Mayor assumes the mayor’s role in the absence of the mayor. There are some nuances in relation to delegations, which are addressed in the Queensland Local Government Act.

In Redland City Council, there are also nine portfolios, each led by one or two councillors working with Council officers on specific policy and program areas. Councillors also step up to support each other when a councillor is absent. We work together as a team and are able to carry an absence. It is not ideal and it adds extra workload, but Council continues to function effectively even when the mayor or a councillor is absent.

Legal advice received is that a councillor’s assessment of whether to grant leave is not determined solely by whether a councillor believes there is a valid reason under the Standing Orders, including where a medical certificate has been provided. In short, Council has the right to vote not to approve the mayor’s application for leave from a general meeting, despite a medical certificate having been provided.

If a councillor is absent for three consecutive meetings without a leave of absence, their role is automatically vacated. Voting not to approve leave is therefore the commencement of a pathway that may lead to the mayor’s position being declared vacant. On the present timetable, this would require the mayor not to attend and not being given a leave of absence for the meetings on 19 August 2026, 16 September 2026 and 14 October 2026, all of which are covered by the current medical certificate. The mayor would only need to attend part of one of these meetings to restart the count of non-approved absences.

Alternatively, if the Department of Local Government, Water and Volunteers determined that the mayor was not meeting the requirements of the position, it could take action to declare the position vacant.

Key issues

I stress that the factors each councillor makes in coming to this or any other decision by council is driven by what they perceive to be in the best interest of the community. We know that though we may not always agree, we do agree that every councillor votes for what they think is right. 

For me (and this may be different for other councillors) the prolonged absence of the mayor raises four key issues for consideration in assessing whether leave should be granted:

1. 1. Should a person lose their job because they are sick?
   2. Do people have the right to medical privacy?
   3. Is it right that an elected representative can access unlimited paid sick leave?
   4. Do councillors have the right to remove an elected mayor or councillor?

These are complex ethical issues that must inform how I vote on whether the mayor’s leave should be approved. The ethical decision councillors must now make is shaped by the decisions the mayor has made and continues to make.

Each of these issues is considered below:

1. • Should a person lose their job because they are sick?

To vote against acceptance of the mayor’s application for sick leave is essentially the commencement of a pathway to either force the mayor to return in full or in part for the three general meetings before the 31 October or terminate her position as mayor.

It is important to consider that council is functioning effectively without the mayor. Council does not need to terminate this position in order to fulfil the functions of the mayor. This is being fulfilled by the deputy mayor.  It is not like a small business where a role may need to be made vacant so it can be refilled to allow the business to continue.

From an ethical perspective, I do not believe it would be right to remove a person from office because they require extended leave due to illness, prolonged convalescence or another serious personal circumstance. Nor do I believe that I should exert pressure on the mayor to return to work if she is not well and there is the risk of delaying her recovery or exacerbating her medical condition. In ordinary employment settings, the ethical approach would generally be to hold the position for the person’s return while another person acts in the role during the leave period.

That the mayor is being paid, while any other employee would be taking unpaid leave comes under the issue of is it right a councillor can access unlimited sick leave, an important but separate issue.

• • Do people have the right to medical privacy?

There has been considerable debate on what condition(s) the mayor is recovering from. 

The central point is that a medical certificate has been provided by a registered medical practitioner. I do not need to see the certificate, know who the treating doctor is, or know the nature of the mayor’s condition. The mayor, like any other person in the community, has a right to privacy in relation to her medical condition. For the purpose of this decision, what I need to know is that a medical certificate has been provided with an estimated return-to-work date.

Even if the medical reason for the leave were known, I could not make an informed assessment of the diagnosis, treatment regime or prognosis. These are clinical decisions made by treating doctors and healthcare professionals.

 What I do know is that the mayor:

• • Provided a medical certificate indicating that she is unfit for duties up to the 31 October 2026.

• • Clearly indicated her desire and intent to return to work.

As such, the specific condition the mayor has is not relevant to my decision on whether to grant leave.

• • Is it right that an elected representative can access unlimited paid sick leave?

By the 31 October 2026, the mayor will have taken 31 weeks paid sick leave this year, this is additional to leave taken in 2025.

Other employees of Redland City Council are entitled to 15 days’ personal leave (incl sick leave) per year. Most other jobs offer 10 days. Personal leave can be accrued, leave not used can be carried forward to the following years.

The period of paid leave accessed by the mayor is far in excess of what most people in the community would be entitled to. This is not unlawful; it reflects the fact that the salary of a mayor, like that of any elected local, state or federal government representative, is attached to the elected office rather than to an accrued sick leave balance.

The decision to access this paid leave is an ethical decision for the mayor. The mayor could, as the previous mayor did when she stepped away from her role, choose to do so unpaid. Similarly, she could choose to repay the salary received during her leave.

The broader ethical issue for the mayor to face is whether she is working in the best interests of the residents of Redlands by taking extended leave while being paid by ratepayers. This is her decision, not anyone else’s.

For many residents, the ethical concern is not whether the arrangement is lawful, but whether it is fair and consistent with community expectations when public funds are involved.

An analogy I have considered is finding money in a public place. The legal position may not always be immediately clear to the person who finds it, but the ethical question is much simpler: do I try to return it to its rightful owner, or do I keep it because I can? In my view, the ethical question is not simply “Am I able to do this?”, but “Should I do this, and is it consistent with the trust placed in me by the community?”

I am not aware of another instance of an elected representative in Queensland taking up to 31 weeks of paid sick leave. By contrast, Cr David Cullen of Ipswich City Council was elected in March 2024 and resigned effective 30 August 2024 after being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, stating publicly that he needed time and space to get his condition under control and that family and health must come first.

The decision the mayor has made is not one I would make. However, it remains an ethical decision that the mayor has made.

As a separate issue, I believe sick leave arrangements for elected representatives should be brought closer into line with the entitlements available to other people employed by the relevant local, state or federal government. The need for legislative change has been highlighted by the mayor’s choices, and it is a matter I intend to raise with the State Government.

• • Do councillors have the right to remove an elected mayor or councillor?

While this is a vote on whether leave should be granted for this meeting, not approving leave successive meetings can lead to the mayor being removed from the position. I expect the intent of this provision was to address the issue of councillors no longer being interested in representing the communities that elected them and not turning up. I do not think it was intended to remove councillors who are ill.  

This issue goes to the heart of democratic representation. Residents have elected the mayor and will have the opportunity to decide at the next election whether to re-elect her. The question is whether councillors elected by their respective divisions should have the power, through this process, to bring about the removal of a mayor elected by the residents of the city as a whole. In the case of a councillor, the equivalent question is whether councillors elected by one group of residents should have the power to remove a councillor elected by another group of residents. I do not believe they should.

It is argued that the extended absence of the mayor means residents are not receiving the representation to which they are entitled and that a new election should be called. However, in local government there is no mechanism for a majority of councillors to pass a no-confidence motion in the Mayor or Council as a whole and call a new election. A majority of councillors could resign, leaving Council without a quorum and effectively forcing the Department of Local Government to call a new election or appoint an administrator. However, in this case, as noted by the Advisor appointed by the Department, Council is working well in the mayor’s absence.

I believe the decision about whether the mayor’s role should be terminated rests:

• • in the first instance, with the mayor, based on her assessment of whether she is able to fulfil the role and duties of mayor;

• • in the second instance, with the Department, if it determines that she is not meeting the principles and standards expected of the office; and

• • finally, with the electorate at the next local government election, or at any by-election called by the Department.

At our swearing in, all councillors declare their adherence to the Local Councillor Code of Conduct which outlines the principles and standards of behaviour expected of them as elected representatives. In many similar instances where an elected local, state or federal representative finds that due to personal reasons they are unable to fulfil their role to the degree they expect of themselves, or the community expects of them they resign citing personal reasons. This may be their own ill health, to care for a loved one, to spend more time with their family or being unable to balance other personal or business needs. No one else has believed it is ok to take the amount of leave taken by the mayor.

While I do not agree with the mayor’s decision on this matter, I do not believe it is my role to take action that could terminate her position as Mayor. I disagree with some decisions made by the mayor and by my fellow councillors, and I am sure they disagree with some decisions I have made. That disagreement does not give us the right to act to terminate another elected representative’s position because they are ill and unable to attend 2-3 general meetings. They are elected by the community and will be accountable to the community at the next election.

In a democracy, elections are the key decision-making point for determining whether the community accepts a person as its representative. Transferring that decision to a smaller group of elected representatives, or to unelected representatives, should be approached with significant caution. The same principle would apply if some people disagreed with the conduct or decisions of another councillor, or of Council as a whole. I believe these are ultimately decisions for the electorate.

Position

For these reasons, my position is that I should not use the leave approval process as a pathway to remove the mayor from office while she is supported by medical certification, has indicated an intention to return, and Council continues to function effectively through existing arrangements.

At the same time, I believe the current arrangements for unlimited paid leave for elected representatives raise legitimate ethical and public policy concerns. Those concerns should be addressed through legislative reform, not by using a leave vote to initiate the removal of an elected Mayor.

I recognise that this decision must be made by each councillor, what councillors consider in making this decision may vary and I fully respect the decisions they may make on this very complex issue.