Why Cr Sara Faraj had to step back from the Torquay Caravan Park debate

FRASER Coast Councillor Sara Faraj has confirmed that she has been legally prohibited from taking part in any discussions, decisions, or deliberations relating to caravan parks, whether Council-owned or privately operated, for the entirety of her current term.

Her exclusion was not optional, she stresses, nor was it linked to any particular project or public debate.

It was a direct legal obligation under Queensland’s Local Government Act 2009.
Cr Faraj said the requirement arose the moment she became an elected councillor, triggered by what the Act defines as a declarable conflict of interest under sections 150EN to 150ES.

These provisions compel councillors to step aside if they, or someone closely associated with them, has an interest in a matter that could reasonably be perceived as conflicting with their public duties.

The law names spouses and close family members as groups whose interests must be factored into a councillor’s conflict-management obligations.

“In my case, the legislation is very clear,” Cr Faraj said.

“Because my fiancé owns a caravan park, I am legally required to declare a conflict in any matter relating to caravan parks, Council-run or privately owned, if it comes before Council for discussion or decision. The onus is 100 per cent on me to declare it, and I do.”

The legislation required Cr Faraj to remove herself from every formal or informal Council meeting where caravan parks are discussed.

This includes Council-owned parks, development applications from private operators, proposed upgrades, relocatable dwellings, manager’s residence approvals, and any planning issue that affects caravan parks in general.

This obligation applies even when a matter has no connection to her fiancé’s park or its operations.

“If a private caravan park anywhere on the Fraser Coast lodged a development application, whether for expansion, new cabins, disability accommodation, or
an upgrade requiring planning approval, I cannot take part in that discussion,” she said.

“Any item that comes to Councillors for decision, I must declare the conflict and leave the room.”

Cr Faraj emphasised that this does not extend to Council’s internal operational activities, which councillors do not normally see.

Her conflict only activates when a matter reaches the elected Council for decision, consultation, or official discussion.

“I knew I had a conflict from day one. It was not ambiguous,” she said.

“When you become a councillor, you receive extensive training on the Act and on the consequences of failing to declare. They are significant.”

Some residents have asked why she could not contribute to caravan-park matters given her industry knowledge.

She said that while she understands the question, the legislation leaves no room for discretion.

“Yes, I could offer professional insights, but the Act doesn’t consider whether my involvement would or wouldn’t change an outcome,” she said.

“It considers only whether a reasonable person could perceive a conflict. Once that threshold is met, the only lawful action is to step aside.”

Cr Faraj said some public commentary has incorrectly claimed that the caravan-park matters fall within her division. They do not.

“Boundary realignment in 2023 changed divisional lines, but some people still refer to the 2019 maps posted online,” she said.

“That’s created some confusion.”

Although she cannot be involved in caravan-park matters, Cr Faraj noted that consultation is critical across all Council decisions, and she praised the strong community turnout during recent Esplanade-related engagement.

She acknowledged that some Division 9 residents were disappointed they could not discuss the caravan-park issue with her directly, but she emphasised that Council operates as a regional body.

“All councillors represent the entire Fraser Coast,” she said.

“My colleagues have been generous in accepting conversations from residents across all divisions, and I continue to refer people to them when matters fall within my conflict.”

“It does not disappear once a single decision is made,” she said.

“If caravan-park matters arise again in the next two years, I will again declare and step aside. That is the law, and I follow it.”