· Web view... troops here at the time. It was one of the four big centres of ... arrangements, and they have achieved a good ... Arrangement. All Social

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4532 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 1 August 2017at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4532 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 1 AUGUST 2017AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________1

CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS:______________________________________________________14

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)___________________________14A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2017__

_______________________________________________________________________________36B REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 8 JUNE 2017____________________________40C CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21 – 2017 UPDATE__________________________________41D CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR JUNE 2017_

_______________________________________________________________________________42

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:___________________________________________________________49

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)________________________49A QUEENSLAND URBAN UTILITIES 2017-22 CORPORATE PLAN_______________________________56

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:___________________________________________________________57

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________57A PETITION – TO LEAVE BUS STOP 1145 IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AT 116 DORNOCH TERRACE,

HIGHGATE HILL__________________________________________________________________65CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________68

A PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REJECT CHANGES PROVIDED BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT TO THE PROPOSED FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN_____76

B PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF A MOSQUE AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003247857)__________________________________________________________78

C PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF A MOSQUE AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003247857)__________________________________________________________79

D PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 31 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004595391)_________________________________________81

E PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 162 LAMBERT STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004506820)_________________________________________83

F PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 26 CAIRNS STREET, AND PART OF 35 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004060583)________________85

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________88A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME LAWSON STREET PARK, OXLEY, TO ‘ED KUEPPER

PARK’__________________________________________________________________________97

[4532 (Post Recess) Meeting – 1 August 2017]





B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PLAYGROUND IN BRADY BUSHLAND PARK, RUNCORN, TO ‘THE BUCHANAN FAMILY PLAYGROUND’___________________________________________98

C PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS KENNA STREET PARK, CHERMSIDE WEST, TO ‘JOHN GOSS RESERVE’__________________________________________99

D PETITIONS – REQUESTING ADDITIONAL GRASSED AREA TO BE MADE PARKLANDS AT THE FORMER WYNNUM CENTRAL STATE SCHOOL SITE_____________________________________________101

E PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME PEPPERCORN STREET PARK, SUNNYBANK HILLS, TO ‘TRANQUIL PARK’_____________________________________________________________102

F PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL A SHADE CLOTH ACROSS A SECTION OF THE WYNNUM WADING POOL_________________________________________________________103

G PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL SAVE BULIMBA CREEK AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS________________________________________________________105

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE____________________________________________________________106A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REPLACE NINE SEEDPOD BEARING NON-NATIVE TREES IN

HARTREE COURT, BRACKEN RIDGE__________________________________________________108

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________109

GENERAL BUSINESS:_____________________________________________________________111

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:_________________________________121

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______________________123






PRESENT:The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNPThe Chairman of Council, Councillor Angela OWEN (Calamvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards)Krista ADAMS (Holland Park)Adam ALLAN (Northgate)Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)Vicki HOWARD (Central) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Steven HUANG (Macgregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of the Opposition)Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)

Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward)Jonathan SRI (The Gabba)

Independent Councillor (and Ward)Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

OPENING OF MEETING:The Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

MINUTES:1/2017-18

The Minutes of the 4529 (ordinary) meeting held on 13 June 2017, the 4530 (budget) meeting held on 14 June 2017 and the 4531 (special) meeting held on 22 June 2017, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees?

Councillor RICHARDS.


- 2 -

Question 1

Councillor RICHARDS: My question is to the LORD MAYOR. After much discussion and negotiation, you last week announced that Brisbane City Council would terminate its contract with the vendor responsible for the roll out of Local Government Systems (LGS). Can you please update the Chamber on this decision, and why it was necessary to take this course of action?

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well, thanks very much, Madam Chairman—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, as this matter is going to be before the courts, as the LORD MAYOR has indicated and also the provider, I would be concerned that any statements that are made now may prejudice that court case, and I would ask for your ruling on whether this is a matter of concern for this Council.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I’m sure the LORD MAYOR is abundantly aware of his requirements in relation to any matters on any subjects that are before the courts, and I will allow him the courtesy of providing an answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: I thank you very much, Madam Chairman. If the Councillor listens to what I have to say, she’ll understand that nothing is in jeopardy whatsoever. Madam Chairman, Brisbane City Council, as Councillor RICHARDS has pointed out, has terminated its contract with the vendor for the Local Government Systems project after it failed to deliver an IT systems replacement program.

In January, Madam Chairman, I gave a six-month deadline for the company to provide an acceptable IT system to Council. That deadline ran out on Friday. After initially promising the product would be operational by March 2017, the vendor has requested several extensions for the go-live date, but the most recent advice was that it would not occur until January of 2019. This continual slippage is unacceptable and Council lacks confidence that even the most recent deadline will be met.

Council advised the company last Friday that the termination was due to: (1) the vendor’s persistent and ongoing breaches of the contract; (2) significant and unacceptable delays in progressing the contract; and (3) a complete loss of faith in the company’s ability to deliver a replacement system for Council’s IT systems. I will give this information, Madam Chairman, and much more as I committed I would do, to give the Council updates since I first made that announcement in January.

Madam Chairman, Council will be seeking damages and, in accordance with the contract, has advised TechnologyOne that the matter will now be referred to arbitration for determination. This decision is about the effective use of ratepayers’ money and ensuring that Council’s core services are not compromised. Council awarded a contract to replace 13 IT systems that support Council’s core business functions in June 2015, but TechnologyOne has not delivered.


- 3 -

Ultimately, they have failed to replace the 13 IT systems as per their contract. Some of those breaches include the following: (1) failing to complete critical project milestones by the end of December 2016 which, seven months on, still have not been completed; (2) failing to deliver a base product by the date required under the contract; and (3) failing to make available a working prototype as required under the contract.

One of Council’s major concerns relates to managing rates notices. Council issues almost half a million rates notices quarterly, and this cycle requires Council to have high levels of automation, validation and control so that it can issue rate notices for the right amount, for the right customer, at the right time. From what we have seen, the TechnologyOne system cannot meet this fundamental requirement.

For example, TechnologyOne has not satisfied Council that its system will apply Council’s rate capping framework which requires caps to be applied quarterly. Failure to apply Council’s rate capping framework could result in residents being overcharged. Ultimately, the TechnologyOne system doesn’t give Council confidence that the right person will be billed the right amount at the right time without significant manual intervention.

In the past six months, Council offered TechnologyOne the opportunity to reform the contract, and met with their representatives on multiple occasions in a bid to assist the company to get the project back on track. After initially promising the product would be operational by March 2017, TechnologyOne has requested several extensions to the go-live date, and as I’ve mentioned, the most recent being 2019. This continual slippage is unacceptable to Council, and as a result, Madam Chairman, we wish to take this contract no further.

When I notified the public of the implementation delays with the Local Government Systems in January this year, I directed Council to negotiate or, in fact, renegotiate the contract with a six month deadline. At the end of last week, that six month deadline as I mentioned came down to the wire. Council gave TechnologyOne every opportunity to come to an acceptable commercial settlement, but to no avail.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. If the time has expired, I would ask you to withdraw—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, the LORD MAYOR still had five seconds left of his time.

LORD MAYOR: Oh well, that’s it.

Chairman: I have got the time clock up here. I do not need you to sit down there and think you know what is going on.

Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. You’ve deputised others to conduct EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreement) negotiations for nine months. As a result, our Council staff who are members of, among others, the Transport Workers Union, the Rail Tram and Bus Union


- 4 -

(RTBU), the Australian Workers Union, the Services Union, and the Electrical Trades Union, are taking protected industrial action as they fight your Administration for a fair EBA outcome. It is clear your Council is in the middle of an industrial relations crisis. You often claim to be a union man, so why don’t you step in and support the hard-working staff who make you look good and bring this conflict to an end?


LORD MAYOR: Well, I agree totally with one thing you’ve just said, Councillor CUMMING, and that is that we have a hard-working staff that make me look good. I respect, Madam Chairman, what the officers and workers of this Council organisation do. They absolutely live up to the values of being dedicated to a better Brisbane.

Madam Chairman, what we believe, and what I believe fervently, is that what we have on the table is a good and reasonable deal. An amount of 2.5% each year for the next three years, with a $400 sign-on opportunity, Madam Chairman, is good by community standards. In terms of the most significant industrial action that we’ve seen through our bus drivers, I say this: I have great respect for what our bus drivers do. That is why they are among the best paid bus drivers in this country, because we do respect what they do. We respect they have a difficult job.

The Brisbane City Council bus drivers are the best paid bus drivers in Queensland. They are the second best paid in this country. We believe that 2.5% is a figure that ought to apply to all Council staff. We do not want to see—you know, and at the moment, as we stand here right at this second, Madam Chairman, we’ve got the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) wanting a one percentage increase, the RTBU wanting a different percentage increase, other unions—we don’t have a clue what increase they want; they’re all over the shop.

Madam Chairman, the reality is that we have put an offer on the table. More than that, you’re right, Councillor CUMMING, this has gone on for a while, and that’s why we took the step of saying to our staff, ‘we’re not going to let this drag on any longer, we’re going to give you two per cent as an interim payment, that is backdated back to the time’, and we’ve done that, and people—

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —and people have received—it’s all about the union leadership, isn’t it? That’s the problem with the Labor Party. They are, Madam Chairman, masters of, or rather they are culprits, if you like, and handcuffed by the union leadership. Councillor CUMMING has done nothing all year than to represent the union leadership in this place. So, Councillor CUMMING, you need to say to the ratepayers of this city—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: With the LORD MAYOR disrespecting the unions like he is, he is also disrespecting the staff’s choice to join those unions—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!


- 5 -

Councillor SUTTON: —in collective action, Madam Chair. I ask the LORD MAYOR to respect our staff—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

Councillor SUTTON: —and answer the question.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor SUTTON, I called out to you four times. This is the first meeting in this session, and I remind you of section 51 of the Meetings Local Law, that when I speak, you cease. Now, Councillor SUTTON, that was not an appropriate point of order. I don’t uphold it.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, I am, as LORD MAYOR of this city, duty-bound to do two things. The first thing is to put on the table what I believe is a fair and reasonable offer. The second thing I am duty-bound to do is to act in the best interests of the ratepayers of the city. Madam Chairman, I believe that what I have on the table is fair to both. It’s fair to the staff; an offer that meets community standards in terms of an increase, but also one that doesn’t overburden the ratepayers of this city.

We need to understand that every $10 million in expenditure is reflective of one per cent of rate increase in our city, and the movement of 2.5% versus 3.5% is a significant impost upon the ratepayers of Brisbane. Now, Councillor CUMMING, you might want to tell the ratepayers of Brisbane what you think is a fair impost on them, because you’ve done nothing but stand up for the union leadership all year, and I just want to know what you think is a fair outcome for the ratepayers.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, stop interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I would just remind the Chamber also that, when this started, the first set of industrial action was supposedly about safety. The DEPUTY MAYOR, within a wink, met with the union leadership. As soon as the union leadership walked into that meeting, the conversation turned away from safety and turned to controlling rostering which they will never get—will never get in this city under my control, Madam Chairman—and that of 3.5% as opposed to 2.5%.

So we put at that meeting, however, additional safety opportunities on the table. It was interesting to see, Madam Chairman, what the response was to that, because we, as you know—in the budget we had a certain safety package. We had additional packages—yes, I’m looking for something else—we had additional packages, Madam Chairman, which the DEPUTY MAYOR put on the table at that meeting, but at the end of the day it wasn’t good enough, because—and this is the comment from Mr Tom Brown; he said, in relation to it, that they needed to be authorised officers that came on board those buses at any time, or even a police squad that can board the buses. Now, I agree with him.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

Further questions?


- 6 -

Councillor WINES.

Question 3

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor SCHRINNER. Last year two different reviews were commissioned into the important issue of bus safety, one by Council and one by the Queensland Government. Can you please update the Chamber on the outcome of these reviews, and what progress has been made in improving safety on our buses?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Councillor WINES, for the question on a very important and pertinent issue. As the LORD MAYOR just said, when we saw the start of strike action a couple of weeks ago, the union very clearly said that this was all about bus driver safety. That was the message that they had decided would win them some public support.

We went in straight away to talk to them about safety. It’s something we’ve always been willing to talk to them about, something that we have been focused on consistently, and we put additional safety measures on the table. Not good enough.

It was very disappointing, Madam Chairman, because as Councillor WINES has pointed out, there were two safety reviews commissioned last year. One of them was a Council review which we commissioned independently, and I have that review here, the AusSafe expert report. So this was an independent health and safety consultant who came in to deal specifically with the tragedy at Moorooka, and to provide us with some recommendations.

Since that’s occurred, we’ve released the report to the public; we’ve put money in the budget. The LORD MAYOR put $1.3 million in the budget, and we’re actually well under way in introducing all of the recommendations from that report. It’s under way. This is not a promise to do something; we’re getting on with it. Work has progressed, and it will be completed exactly as we promised, and we will do what we said we would do.

Yet, at the same time—in fact, a little bit earlier than we announced our review—the State Government announced a review into bus driver safety. They announced that at the end of September last year, and 10 months later, we haven’t seen any sign of that review whatsoever. There’s been no report released. There’s been no recommendations released. There’s been no action whatsoever on bus driver safety. What does the union say about all this? Apparently we’re 100% to blame. They will not say a bad word against their State colleagues. They will not picket outside the Queensland Parliament, but apparently Council is 100% responsible and 100% to blame. Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that.

Guess what. Not even the bus drivers believe that, because when the union pushed them and put the pressure on them and got the union thugs out there pressuring the drivers, guess how many of our drivers went on strike. On Tuesday, the first day of action, only 52.9% of our rostered drivers went on strike. On Wednesday, the following day, only 42.5% of our drivers went on strike, and on Friday, their big bang, their big push, 47.9% of the drivers went on strike.


- 7 -

They have trouble getting a majority of the drivers on side with their action, yet they claim that they have a consistent support of our bus drivers on these matters. They do not. They do not. I remember a day—and in fact, this has been one of the myths in Council—where I was told that 80 or 90% of bus drivers are union members. Those days are gone. Those days are gone. They can’t even get more than 50% of their drivers striking. Why is that? Because we’ve been supporting the drivers. We’ve been dealing with safety. We’ve been putting the money in. We’ve been making the investment where it’s needed, and we’ve done that with a genuine heart because we actually care. That’s more than can be said for the State Government.

No review; we’re still waiting, and no action has been taken at that level. It’s really disappointing. So this strike is not about safety. It’s about other things. It’s about pay and it’s about rostering.

On the issue of pay, 2.5% on top of what are already the best paid bus drivers in Queensland, is a fair deal. It’s a fair deal, because in the end it’s a deal for ratepayers as well as the bus drivers, because the ratepayers have to pay every dollar of this. We’ve got to think about not just the drivers but also the ratepayers. So 2.5% is a good balance, and it’s a fair balance.

But really, what’s driving this is power and control. The unions control George Street, and they want to control City Hall. They want to control City Hall just like they control George Street. They want to be able to send emails on private accounts to elected representatives to get them to do things. They want to be able to pick up the phone to the Chairman of Council and get them to do things. That’s what they do down at George Street, and that’s what they want here, and they’re not getting it. We say no to union control of transport for Brisbane.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor SRI, you’re up for a question.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor CASSIDY! Councillor SUTTON! When the Chamber is silent, we will continue.

Councillor SRI.

Question 4

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. A frequent complaint from inner city residents is that the provision of local infrastructure, such as parks, pedestrian crossings and community centres, is not keeping pace with population growth. Council has acknowledged that the city is experiencing growing pains, but says it doesn’t have the money to deliver everything that residents need straight away.

Is this because the maximum infrastructure charges set by the State Government are too low, or because Council is failing to collect infrastructure charges from some developers, or because Council is spending the money collected in the inner city via infrastructure charges on widening roads and other major projects in different parts of the city?


- 8 -

LORD MAYOR: Well, that’s a very involved question, Madam Chairman; one on which I could probably spend 20 minutes responding to. But essentially, Councillor SRI, to one question; is the infrastructure charges too much or too little? This has been a perennial question which has been debated at various times over the period of time that I have been in this Chamber. I think the important thing is, Madam Chairman, that it be at a level where it makes a community contribution but not at such a level where our city becomes uncompetitive in terms of the jobs that the building and construction industry create. So there is a mid-point at which you need to operate.

I would say this, though; in terms of the spend—now, I note you differentiated out roads, because you don’t see roads as a legitimate expenditure, and that’s where you and I differ significantly in view. I would argue that we have spent a very significant amount in the inner city areas of this city, making it functional. I often use, Madam Chairman, the case of the Go Between Bridge. I went out and faced the crowds and had them shout and carry on for meetings, Madam Chairman. Plenty of green banners that were up saying don’t build this bridge, et cetera. I was going to kill children at the Brisbane State High School, according to the Principal who got moved on some time after that.

So, Madam Chairman, all these things were going to happen. You know, the biggest users of that facility now are the biggest protestors, and they are the community of West End, the community of West End, Madam Chairman. So we knew that that facility was needed to keep the area functional and, Madam Chairman, it also provided connectivity for others as well—for cyclists, for pedestrians and the like.

Often a community reaction from some or what is often a noisy minority does not prove to the case in terms of what the majority of people are thinking. We have always been an Administration who makes decisions, whether it is—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

LORD MAYOR: I told you it would take 20 minutes.

Councillor SRI: On relevance. I know it’s a complex question, but this is about parks, pedestrian crossings and community centres, and whether the infrastructure charges are enough. It’s not about the Go Between Bridge.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you don’t debate on a point of order; you just need to say relevance.

LORD MAYOR, please come back to the question.

LORD MAYOR: Yes. So, Madam Chairman, we have in terms of footpaths and the provision of parks and the like, we have made commitments within this timeframe of the City Plan to build many more parks in this city. There is one I remember—Cabinet recently bought some more land at Woolloongabba in your ward, Councillor SRI, for the very purpose of expanding a park facility. We’re buying up homes and we’re replacing those homes with park in your area to make sure that we increase the square meterage that is available.

So, Madam Chairman, there is a whole lot of things that we are doing. That particular purchase was in—yes, so, for example, the local government—I won’t go through that, there is too much information there for me to absorb very quickly, but, Madam Chairman, over a period of time, I can assure you,


- 9 -

Councillor SRI, that we are going to continue to invest because it is about building a lifestyle city, and we are committed to doing that.

We know that there is growth happening in certain locations of the city. It’s happening certainly in the inner city areas; it’s also happening in those other parts that Brisbane people told us they wanted as priority areas. Around Garden City, not far north from where I am, Madam Chairman, we’re seeing significant buildings as well. So all of these areas, Madam Chairman, we have to make sure that we provide additional park opportunities, and with that, improved connectivity, whether it’s through pedestrian footpaths or other community facilities.

So we’re not a one-trick pony. We never have been. We never will be. People have tried to tag us with being just a road-centric Council, and we never have been. You know, we quadrupled the commitment to cycling in this city after Labor left office and we came to office. We never get acknowledgement about that from the cyclists, mind you; well, some do. The responsible ones do, but you know, we have made more inroads to creating connectivity in all of its forms in this city, and particularly the inner city, than any other previous Administration in my view, Madam Chairman, and we will continue to do that.

So it’s about making sure that each budget, when that comes down, us appropriating the sums accordingly. But we want a spread. We’ve got a big city here. We want to make sure everybody gets a fair share in relation to that expenditure, and we always endeavour to do that. But, Councillor SRI, be assured, as the local Councillor, that we will continue to improve facilities in your ward as we do every other ward within the City of Brisbane.


Councillor MURPHY.

Question 5

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee, Councillor ADAMS. As you may recall, Brisbane recently hosted the World Boxing Organisation’s (WBO) welterweight title fight, otherwise known as the Battle of Brisbane, which ended in a spectacular win for Brisbane’s own Jeff Horn. Can you advise how Council’s support for the Battle of Brisbane and other initiatives is helping to build our local economy while creating new and innovative jobs for Brisbane residents?

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Councillor MURPHY, for the question, because I definitely do remember. We did speak about it in Committee today, but the outcome from this fight was more than we could have ever expected, and we got so much more out of it as well.

Like many sporting enthusiasts, boxing probably isn’t at the top of the list when you are based in Brisbane, but I was absolutely delighted to be able to see Jeff Horn become the WBO world welterweight champion by defeating Manny Pacquiao in that very memorable 12-round fight. There was a couple in there that are not so memorable, but it didn’t matter. By the 12th round, we knew we were right, and we had come home with the welterweight champion of the world.

It was a stunning sporting achievement, and it actually does cap a remarkable rise to fame for Jeff Horn as a local Brisbane boy. But more importantly, for


- 10 -

Brisbane City Council and myself as Chair of Economic Development, the economic benefits that we saw coming out of that fight were absolutely astounding. We partnered—Brisbane Marketing partnered with the State Government and private stakeholders to bring this event to Brisbane. We’ve heard it in this place before and all around Brisbane, as the LORD MAYOR says: if people don’t know your name, they won’t visit. They certainly won’t invest, which is why this Administration will continue to invest in major events to attract visitors and investors which grow our local economy and create jobs.

Let’s look at some of the vital statistics. Brisbane hotels experienced an 80% rise in revenue on that Sunday night. Record breaking 51,026 spectators, of which 36% travelled from outside Queensland. It’s the largest ever boxing match held in Australia, and we’re estimating it was viewed by 500 million people overseas. So, not only did we have an extremely successful boxing match, but we also were showcased to the world as a destination and a place to invest for those people who are seeing us for the first time.

Brisbane made every post a winner. It started with the lead-up to the promotion of the event. We launched it in the east coast media tour of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne which generated coverage across Foxtel, Top Arena, Fairfax Media, News Corp, the Alan Jones radio show, The Project and The Footy Show, and generated an impressive 10,000 ticket sales within 40 minutes of being released. That’s when we knew we were on a winner. Within 40 minutes, 10,000 people had put their money into ticket sales to come to Brisbane for this event.

There was a media tour of the Philippines in May which saw daily international coverage. Between 1 January and 10 July, there were 9,872 media items on the Battle of Brisbane that reached a cumulative audience of 270,533,000-plus people. That is an enormous equivalent of over $40 million of bought advertising space for the City of Brisbane—absolutely spectacular.

We had eight-minute vignettes that were shown as destination content on our partner channels, like Foxtel, and as it turned out, we found that a lot of those channels actually used those vignettes twice because they were such good content. Not only did you get to know the boxers themselves, but we had scenes like Jeff Horn kayaking around Moreton Island and demonstrating some of beautiful destinations you can come to in our city as well.

The bonus for us about a month out is that we got the ESPN telecast for the Battle of Brisbane. This is cable television’s highest rated and most watched boxing telecast since 2006, and it was ESPN’s highest rated boxing telecast since 1995—an absolutely outstanding broadcast over 34 countries, key tourism source markets such as the UK, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, India, Europe and the Middle East. But most important, wherever Jeff Horn goes now, and whatever he wins—and I am sure he will in the future—he will be associated with Brisbane, not just in his mind but in the minds of the 500 million people who actually watched this event on that day in July.

But we’re not just focusing on boxing; we are spreading the love to our conventions; we are making sure that we are seeing as many bed nights as possible with 52 conferences, with 62 bid wins, and major conferences like the World Mining Congress, the World Hospital Congress, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology Congress which is coming in 2019.


- 11 -

We leverage off our existing events, like the Asia Pacific Screen Awards and the world Science Festival, and we are continuing to grow our local economy by creating jobs, something that those on the other side simply did not support.


Councillor JOHNSTON.

Question 6

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. During the November 2014 super cell storm—so that’s November 2014—the lights along the Yeronga Bikeway at Robinson Park, Fairfield, were damaged, and almost three years later have still not been fixed. Council officers have repeatedly asked for the funds to fix the lights along a major bikeway and a busy shared pathway in Fairfield. After three years of waiting, why have you again failed to allocate funds to fix existing lighting in a major bikeway at Fairfield which was damaged three years ago?


LORD MAYOR: Well, Councillor JOHNSTON, I thank you for raising this matter. I have to admit that I am not aware of the lights being damaged, or more so, not aware of those lights not being repaired. I give you my undertaking today that, if there is no other really good reason for it, they will be repaired. But I qualify that this better be right.


LORD MAYOR: No, I qualify this, because I’ve heard your questions over and over again in the past, and when I’ve checked them out, it hasn’t been accurate. So, there may be a very good reason why they are not being fixed. But I will check that out. If there is no sound reason why not, then they will be fixed.


Councillor HOWARD.

Question 7

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of City Planning, Councillor SIMMONDS. I understand that this year was the final year for the student accommodation initiative which promoted high-quality student accommodation within inner Brisbane. Can you please update the Chamber on the success of this initiative?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you to you, Councillor HOWARD, for your question. It is a very timely question, because indeed, in the last couple of weeks we have seen the conclusion of the Administration’s very successful three-year initiative to encourage more purpose-built student accommodation in our city.

It was only just three short years ago that demand for dedicated student accommodation was outstripping supply in this city. As a result, the suburbs, particularly our Brisbane suburbs around our large universities, were under enormous strain with the accommodation outcomes for international students,


- 12 -

ranging from in appropriate to the downright illegal boarding houses that Council officers had to intervene in.

We’ve got to remember that, without available student housing and accommodation, this city’s $4 billion economy in the international education sector would be under threat. It means an awful lot to this city, particularly in terms of the jobs that they create—not just the direct jobs that are within the education sector, but the indirect jobs, those in the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors, as international students often very much enjoy their time seeing the city while they are here studying.

Not to mention the flow-on economic benefits that this city gains when international students enjoy their studies and enjoy their stay here in Brisbane. That can be everything from extended family coming to visit them during their studies, to these students returning sometime in the future with their own families, or even going back, becoming very successful in their home nations, and then investing in our city of Brisbane. We’ve seen that a number of times where they’ve invested as alumni.

So in order to safeguard these jobs and to protect our suburbs this Administration took strong action. The incentive designed to attract investment in purpose-built lodgings for tertiary students has resulted in a wave of new projects to meet the growing demand for student living in Brisbane.

The three-year incentive occurring from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017 has attracted 49 applications. The program was implemented to encourage high-quality accommodation for tertiary students in inner city locations, which means that the new facilities had to be frequented by public transport, close to shopping centres and medical facilities. In order to meet the criteria, it needed to be high quality of design, it needed to have onsite student management so that we can ensure that these students were appropriately accommodated and assisted during their studies, and it has to be located within four kilometres of the CBD.

So after three years, the accommodation landscape has now changed significantly. Thanks to those projects attracted by the incentive, we have close to 13,000 new student beds under construction or in the pipeline. This is an outstanding result, and will result in us able to cater for high quality, inner city student accommodation with onsite management that these students deserve so that they can enjoy their time and their studies here in Brisbane.

It will go a long way to meeting the demand of the 114,000 domestic students and 75,000 international students studying in Brisbane each year, but not only the existing demand but allow us to grow through activities like Brisbane Marketing are doing; activities that would of course be abolished if the Labor Councillors ever became the administration, but which outcomes that we are encouraging so that we can preserve jobs in this city, which is so incredibly important to us.

The incentive scheme, of course, followed the already successful program around hotels that was introduced in 2011 where we identified a shortage of internationally recognised full service hotels, meaning 121,000 less visitors to Brisbane every year. So, the incentive allowed almost 1,000 extra four and five-star hotel beds in the pipeline, no doubt some of those full, many of those full that are already built, as part of the Battle of Brisbane.

Now we have, following on from these two successes, the aged care and retirement living incentive scheme that this Administration is trying to put in


- 13 -

place. We know we have an ageing population. We need to bring on board almost 3,600 new rooms every year, and we were previously approving through the market process only 1,000. We need to encourage more facilities for our ageing population if we are to have them age in the suburbs and the communities that they love. So who is stopping us? Who is preventing us from achieving the great outcomes that we did with hotels and students, as we did with an ageing population? Well, it’s the Labor Party. It’s the Labor Party, because this Administration tried to pass those incentives through this Chamber in early December, and still seven, eight months later, they are still sitting up there with the State Labor Government on a Minister’s desk, unlooked at, with no feedback despite repeated requests. Why won’t the Labor Party support our ageing population? Why won’t they support the elderly residents of Brisbane like this Administration will?

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much.

Question 8

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. TechnologyOne is a Brisbane-based ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) 150 company with market capitalisation of $1.7 billion. The company provides systems for 300 councils across Australia and New Zealand, making them the leading provider in the field. In 2009, TechnologyOne Chair, Adrian Di Marco, was awarded the Lord Mayor’s Business Person of the Year by your mentor, Campbell Newman.

How do you respond to statements by Mr Di Marco that you are covering up the LGS independent review report because it is damning of your Administration and exposes unprofessional and disingenuous behaviour?


LORD MAYOR: I thank you very much, Councillor CUMMING, for the question. Madam Chairman, can I just say this? I have resisted to—and I must say, I resisted the urge to respond to statements made by Mr Di Marco to the Australian Stock Exchange. There have been several of them now. I could have responded to each of them, and as I say, I resisted that urge.

But, Madam Chairman, and to Councillor CUMMING, can I say this; Mr Di Marco has now for a number of months been making many claims that in this Council’s views are inaccurate and misleading. We gave this company the opportunity to reform the contract, and met with their representatives on multiple occasions in a bid to assist the company and to get the project back on track.

Based on what we have seen of the TechnologyOne system, this is a product which is still very much in development. After initially promising the product would be operational by March 2017, as I said earlier, TechnologyOne requested several extensions for the go-live date, with the most recent advice that it won’t occur until January 2019. So this continual slippage is just unacceptable to Council, and we just lack confidence that it is going anywhere.

Madam Chairman, Council has made $21 million in payments to TechnologyOne. Council will be acting in the best interests of ratepayers. We


- 14 -

will be seeking damages, but we won’t jeopardise the arbitration process by speculating on possible outcomes. Council has told TechnologyOne that it wants to expedite the arbitration process so that the time period and the legal costs can be minimised. A commercial settlement can occur at any time.

The amount that Mr Di Marco has nominated is clearly an ambit claim. TechnologyOne are bound under the contract dispute resolution process to go to arbitration rather than to court. This is the normal process to follow under the standard Queensland Government information technology contract. In the past six months Council offered TechnologyOne the opportunity to reform the contract and, Madam Chairman, that has not occurred.

Council’s existing IT systems will continue to operate as normal for customers for the foreseeable future. However, Council is conducting an evaluation to ascertain what additional work needs to be done to these systems. Council has an ongoing program of works to maintain its systems to ensure seamless delivery of Council’s services to ratepayers.

We never expected this to be easy, but we were assured by TechnologyOne that it would be done. After initially promising the product would be operational, again, by 2017, Madam Chairman, that has not occurred. So, Councillor CUMMING, I hear all that you’ve said in your question, but I just say this; this is a big Council. This is a very, very big Council compared to other local authorities.

I do note that there is also a dispute now on the table with Wellington in New Zealand. Madam Chairman, I don’t intend to comment on that because I don’t know the details. But it would be wrong to think that this Council is the only council that is in dispute. It would have been great for it to have worked. A Brisbane company—that’s why we wanted, when January came along this year, we wanted to give this company every chance to succeed.

But at the end of the day, Madam Chairman, if it is not going to reach the outcome that this Council needs, then we have to make the hard decision in relation to that. We’ve done that at the end of that six months last Friday. So, Madam Chairman, I trust Councillor CUMMING that at least goes some way to responding to your question.

Chairman: That ends Question Time.



Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m just a little bit concerned by an email that was sent out by your staff indicating that there was going to be a public speaker today, and providing us with material. I’m just checking that something hasn’t gone wrong here and we haven’t got a public speaker that we’ve missed.

Chairman: No, Councillor JOHNSTON, there is no public speaker today. My staff were aware that there is a public speaker approved for next week and were assisting in distributing that. There was just a scheduling error, and it went out this week instead of next week. It is just general information, but it also ties in with the fact that today is actually International Lung Cancer Awareness Day, so the information provided about the lung safety check list is quite appropriate today.

LORD MAYOR, Establishment and Coordination Committee recommendations, please.


- 15 -

CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just before coming to the report itself, I’d just like to comment on a number of matters that occurred between Council meetings, if I may. Firstly, Madam Chairman, we saw the staging of Regional Flavours in the city again just a couple of weeks ago. This event is one which just continues to grow. The fascination of people in this country with food, Madam Chairman, is just growing almost by the week.

Miguel Maestre—I think his name is pronounced—was the MC for the event and, Madam Chairman, he provided certainly a very lively hosting, if you like, of the event itself, with the very many chefs that were available. I think about 80,000 people attended that event at South Bank this year, and I just want to acknowledge all of the other mayors of South East Queensland and further afield—even the South Burnett Regional Council—were there, Madam Chairman, as part of that Regional Flavours activity.

The Centenary Rocks Festival—Madam Chairman, this is a festival that has been run now for a number of years, which will see its last year this year—in fact, it was held just a couple of weeks ago. This is one where I know Councillor BOURKE has been particularly supportive of this festival, but a big thank you to Belinda Karnaghan as the President of the festival, and also the Festival Director. She has headed up a group called Centenary Community Connections who have run that festival. As a group they will continue to do many other community activities as they have for a number of years, but this particular festival has struggled financially. It’s a big festival, but it has struggled financially, Madam Chairman, and will see its last year this year.

Madam Chairman, we also saw in the break the 75th anniversary of the arrival of General Douglas MacArthur to the City of Brisbane. This was commemorated by way of a re-enactment, but also a dinner which was undertaken by the volunteers of the MacArthur Museum. Brigadier Peter Rule is the Chairman of the MacArthur Foundation these days, and I just congratulate the MacArthur Foundation on all that they do.

Hopefully the re-enactment and the little bit of coverage that it received around that time will also add, Madam Chairman, to people’s awareness of the existence of the MacArthur centre. It was a very significant period in this city’s history where we saw some 300,000 people living in the city by way of residents and around 80,000 American troops here at the time. It was one of the four big centres of strategy in World War 2 for the Allied Forces.


- 16 -

When we talk about that period, Madam Chairman, we all know of the Battle of Brisbane from a few weeks ago, but there was a Battle of Brisbane at that time also which was between the Australian and the American troops. A few jealousies boiled over, and there was two days of fighting between the Allied Forces which saw hundreds of people injured, as one of the features of that period in our city’s history. Of course, this building was completely taken over for the war effort. There was a tunnel which went from underneath here up to St Andrew’s church as an escape tunnel. Like many other aspects of the city, Madam Chairman, with a city at war, it was a very different place in that era.

I want to acknowledge also the start of construction—well, not the construction but the piling for one of the parts of the Inner City Bypass, Madam Chairman. The work on that project is progressing well, four-laning in each direction. One of the parts of the upgrade will be the connection, Madam Chairman, of a new overpass essentially or connecting ramp between Bowen Bridge Road and Inner Northern Busway on to the Inner City Bypass. That will provide not only for motor vehicles but also bus vehicles. It will improve travel time for bus commuters, particularly to the western suburbs.

Madam Chairman, we’ve already seen those buses using Legacy Way see a five to 13 minute improvement in their travel time, and about a 40% growth in patronage on those routes. So this will be another additional opportunity. The bus priority lane is there as part of that construction. It will improve that opportunity.

Madam Chairman, before coming to the items on today’s report, I just want to make brief mention of the Battle of Brisbane. Madam Chairman, when we ventured into this, this was all about Manny Pacquiao. He was the draw. He was the person—and as much as I love Jeff Horn dearly, and Jeff knows this, it was all about Manny Pacquiao. He was going to be the person who was going to fill those hotel beds, and he did. People came from far afield, from the Netherlands, from the Philippines, obviously in big numbers, from America, from all parts of the globe to see Manny Pacquiao.

This was the biggest event in terms of Brisbane coverage since the G20, by a mile. So the value of this event to this city should never ever be lost. Now, it was about Manny, but it ended up after the event being about Jeff, and I just say to Jeff that we’re very proud of what he’s achieved, we’re proud as a family of what he’s done. We’re proud also of the way he’s conducted himself throughout this. He’s a great ad for this city, and he will—the good thing about it is he’s not yet reached his peak. He is improving all the time, and I’m sure that he will continue to be a great economic spinner for this city as he progresses through his career in his, shall we say, accidental chosen field of boxing.

Madam Chair, item A is the Contracts and Tendering report to Council. I will go through those items if I may. Madam Chairman, Contracts and Tendering for the month of May are as follows. The first one goes to streetscape works at Fish Lane, South Brisbane. This is a $245,986 contract entered into, Madam Chairman, with Aria Property Group. This is where they are undertaking significant amounts of work, and funding significant amounts of that as well. Council is making a contribution to that. But it will add to the streetscape along that corridor.

The next one, Madam Chairman, is payment card industry compliant car park management system, including hardware, software installation and maintenance, $450,000. This contract is entered into under a sole source arrangement, Madam Chairman. It is for a number of things. It’s entry and exit barriers and stations, pedestrian readers, auto pay stations, manual point of sale stations, and an integrated car park software and management system. TMA Tech Pty Ltd.


- 17 -

The next item—sorry, I should give you some more information on that. TMA is the sole distributor of the Scheidt & Bachmann parking management systems and related services. That is why it is sole sourced in that regard.

Madam Chairman, the next one, In Situ Stabilisation Program; this is Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd, $249,000, and they achieved the highest value for money index. There was only one other tenderer there. The next one is fabrication and delivery of a bikeway bridge at Steege Street, I think it is, at Ashgrove. Sun Engineering Pty Ltd, for $314,850. They achieved the highest value for money.

The next one goes to Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd. This is the Jindalee Boat Ramp upgrade, $339,000. They were the only ones to put forward a bid, and it was an acceptable bid. Madam Chairman, the next one, item 6, Upper Kedron Reserve, closed landfill, gas wall construction. Epoca Construction Pty Ltd won this at $1.584 million. They achieved the highest value for money index, and they were also the cheapest to tender.

Seven; Smoother Suburban Streets. This is won by Stanley MacAdam Pty Ltd—


2/2017-18At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.


LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Chamber. This is a value for money index of 13.12. It was the lowest price of all tenderers. Next one, Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement Program, a construction package there. Moggill Constructions won this one at $668,000. There were no other offers received, which is surprising for something like that, but that’s the situation. They have done a considerable number of bus stops for us. This is the disability compliance arrangements, and they have achieved a good value for money, in spite of them being the only tenderer.

Madam Chairman, the next one is administration and trades temporary labour hire. So, several companies achieved the successful outcomes here in terms of a panel. Item 10, hygiene services including sharps collection and disposal. Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd, trading as Initial Hygiene. Best value for money index. They were the cheapest in this case as well.

Number 11, Riverwalk pontoon disposal. The cheapest and also best value for money was achieved by GCE Contractors Pty Ltd. The next one is the renewal of the 2017-18 Corporate Insurance Program, industrial special risk. There’s a number of them there. I won’t go through them all, but there’s quite a number of insurers there, Madam Chairman, that Council is utilising. The next one is—that’s it for that one.

Item B, Madam Chairman, is the report of the Audit Committee meeting of 8 June 2017, the ongoing release of Audit minutes for that. Item C is the Corporate Plan. So, Madam Chairman, all Councillors would be aware that Council restructured the budget for the 2017-18 financial year, and as such the Corporate Plan has been updated to reflect those changes. The Corporate Plan outlines Council’s medium-term goals and objectives, and what Council will do to deliver on those goals and objectives to work towards five key themes—


- 18 -

building smoother streets and continuing to tackle traffic congestion; building our local economy while creating new and innovative jobs; keeping Brisbane clean, green and sustainable; creating new lifestyle and leisure opportunities; and delivering Australia’s most modern public transport and active transport system, including the Brisbane Metro.

So, some of the recent successes, as we know, Madam Chairman, including the bringing down of the Metro business case, a $90 million a year commitment to road resurfacing, and $100 million over four years on bikeways, as well as the bikeways established on major infrastructure projects.

Now, the last item is the Contracts and Tendering for the month of June. I’ll be as quick as I can, Madam Chairman. The first contract, Telegraph Road Corridor Upgrade, Stage 2. This is the relocation of Optus assets along Telegraph Road and Lemke Road at Bracken Ridge; sole source tender because they’re Optus assets.

The next one is a Tennis Avenue footbridge replacement. This is Pensar Civil Pty Ltd that won that at $1.486 million, and they were the highest value for money achieved and lowest price. Number 3 is the Toowong Bus Depot water mains relocation, engagement of a principal contractor which was Roman Contractors Pty Ltd. They achieved 30.42 value for money, which made them the cheapest price and highest value for money index recipient.

Number 4; Colmslie State Emergency Services training facility upgrade, and Box & Co Pty Ltd achieved the highest value for money. They were also the cheapest, just.


LORD MAYOR: Yes, quite sure. I’ll look at that again. Yes, they were. The next one, number 5; Catalina Riverwalk remediation at Macquarie Street, Teneriffe. So this is Abergeldie Contractors that won this, $3.361 million, the cheapest and best value for money. Number 6; Mt Coot-tha Lookout, embankment remediation. Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd, trading as Australian Marine & Civil, won it at $217,000, the cheapest and the best value for money.

The next one, construction of a pedestrian bridge at the Albany Creek Bikeway, Darien Street, Bridgeman Downs, won by Pensar Civil Pty Ltd. Not the cheapest, Madam Chairman. They were just under the cheapest, and I’ll tell you why they got it. Although BMD Urban Pty Ltd, which were the cheapest tenderer, while they tendered the most competitive price, they did not demonstrate the same experience in the delivery of a bridge structure as Pensar, and their proposed key personnel had a lower level of bridge construction experience. So that was the basis—it was only a marginal difference, about $8,000 difference, but that was the reasoning behind it.

Number 8; Wynnum Aquatic Playground, M&N Enterprises Pty Ltd trading as Playscape Creations, $747,000; highest value for money and the cheapest. Contract 9, stormwater harvesting and reuse at Wakefield Park; Turf Irrigation Services won this one at $408,000, again by far the cheapest and best value for money.

The next one, number 10, Artforce public art project, won by Urban Smart Projects Pty Ltd, $98,000. They were not the cheapest. Hands on Art were the cheapest, Madam Chairman. Now, the successful tenderer, Urban Smart Projects Pty Ltd, achieved the highest value for money and tendered the second lowest price. The lowest price tenderer, Hands on Art Pty Ltd, demonstrated that they


- 19 -

are highly skilled in one-off community art projects and cultural development projects. However, the Hands on Art submission did not demonstrate an understanding of Artforce deliverables and the type of project management services required.

The next one, Probity Auditing Services. Madam Chairman, there’s a panel there of probity auditors. These are used primarily by City Projects Office, about 70% of them; the other 30% are used by Field Services, Madam Chairman, and they do so in compliance with the Queensland Government’s Standing Offer Arrangements Schedule of rates.

Number 12; kerbside large item collection services—this has been won by Kerbside Services Pty Ltd, Madam Chairman. It’s an annual kerbside collection, very significant in this city. We of course are one of the few councils—well, we might be the only one, I’m not sure, probably the only one, that does an annual kerbside collection, and it’s well received by ratepayers.

Number 13; provision of a Microsoft Enterprise licence agreement, Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd, and Insight Enterprise Australia Pty Ltd. This is a sole source. Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd only sells its products to large organisations through companies designated by Microsoft as LSPs (Licencing Solution Partners). The SOA—that is sole operating something—sole source, anyway—was formed through a competitive open market process based on whole-of-government volumes. The product and service volumes across the Queensland Government are significantly larger than Council’s volumes, and it is considered Council could not directly form a supply arrangement on better pricing terms. So in other words we’re jumping on the back of the Queensland Government’s contract.

Madam Chairman, recyclable materials is number 14. This is the recovery services. It is won by Visy Paper Pty Ltd trading as Visy Recycling. Cleaning services for park facilities; this is won by Jampak Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jampak Trust, trading as Retro Clean, $1.2 million, this contract, and again that’s the cheapest and best value for money. There’s quite a number of services there that fall under that one. Then we go to contract 16 which is ICT security review services. That’s been won by Alcorn Security Group Pty Ltd for $5.956 million. Madam Chairman, that looks at things like ICT security generally, so it provides review services, the whole-of-enterprise security reviews, on demand penetration tests and vulnerability assessments, security reviews—


LORD MAYOR: Oh, I’m two words away.

3/2017-18At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.


LORD MAYOR: I got within 10 seconds, Madam Chairman. Information security audits, incident response, red-teaming—in other words, services to improve resilience to a cyber attack, and computer forensics. So I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Chamber for its time.

Chairman: Further debate?


- 20 -

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to this report, in relation to item A, Contracts and Tendering, just some concern, I think the number of groups tendering for a lot of these contracts seems to be falling. Some of them are sole source contracts, obviously—


Councillor CUMMING: Yes, but other ones are ones where it’s been put out for an open tender and there’s only two tenderers, or in some cases only one. So, I don’t know, perhaps tendering for Brisbane City Council is not what it used to be. I don’t know, don’t know.

Madam Chairman, in relation to item 9, this side of the Chamber, as we’ve said before, we continue to be concerned about the amount of contracting out of Council work to labour hire companies, and we see that as meaning less jobs for permanent Council staff, and we believe that people who work for labour hire companies, because they haven’t got any guarantee of any prolonged employment, often find it very difficult in getting a loan to buy a house, for example.

We would prefer people to be employed as full-time Council employees and get the terms and conditions which that entails, rather than having large amounts of Council expenditure contracted out to labour hire companies. In this case it’s some $44 million over a period of 14 months. We’ve seen other ones—this isn’t the only one for the year. There’s been other ones of these tenders come out during this calendar year, for example.

Madam Chairman, the Audit Committee report; I turn to the Audit Committee report, Madam Chairman. I guess this comes before Council Chamber, and I might be accused of tedious repetition, but we’d always love to see the actual reports tendered at these meetings. The item 5, the Corporate Finance update, Mr Oberle asked for his report to be taken as read, and invited questions, Madam Chairman. This is important that everyone in the Chamber know what’s going on in this meeting. That’s not the case at present. Also at item number 6, Mr Hodgson has updated the Committee on the Mandate Fraud Project. I can’t recall seeing that before, so I’d be interested to know what the Mandate Fraud Project is, Madam Chairman.

I turn now to item C. The Corporate Plan, Madam Chairman, when this last came to the Chamber, the 2016 version of the Corporate Plan, I spoke to it for a fair while, and you’ll be pleased to know that I won’t be speaking that long today, but one thing I will say, though, is that the main point that I made when it last came before the Chamber was that it was a great shame that all the targets that had been set under the previous Corporate Plan for percentages and for numbers of visitors to places, et cetera, had just about all been deleted. I regret to say they haven’t come back in with this plan. So that’s very disappointing.

Previously there were things like the target for on-ground litter levels in the Valley. For example, 60 pieces of litter per litter count was the target. A target of 75% resident satisfaction with Council’s provision of arts and cultural facilities and events, and that the Brisbane Powerhouse would attract more than 300,000 visitors per year.

The old Corporate Plan went on and on and on with all those sort of targets. Unfortunately, no longer there, and that means—I think it makes the Corporate Plan a less worthy document, I’d have to say, and it also means that


- 21 -

the Administration—I know why it’s been abolished, because they can’t be criticised then for not having achieved the targets, because there are no targets there to achieve. But it’s just not good enough, and I raise that issue again.

The other matter, I notice comparing the two documents, there does appear to have been a few items left out. For example, on page 11 of the previous plan, there was reference under the heading Natural Assets – Maintained and Enhanced. Part of Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary; deliver a new koala research centre. Now, I can’t find that in the new plan. It may have jumped from one page to another, but it’s certainly not in the area of the plan that it used to be.

Likewise with the garden beds at Kangaroo Point and New Farm Park rose garden, whether they’ve been completed or whether—they seem to have disappeared off the face of the document as well. Reference to the Norman Creek and Coorparoo Creek Park has disappeared, Madam Chairman. Now, I understand Coorparoo Creek, there’s been work done on it, but I understand there’s considerable problems with Norman Creek, and I just wonder why it’s been deleted all together. Has it been scrapped as an objective of the Administration?

Madam Chair, the final tendering document, Madam Chairman, has got—it’s good to see the Wynnum Aquatic Playground in there, $747,200; a bit parochial there, but a bit of consultation about what it’s actually going to entail would be a good idea, but anyhow, that’s wishful thinking, I guess. The other matter that we had some concerns about was the annual kerbside collection, and why it was entered into without seeking tenders. It’s a very large contract—well, significantly large, $21 million, and it’s a three-year contract with an option to extend for one additional year. We’re disappointed to see that’s a sole source contract. It may be the same company that’s been doing it for a while, but we still believe it should be put out to market to see if there if there was any other tenderers interested in applying for what is, after all, quite a large contract.

The other one that was a bit unclear, and Councillor ADAMS may be answering this, or one of the other Chairs, because when I asked Councillor ADAMS at Committee about item 15, the cleaning services for park facilities, just a bit of lack of clarity. There is a number of social enterprise organisations have been awarded contracts and that’s great, but it’s a bit unclear about how many toilets, for example, in the east region, they’ve been given, and how many are going to be handled by Jampak, who is the main tenderer who won the contract.

It may seem like a very mundane thing, but I can tell you that in the Wynnum Manly Esplanade, which gets incredibly busy just about all year round, the quality and level of toilet cleaning is a very important thing, and we often get a few complaints at the ward office about that, so I’m interested to know how that’s been given out between Jampak and the other tenderers.

Madam Chairman, finally, I’d just like to say that, under the insurance contract tender, my self-managed super fund has shares in QBE Insurance, and therefore I won’t be voting on this matter. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on all items in the Establishment and Coordination Committee report. Like Councillor CUMMING, I noticed a disturbing trend in the contracting and tendering reports. Up to 30% of all


- 22 -

contracts that are going through these reports are under a sole sourcing arrangement. Now, this is from a LORD MAYOR who stands up in here and criticises over, and over again, the decision—original decision—about Legacy Way and Leighton Contractors, but he glosses over the fact that there is no competitive process happening for up to one third of all contracts Council is signing off on.

So, in item A, it’s 25% of all contracts are being sole or exclusively sourced, and in item D it’s 30%. Now, that’s a disturbing trend, to see that many contracts that are going through this Council, without any competitive tension, without any oversight by this place, because these contracts have all been decided by Stores Board. We’re essentially talking about projects in some cases that have already been done, and they are sailing through without scrutiny, without accountability, and without transparency.

Some of those contracts going through relate to IT issues. I don’t think there is any measure anymore at all under which the LORD MAYOR should be allowing exclusive and sole sourcing for IT issues, because clearly this Council has a problem. So, there is something wrong with what’s going on here. I don’t know if it’s a systemic problem in the tendering processes of this Council, but why we are not seeing multiple tenderers coming through; why we are seeking sole selection for certain projects where there should be good competitive tension in the marketplace. I don’t know.

I would certainly like some explanation from the LORD MAYOR why up to a third of all the contracts that we’re signing off on now as a Council are being done under the sole sourcing arrangements. It also leads me to question, on page 12 of the report at item D, when Council put out the contract for the cleaning services for toilets in parks. No one—no one has tendered to clean the toilets in south region—that’s the region my ward is located in, in Tennyson—and west region, so what’s going to happen, LORD MAYOR? Madam Chairman, through you, I ask the question.

We’ve had no one tender to clean the toilets in the parks in south region and west region. So what arrangements are we putting in place now to ensure that there is a good service being offered to residents? That is a concern. It’s an admirable thing that we went to the social enterprise organisations to look at this, but why is it they’ve offered in some regions but not others? If they can’t do south and west, what provision are we putting in place as a Council to ensure the toilets are going to be cleaned? I would certainly like an explanation about that, because two regions in this city apparently have got no one who’s going to clean the toilets. So I look forward to the LORD MAYOR’s explanation on that.

Briefly to the Audit Committee Report, I would also just raise some concerns around the—let me get the name of it correct—Mandate Fraud Project update. So, Sean Hodgson, the Acting Manager of Support Services, updated the Committee on the Mandate Fraud Project. What is the Mandate Fraud Project? What was the update, and what is this project trying to achieve? If it relates to the major fraud incident that Council experienced last year, for example, this LORD MAYOR promised to keep us updated about how that matter was being handled.

Now, I don’t know if the two things are connected, but certainly I am concerned that a new item has come onto the Audit Committee report, which is called Mandate Fraud Project, and we know nothing about what that is. So I think the LORD MAYOR needs to be a little bit more upfront and tell us what that fraud project relates to. Has there been another incidence of major fraud in this Council that we’re unaware of? That would be the biggest concern, I suppose, because he’s not very good at sharing information.


- 23 -

Two, if it relates to last year’s incident, have the decency to honour your commitment to update us about what is going on. But certainly that new project, the Mandate Fraud Project, which has been discussed at a very senior level in this Administration, is not something that’s been made public to this Council or Councillors. I would certainly like an explanation on behalf of the Brisbane residents that I represent about what this project relates to.

I’d like to now turn to the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21. I’m very disappointed by the plan. I don’t believe the things that this Council says it is going to do are actually being done. They’re certainly not being done in my area in Tennyson Ward, and I do not believe that these are things that are being rolled out across the city, and I plan to give some examples.

So, Active Travel, 1.1, lighting and end of trip facilities on key sections of the bicycle network. Well, as we know, I raised an issue about the fact that three years ago the lighting on the Yeronga Bikeway was not complete. Now, the LORD MAYOR has again indicated that I’m being untruthful, which is not the case. The lights are out and they were damaged in 2014, LORD MAYOR, and I don’t know why this Council did not fix them straight afterwards.

I know what the officers tell me, that they weren’t given any money to fix them. That’s what they tell me and have told me for the last three years, and they don’t have enough money in their recurrent budget to fix them, so why is it we say we are doing this lighting along bikeways when I’ve not had a single new light in the 10 years that I’ve been here go in in Tennyson Ward. The lights that are broken in Annerley and in Yeronga aren’t being fixed. So, that’s my example about where this Council is saying one thing and doing another. Sadly, it’s a systemic problem throughout this document.

Here’s the best one, 2.1 Roads and Traffic Management Network—improve connectivity for pedestrians around schools and support Active School options and initiatives. I quote, ‘Improve the connectivity for pedestrians to schools through the installation of pedestrian refuges, splitter islands, kerb ramps.’ Now, year after year, the LNP Councillors in this place have voted down motions to do that, out the front of Graceville State School, out the front of Yeronga State School, and out the front of Corinda State School. Now, this year in the budget, the LORD MAYOR has handed over $64,000 for Corinda. Ten years of asking. We started on that project in 2008, with the parents of the P&C at that time, and all we wanted was a couple of refuges—10 years.

Now, it’s really interesting, isn’t it? It happens to be located, that school, in the most marginal LNP ward in the State, and of course the LORD MAYOR is now out there claiming that the State Member is the one that’s got this done. Now, Madam Chairman, every single person in my community knows exactly what’s happened with this, and I think the LORD MAYOR has been very entertaining. The amount of phone calls I got after that went out in my ward was well worth it, I have to say.

So, Madam Chairman, what I would say is, let’s remember, these are the people that vote against delivering refuges and splitter islands outside schools, yet they say that’s what they’re doing in here. Well, it’s not happening in Graceville, and guess what? You’ve got Buckley’s of winning Miller if you want to keep doing this kind of thing. So, Madam Chairman, Buckley’s. I mean, not that Scott Emerson would have helped anyway, because he’s a little bit lazy, but Madam Chairman, you’ve got Buckley’s with your candidate in trying to win over residents that I represent in Chelmer, Graceville and Sherwood because you won’t deliver basic infrastructure. Then you have the hide to go out and tell them that that’s what you are doing. It’s so untrue, Madam Chairman. But there’s more.


- 24 -

I mean, this goes on. I could not find in the whole document the word ‘drainage’. Not once in here does the word ‘drainage’ appear. There is a vague reference to stormwater, and I’m about to pull that out—hopefully that should be the next one. Yes, ‘implement projects demonstrating the multiple values of waterways and stormwater in contributing to the liveability of our urban environment.’ Now, that includes the Norman Creek Master Plan, partnering with the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, delivering a new environment centre in the northern suburbs, delivering water features in the city, and renewing the Brisbane Gardens initiative. Now, Madam Chairman, I am not entirely sure how any of those objectives contribute to stormwater management. Are we building a new drain? No. Are we looking at—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —fixing our waterways? No.

Chairman: —your time has expired.

Further speakers?

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to enter the debate on item A, the Contracts and Tendering report that we have before us today. Just on contract number 5, which is the Jindalee Boat Ramp upgrade—that was boat ramp, not boat rant upgrade, Madam Chairman.

This is an important project for my residents. The Jindalee Boat Ramp is probably the most heavily used boat ramp in the western suburbs with residents coming from the Pullenvale Ward, the Walter Taylor Ward, the Tennyson Ward, and even the Forest Lake Ward, Madam Chairman, to access the Brisbane River. It is a much loved facility. It was significantly damaged in the 2011 flood event, Madam Chairman, and this Council did an enormous amount of work to restore and repair the park as well as the boat ramp facilities that were there.

But, Madam Chairman, as is the nature with the Brisbane River and, indeed, all rivers like it across the world, the base of the river continues to move, and we have over the last six years, found that the riverbank continues to move, and now the toe of the boat ramp has a significant drop-off which is causing great problems, particularly at low tide, for people wishing to launch their boats. Madam Chairman, this project seeks to rectify that by placing some additional sections of concrete at the toe of the ramp to make it easier and safer for those people who are using the boat ramp.

Madam Chairman, it also addresses another issue that we have at the boat ramp, which is a significant amount of debris that is being collected in between the pontoon, the gangway, and the bank. As Councillors would know, the Brisbane River is actually the responsibility of the State Government but we have a number of access points into the river along various sections. Our pontoon has been damaged previously, as I said, in 2011, but the gangway has also been damaged, Madam Chairman.

Part of the work of this contract will actually resolve those issues, with a redesign of the gangway so that large branches and items that are coming down the river in high flow events—so when we get rainfall or we get flooding events—aren’t smashing into the gangway and causing damage to it. So I just want to commend the Council for getting on and restoring and repairing this important asset for the community out there in the western suburbs of Brisbane.


- 25 -


Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I also rise to speak in respect of item D, and there are two particular items that I’d like to raise, and that is firstly the kerbside collection, Madam Chairman, and secondly is the Visy contract. In regards to the kerbside collection, Councillors would well know how successful and important this program is to being able to deal with waste throughout our city, but importantly also, in looking at the opportunities for recycling.

All Councillors know that this program is very much embraced by Brisbane residents, and there are great opportunities for all households to be able to de-clutter, and importantly, Madam Chairman, by being able to do that, letting go of those items that can be recycled. So the contractor that we’ve appointed for this task is more than capable of being able to collect all of those items safely and being able to send them to our various stations for processing, Madam Chairman, in order to deal with all of those specific items that can be recycled back into the network in some way.

Importantly also, there are lots of items that people give up which do end up with our partner, Endeavour, and as part of that process, those items are able to be reused. So, as I always say, Madam Chairman, when we launched this program, one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.

Madam Chairman, in regards to the Visy contract, as all Councillors know, Visy is one of the largest providers of this service throughout Australia. I have been out to the facility myself on a couple of occasions now, and it is absolutely outstanding, the work that they do, in regards to recycling, Madam Chairman, and their ability to separate and then distribute those recycled items to various providers.

Visy play an integral role in our education program as well, and being sure that we can get that message out to Brisbane residents, not only the importance of separation and putting all those items in the yellow-top bin, but importantly also, Madam Chairman, the message of making sure that we don’t put soft plastics in that yellow top bin.

Visy do an extraordinary amount of work in being able to separate those soft plastics, but ultimately the work that they do makes an enormous difference to the footprint of our city, and also increases those opportunities to recycle cardboard and other such items back into the network. Thank you.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. Could I just ask that item A be taken seriatim for voting purposes before I start?

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor CASSIDY: I will talk on item A here and specifically contract 9. It is like Groundhog Day in here, Madam Chair. Every couple of months we come in and we see another contract for $44 million, this time to contract out jobs in this Council. It was $80 something million a few months ago. It was another $40 something million a few months before that, Madam Chair. It is little wonder why we’ve got


- 26 -

workers in this organisation who are revolting against the LORD MAYOR and his team, when you see 44 million reasons there on page 4, Madam Chair, as to why this Administration does not have the best interests of its workers at heart.

We see here in this contract is going to perpetuate the situation. We’ve got employees who have been on rolling contracts. The indoor workforce, we know of employees that have been on rolling short-term contracts for years, and years, and years. We heard today a Field Services group employee who has been on a short term contract for 14 years, Madam Chair, and that employee is desperate—desperate to become a permanent employee of this Council, who for the last 14 years has been on a short-term contract, Madam Chair. This is a trend which is under the leadership of this LORD MAYOR and Councillor ADAMS is going further and further along.

When the LORD MAYOR spoke earlier in response to one of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked, he could not bring himself to talk about job security. When he was union bashing and when he was having a go at the workers who are taking protected industrial action, he could not bring himself to talk about job security, because here on page 4 of this contracts document, there’s 44 million reasons why workers in this place have no faith in this LORD MAYOR. Shame on him, Madam Chair.

These people who we are keeping on short-term contracts; we are engaging labour hire contractors to do the core business of Council, and it is getting out of control in this Council, Madam Chair, under the leadership of this LORD MAYOR. That is a great shame. This organisation should be one—it should be one, and it used to be one that was an employer of choice. It was the shining light of local governments around this country. It was one of the best employers in Brisbane for people to work at, and that’s being eroded by the LORD MAYOR and his team, Madam Chair.

Months and months and months after each other we see these contracts here for tens of millions of dollars for contract workers and short-term labour hire workers, which is eroding Brisbane City Council’s reputation as an employer of choice. There is no wonder why one of the core claims that the employees have, both in the indoor and outdoor workforce in this EBA, is job security. The LORD MAYOR can’t even talk about it. He cannot even bring himself to talk about it, Madam Chair, which is a great shame. It just goes to show how far he has come from being the union man he used to claim to be.

Moving on to the Corporate Plan just briefly, I do agree with what Councillor JOHNSTON has said here in having very little faith in the Administration actually carrying out a whole lot of these aspirational goals, and apart from slashing a whole heap of the targets which they used to set themselves, because they couldn’t reach them. They get rid of the targets altogether and have motherhood statements, of which we have very little faith in them actually reaching as well.

Looking at one prime example on page 10 in Active Transport, talking about our bike paths and shared paths around Brisbane; I know Councillor MATIC was out in my ward last week, I think, looking at one of the best used shared paths there along the Brighton foreshore, and he gave a commitment that he was going to go to the LORD MAYOR, and talk to the LORD MAYOR about allocating funding for the Brighton Foreshore upgrade. It says here in point 3: ‘maintain safe and functional footpaths and bikeway networks.’ Point 4: ‘deliver a range of initiatives such as cycling, Brisbane Active Transport, to enable the Brisbane community to actively travel more easily and more often’.


- 27 -

Other points through there talk about providing safe pathways for people there, Madam Chair. What everybody knows about the Brighton foreshore is that, under this LORD MAYOR and his predecessor, when that funding was pulled by Councillor MATIC as the relevant Chair at the time—when that funding was pulled from the Brighton foreshore upgrade project—since that time in 2011-12, it has deteriorated significantly. It is no longer a safe shared path down there, Madam Chair.

An elderly woman was struck by a cyclist on there just recently. She suffered a broken arm, lacerations to her face and she had a black eye. She came into my office; she was very distressed about it. Didn’t happen to get the details of that person, unfortunately, so she’s got no recourse but she’s afraid to even go down the Brighton Foreshore anymore, Madam Chair, which is probably the single biggest traffic area in terms of a shared pathway in my ward.

We can’t even get any money to make it safe—not to make it pretty, not to make it more attractive to get more people there, just to make it safe for the people that do use it there, Madam Chair. So we have very, very little faith in this Administration carrying out even their aspirational goals, when they can’t even make the single biggest, single best-used shared pathway in the Deagon Ward safe for both pedestrians and cyclists.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on all items before us today in E&C. I will start not necessarily in order—I’ll start quickly with the Audit Committee report, and yes, I think Councillor CUMMING even indicated he is saying the same thing that he says every single time, but I haven’t actually spoken on the Audit report for quite a while, and quite happy just to remind everybody again that this is a Council that doesn’t hide what’s happening in Audit Risk Committee, and the only Council Administration that has brought Committee report meetings to this place as well. If we just want to quietly compare that to the State Parliament, let’s ask how they’re going with the review of the youth detention, the death on child safety department children, the bus safety review that was due in March. At least we are bringing—

Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Councillor ADAMS: —the reports to the Council.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Relevance.

Chairman: I don’t uphold your point of order, Councillor STRUNK. Please continue—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Councillor OWEN. The commitment to transparency was the relevance to what this Council was standing here doing.



- 28 -


Councillor ADAMS: As you saw here—


Chairman: Order! Order! You're making so much noise, I can’t even hear Councillor ADAMS, and she’s got her microphone on. So please—you have spoken without all these massive interjections, afford other people the same courtesy.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and there was a question about a clarification of what the Mandate Fraud Project is. That is the project that is being run by the Council officers to make sure that the standard operating procedures are brought up to date, so that we don’t have an incident like we had with the fraud issue with our cheques in August last year. That project is being run by Council officers, and the Council officer who reported to the Committee isn’t acting in that position at the moment, but the details of that will not be coming public to Chambers because we don’t need to hand out the handbook of how for it to happen again.

Going to the Corporate Plan next, I think, there was a few questions around the Corporate Plan. First, Councillor CUMMING, please, I’d like to direct you to page 18, where you’ve said that things aren’t listed. Look, I think the whole of Council knows, we did sit here for many, many days, that we have restructured the budget, and as such we have restructured the Corporate Plan, and it needs to update and reflect these changes as well.

So, what we see in the Corporate Plan is our medium-term goals and our long-term goals that we are going to deliver. There doesn’t need to be percentages of this is how much, what we are looking at is the goals that are going to be delivered. Councillor CUMMING’s complaint was that he couldn’t find anything. It’s all been dropped from what used to be in the Corporate Plan. His examples were the Norman Creek Taskforce, the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary and the roses in New Farm Park. Page 18—you found them? Yes, thank you.

So, page 18, partnering with Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, delivering a new environment centre, delivering two water features, and delivering Renewing Great Brisbane Gardens. There isn’t any KPIs or percentages because we are just going to do them. That’s how this Administration works, just deliver it.


Councillor ADAMS: They are going to be beautiful roses, and they are going to be—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor ADAMS: —beautiful colours, and there are going to be some perfume and not perfume, and they’re all going to be resilient for our subtropical lifestyle as well.


Councillor ADAMS: I’ll take Councillor BOURKE’s interjection—


- 29 -

Chairman: Order!

Councillor ADAMS: —that Councillor CUMMING can stop to smell them whenever he likes. I would also like to point out to the Councillor for Tennyson, again just because it’s not actually written in here that there will be drainage that is actually delivered in the Tennyson Ward, that does not mean that there won’t be drainage delivered across the city where it is most appropriate.

Councillor JOHNSTON listed a whole lot of things—again, she actually identified to Councillor CUMMING where the Norman Creek Taskforce was, where Lone Pine was, and where the roses were—listing that that proves that there’s no drainage. Well, no, actually, there isn’t any drainage listed under Sustainable and Resilient Communities. That would be under Sustainable Water Management where it clearly says on page 22, ‘we will provide new infrastructure as necessary to support the growth and liveability of the city’. That is in response to resilience to flooding.

We will assess flood mitigation infrastructure on a whole-of-catchment basis, and as a part of the suite of flood risk management tools. This is not about, ‘I just want mine’. This is about the whole of the city and using the whole flood catchment.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Interesting, because she read the list straight out of the Sustainable and Resilient Community, and said there was no drainage, but we’ll hear how that works.

The last was about the tendering, and the Contracts and Tendering. First of all, I do have to actually respond to the Councillor for Deagon’s trade and temporary labour hire. These labour hire agencies are candidates for short-term engagements. These are for service providers engaged when suitable internal resources are not available to meet operational requirements. We have been doing this in Council for years.

In 2002, for example, Council had a panel for the provision of professional accounting and finance labour hire services, and did not even disclose the panel cost. In 1999 they had a panel agreement provision of information technology personnel for labour hire, with seven labour hire agencies. Who was in charge then? Not us. This is something that has been going on for years in this place.


Councillor ADAMS: We have a wide variety. I’ll take Councillor SUTTON’s interjection. ‘Why is this not permanent employees?’ Because, as I said, these are engaged when suitable internal resources are not available. It is outlandish that they think it is responsible financial management to put somebody on that you need for a few weeks’ work and just keep them on forever. But then again, let’s look at what—



- 30 -

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON, you have a point of order.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes. I’d like to ask Councillor ADAMS whether or not $44 million—

Chairman: No, Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor SUTTON: —worth of temporary work, $44 million worth of temporary work—

Chairman: Enough!

Councillor SUTTON: —short-term work—

Chairman: Enough!

The level of boisterousness tonight is absolutely astounding. This is the first Council meeting back, and I would have thought after a break you would have at least settled down a little bit. Now, you all know the rules of this place. Under the Meetings Local Law you do not get up and just ask a question because you feel like it. You need to come through the Chair and ask if another Councillor will take a question.

Councillor SUTTON, because you haven’t done it properly, I am not upholding your point of order. Don’t do it again, and when I speak or call this Chamber to order, you all need to obey the Meetings Local Law and sit down and cease talking immediately.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, the one we have here for the short-term engagements to Council, which have been done for many, many years, is actually an extension to a tender because, as it says there, it was without seeking competitive tenders. It was an extension because we realise at the moment that we are going through a process of EBA 9, and with respect to the discussions we are having in EBA 9, we extended this process without going out to tender so we could get all of that sorted and go through the negotiations to allow sufficient time to go through to see what we would need in the future.

This is something that has happened in Council for years. Although it may sound like a lot of money, when you annualise these contracts over five years, it works out to be about 2.6% of our annual employee costs—2.6% of our annual employees’ costs—when we don’t have the suitable officers to be able to do the work that we need, and we’ve been to the internal resources. I don’t know what they’re suggesting on the other side. We just don’t do the work, perhaps? Sorry, we don’t have the people to roster on, we just don’t do the work? That is outrageous.

I will go to the other tenders there were some specific questions about in particular. I’m not quite sure of time. I will talk about the cleaning services for park facilities. It was mentioned in Committee this morning. This is a park contract for a number of facilities that are reserved for social enterprise organisations. They are listed in category B, along with the successful tenderers. They make exceptions around which toilets and barbeque facilities are best for our social enterprises, where they are. They’re nice and close together.


- 31 -

We did receive no tenders awarded for the south and west region. Therefore, this has been awarded to Retro Clean who were the successful tenderer for the unreserved facilities. So, the prices quoted there are actual sample prices as a total value of the panel arrangements.

Lastly, the suggestion that we are cutting tenders and nobody is seeing them in here, and 30% less tenderers that are coming to Council. Well, the reality is that we have a lot of tenderers, a lot of tenders that are very, very specific, that have a very specific and unique requirement. For example, for kerbside recovery, the vehicle lease costs are a very large part of the item pickup, and should we require kerbside for additional tasks, such as disaster recovery or illegal dumping, Kerbside, who we’re going with, is 44% cheaper in their pricing. So we contracted with the existing supplier because that is absolutely in the best interests of the ratepayer.

When we’re looking at Visy Paper Pty Ltd for recycled material, for example, the independent Council officers determined that they are actually the only fully integrated operator capable to take all of Council’s recycled material volumes, and would likely win the tender process anyway. So guess what we did; we saved the costs of the tender process because there was only one person that could actually deliver it for us, and we went to Visy Paper.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! That comment was imputing motive. Now, stop calling out across the Chamber.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: We’ll get an estimated $9.96 million back in revenue over the life of that agreement with Visy, and with the prices commodities and the currency fluctuations, makes the procuring of a smaller supplier who does not have the market power of Visy very, very risky. What I’m hearing from those on that side is that it’s all about us hiding what we’re doing. We’re not hiding what we’re doing, we are doing the very best for the ratepayers of Brisbane and making sure that they are getting value for money in every single aspect of the procurement that we do in Council. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor McLACHLAN.


Chairman: Oh, sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON, you had a misrepresentation.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. In my speech earlier today, I said the word ‘drainage’ is not mentioned in the Corporate Plan, and Madam Chairman, that is actually the case. I’ve looked at the section Councillor ADAMS referred to at 22, and again, it does not mention the word ‘stormwater drainage’ in this report at all.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.


- 32 -

I rise to speak on item D, the contracts accepted by delegates for June. To make the point which Councillor ADAMS just made as well, but I want to make this point as well and respond to the Councillor for Tennyson Ward, who stood here and made the outrageous claim that, under these contracts, there’d be no toilet cleaning in south and west, and the outrageous claim—the outrageous claim that there’d be no toilet cleaning in the south and west regions of our city. Now, what that, Madam Chairman, cannot be—




Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: The claim made by Councillor JOHNSTON was that, within these contracts there was no evidence of any contracts for toilet cleaning in the south and west of our city. Now, Councillor ADAMS has just made the point very strongly which proves that the Councillor for Tennyson Ward is incapable of reading these documents, because it says it very, very clearly. Councillor ADAMS said it, I’ll reinforce it to make the point very clearly.

Contract number 510613, Cleaning Services for Park Facilities: ‘A. Cleaning Services for Park Facilities (Unreserved Facilities) - Preferred Supplier Arrangement *’. ‘*’ includes the public toilet facilities in the south and west regions for which no offers were received from social enterprise organisations. So, Councillor JOHNSTON, why don’t you read these documents? You stand up here time, and time again, and say that there’s evidence that there’s a failure to provide basic services in your ward. Here is the evidence that shows that the basic services are being provided.

Is there a preference for social enterprise organisations getting work across our city? Yes, there is. Are there procurement arrangements that allow social enterprise organisations to get work for the cleaning of these facilities? Yes, there is. But if they don’t put in the tenders for that work, guess what; there’s the default position to the contractor as outlined here at 15, page 11, the cleaning services of the park facilities awarded to Jampak Pty Ltd, as trustee for Jampak Trust, trading as Retro Clean. Here in black and white, plain and simple, and please, the Councillor for Tennyson Ward, Councillor JOHNSTON, read these documents before you stand up here and make these outrageous assertions.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, earlier when I spoke on the contract matter regarding the toilets, I made the point that there were no tenders for toilets in south and west region, which is in black and white in the report. I then questioned, Madam Chairman, what would happen with respect to the cleaning of the toilets, and I am extremely pleased that both Councillor ADAMS and Councillor McLACHLAN have sought to clarify that matter.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Claim to be misrepresented, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN, you have a misrepresentation.


- 33 -

Councillor McLACHLAN: Yes. Councillor JOHNSTON has just misrepresented me. I made the point very strongly that this was written here in the report, and she—Councillor JOHNSTON—should have been aware of it.

Chairman: Further speakers?




Chairman: What is your misrepresentation?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, my misrepresentation is that Councillor McLACHLAN has again said something that is fundamentally untrue, and that I did not say in my speech. I make the point again that the tendering reports say clearly that no tenders were received, and I sought information about how the matter was going to be addressed. As I said, I appreciate—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —that a reply was provided.

Chairman: —stop! Stop!


Chairman: Order! I think we have just about had enough of toing-and-froing on some minor semantics. Councillor JOHNSTON, you’d already made your position clear; you do not need to continue and debate. That is not what misrepresentation is about.

Further speakers?

Councillor TOOMEY.

Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to speak on the E&C report, specifically item D, pertaining to the replacement Tennis Avenue footbridge in Ashgrove. Madam Chairman, this bridge is a significant connector for the city to The Gap. It’s a 30-metre bridge that spans Enoggera Creek. It is about 1.2 metres wide. There is some mythology around its construction. Some of the residents say it was built from leftover components from the William Jolly Bridge. Others say it was built after a flood in 1950. So the history of the bridge, we’re not quite sure on.

That said, though, Madam Chairman, many of the residents in the area are looking forward to the replacement of the bridge. Some plans have been shared with the residents for feedback, and specifically the Habitat Brisbane groups for Tennis Avenue are quite excited by the replacement of the bridge because along with the bridge replacement comes some creek rehabilitation on both sides of the creek.

Also, the bridge is going to facilitate movement for students to St Ambrose, Madam Chairman; St Ambrose being the closest school to the bridge, but it also connects Ashgrove to Newmarket. Also a connector that goes underneath


- 34 -

Kelvin Grove Road feeds to that bridge, which helps the students avoid crossing Kelvin Grove Road.

Madam Chairman, as part of the construction, the bridge is being realigned. So rather than being perpendicular to the footpaths or the running paths on both sides of the creek, it’s actually shifting alignment, which will make movement for runners and cyclists a little bit more smoother crossing the bridge, which they’re quite looking forward to. Obviously along with the bridge replacement, there are some trees that are going to be removed, and with that, there will be some offsets that will be planted in the area. The habitat group that I work very, very closely with are looking forward to the new introduction of some new trees.

Madam Chairman, the old bridge itself is basically a steel, concrete and timber structure. It’s quite old obviously. We couldn’t quite date it but it’s one of those bridges that essentially gives some character to the area that some residents will miss. However, the majority of them, and many of them, actually, are really looking forward to having a much wider bridge where they can have runners and cyclists pass each other quite freely. So I’d encourage the Chamber to throw some support behind the tendering documents this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair.


LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I have listened with interest to what the Opposition Councillors have said in relation to this report and I can’t help but smile under my breath at their attacks around the issues pertaining to labour hire. Madam Chairman, they have some pretty short memories of their own history. As I recall, there was a guy who was actually Lord Mayor of this city by the name of Jim Soorley. Thirteen years he was here as Lord Mayor. Now, wasn’t he a labour hire consultant before he arrived in this place? Doesn’t the name Elite Consulting ring a bell with people, along with other consulting hire companies that he was engaged with? Madam Chairman, the fact of the matter is that is exactly what he did before he came here. Councillor ADAMS, there was no coincidence with some of the things that you read out pertaining to that particular era around those years during which Councillor Soorley was the Lord Mayor here because he not only was a believer in an appropriate use of contract hire, he came from the field. He came from the field.

So, Madam Chairman, there will always in my view be a need for contract hire. The question is the quantum. I don’t know if what I’m hearing here today from the Labor Party is that there should be absolutely no use of labour hire. I think that’s what I’m hearing. They certainly haven’t today, given the opportunity in this debate, indicated what they think would be a reasonable level of contract hire within the scope of the work that we have.

The reality is that not all jobs in this place last forever. Some of those jobs, Madam Chairman, are of a short-term nature and they are there for a particular purpose. Short of that, we could do what the current Queensland Government appears to be doing, which is just simply adding and adding and adding to the labour tally. I did some calculations the other day. You could build a Legacy Way every year for the extra costs associated with the number of new employees that have been put on in the Queensland Government in the last couple of years. That’s a lot of infrastructure. That is a lot of infrastructure that can be built.


- 35 -


Chairman: Order! Order!

LORD MAYOR: You’ll have a chance—


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! I am not going to continue to ask you to stop interjecting across the Chamber. You are consistently calling out. I hereby caution you that if you continue to interject in the manner that you have today, you will be formally warned. I ask all Councillors to just settle down a bit, again.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Councillor SUTTON will have her chance in General Business if she wishes to take it up, Madam Chairman. I am just saying it’s a question of choice. It’s a question of choice. Madam Chairman, what we have elected to do, we make no apologies for the fact. We have elected in this place to put as much money as we possibly can in terms of the revenues that we collect into infrastructure, and into building a strong city economy with a good leisure and lifestyle outlook. That’s what we’re about. That’s our focus of what we’re on about.

So, Madam Chairman, we’re saying this, there is a need in our view always to have some contract labour hire. Now, if the debate is around the quantum, let that debate happen, but all I’ve heard today is that somehow I’m—through contract labour hire—I’m somehow anti-worker, which I’m not. The debate has been at such a low level that they have not provided any view of the world themselves as to what they would do, how they would handle it, on what basis would they have labour hire, on what basis that we are currently having labour hire, that we shouldn’t have that labour hire. That would have been a more sensible and a more fulsome debate given the opportunity that we have here in this Chamber.

I never deny the opportunities for debate but I just wish sometimes that debate would have a bit more grunt to it, Madam Chairman, in terms of the offer that has been put on the table. Oppositions are paid too, and in my view they’re paid to give their view of the world, in terms of what they would do rather than just simply criticising for its own sake.

So, Madam Chairman, we will continue to certainly have contract hire as demonstrated through the Stores Board report today, or the Contracts and Tendering report. I should say, Madam Chairman, that will be at a level where we believe that it ought to be. If there is an option, however, for a fulltime permanent employed position, that is always our first option—always our first option. But, Madam Chairman, it is not in the ratepayers’ interest to do that in every case.

It is of no value in putting on a permanent position then to see that particular project or task run out. Then you’ve got to go through the process of either redundancy or voluntary redundancy or whatever; it’s not the first choice of the way to do things. So that is why we have it structured the way we do, and why we have the contract before us today.

Chairman: I will now put item A. Councillor CUMMING, did you want to excuse yourself?



- 36 -

Councillor Peter Cumming, having previously declared an interest in Clause A, retired from the meeting room and associated public places while voting took place on that clause

Chairman: I will now put item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 21 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 5 - Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON and Jonathan SRI.

Chairman: I will now put items B, C and D.

Clauses B, C and D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B, C and D of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

The report read as follows

A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2017109/695/586/2-04

4/2017-181. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.


- 37 -

2. Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) provide that Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.

3. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.

4. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; and (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).

5. The Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

6. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTES THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2017, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A


- 38 -

Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for May 2017Contract Number/Contract Purpose/Successful Tenderer/Comparative Tender Price/Value for Money Index (VFM)

Achieved

Nature of Arrangement/

Estimated Maximum

Expenditure

Unsuccessful Tenderers/VFM achieved Comparative Tender Price/s

Delegate/Approval Date/Start Date/Term

BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE1. Contract No: not applicable (N/A)

Streetscape Works at Fish Lane, South Brisbane

Aria Property Group Pty Ltd – $245,986

Lump sum

$245,986

Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders from industry in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A DelegateCEOApproved18.05.17Start22.05.17TermSix weeks

2. Contract No: 120031

Payment Card Industry Compliant Car Park Management System including Hardware, Software, Installation and Maintenance

TMA Tech Pty Ltd – $450,000

Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)Schedule of rates

$450,000(over the potential

maximum period of five years)

This contract is entered into under section 2.4(c) Sole or Select Sourcing of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. The marketplace in relation to these goods/services is restricted by statement of licence or third party ownership of an asset.

N/A DelegateCPOApproved09.05.17Start31.05.17TermTwo years with an option to extend for up to three additional years


In Situ Stabilisation Program 2016-17

Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd – $249,879Achieved the highest VFM of 27.61

Schedule of rates

$249,879

Downer EDI Works Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 18.50

$370,359 DelegateCPOApproved22.05.17Start22.05.17TermOne week


Fabrication and Delivery of a Bikeway Bridge at Steege Street, Ashgrove

Sun Engineering Pty Ltd – $314,850Achieved VFM of 25.09

Lump sum

$314,850

Non-conforming offer

Wagners CFT Manufacturing Pty Ltd N/A

DelegateCPOApproved19.05.17Start26.05.17Term16 weeks


Jindalee Boat Ramp Upgrade

Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd trading as Australian Marine and Civil – $339,478Achieved VFM of 21.77

Lump sum

$339,478

No other offers were received. N/A DelegateCPOApproved19.05.17Start26.06.17Term12 weeks


Upper Kedron Reserve Closed Landfill – Gas Wall Construction

Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd – $1,584,333Achieved the highest VFM of 36.6

Lump sum

$1,584,333

Shortlisted offers not recommended

Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & CivilAchieved VFM of 33.7

Doval Constructions (Qld) Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 33.1

Doval Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (alternative offer)Achieved VFM of 31.1

Offers not shortlisted

Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & Civil (alternative offer)

$1,990,090

$1,766,643

$1,766,643

$2,334,980



- 39 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



Achieved VFM of 28.7

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd (option 2 – alternative pricing structure)Achieved VFM of 28.6

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd (option 1 – conforming as per methodology)Achieved VFM of 24.4

Non-conforming offers

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd (option 3 – alternative pricing structure and materials)

Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd

$2,328,111*

$2,725,462

N/A

N/A

*Price normalised to reflect risk transfer to Council for alternative pricing structure.


Smoother Suburban Streets – External Asphalt Resurfacing Package 4

Stanley Macadam Pty Ltd – $4,954,431Achieved the highest VFM of 13.12

Schedule of rates

$4,954,431

RPQ Asphalt Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 4.78

Downer EDI Works Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 4.69

$7,538,405

$6,823,813

DelegateCEOApproved09.05.17Start10.05.17TermNine weeks


Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement Program – Construction Package 15

Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd – $668,067Achieved VFM of 115

Lump sum

$668,067

No other offers were received. N/A DelegateCPOApproved25.05.17Start30.05.17TermNine weeks

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICESNilTRANSPORT FOR BRISBANENilCITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITYNilCITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCENilORGANISATIONAL SERVICES9. Contract No: 110023

Administration and Trades Temporary Labour Hire

RNTT Pty Ltd trading as Rexco People (Administration and Trades Categories)

Programmed Integrated Workforce Limited (Administration and Trades Categories)

DFP Recruitment Services Pty Ltd

CPA (Panel Arrangement)

Schedule of rates

$44,000,000(over the potential

maximum period of 14 months)

Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders from industry in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A DelegateE&CApproved15.05.17Start01.06.17Term14 months


- 40 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



(Administration Category only)


Hygiene Services including Sharps Collection and Disposal

Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd trading as Initial Hygiene – $254,875Achieved the highest VFM of 33.60

CPA (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)

Schedule of rates



Alsco Pty Ltd trading as Fresh & CleanAchieved VFM of 21.09

Flick Anticimex Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 10.59

$298,199

$455,365

DelegateCPOApproved:11.05.17Start:07.06.17Term:Up to five years.


Riverwalk Pontoon Disposal

GCE Contractors Pty Ltd – $368,455*Achieved the highest VFM of 22.26

*Price includes demolition and disposal via recycling of all pontoons and parts from the site.

Lump sum

$368,455

Enviro Site Demolition Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 19.23

$416,000 DelegateCPOApproved:04.05.17Start:11.05.17Term:16 weeks


Renewal of the 2017-18 Corporate Insurance Program

Insurance Program (31 May 2017 – 31 May 2018)- Industrial Special Risk (Property)

Primary Tier- AIG Insurance Limited- AXA Insurance- Generali First Tier- HDI Global

- Fine Arts Insurance – XL Catlin Insurance- Umbrella CBIC Combined General Liability Insurance –

AAI trading as Vero Insurance- Buskers and Uninsured Performers Liability –

Sportscover Syndicate 3334 at Lloyds Underwriters Business Travel and Lord Mayor and Councillors Personal Accident – AIG Insurance

- Group Personal Accident (bus drivers) – AIG Insurance Group Personal Accident (volunteers) – AIG Insurance

- Ferry Operations Marine Hull – Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

- Ferry Operations Marina Operators Liability – Insurance Limited

- Ferry Operations Marine Liability – Singapore Shipowners Mutual

- Recreational Pontoons – Marine Liability – Singapore Shipowners Mutual

City of Brisbane Investment Corporation Combined Liability (31 May 2017 – 31 May 2018)- AAI trading as Vero Insurance

Workers Compensation Excess of Loss (30 June 2017 – 30 June 2018)- QBE Insurance

Local Government Mutual Queensland Membership

$3,855,786

N/A, insurance contracts are negotiated on Council’s behalf by Council’s Insurance Broker, Marsh Pty Ltd.

N/A DelegateCPOApproved:30.05.17Start:01.06.17Term:One year


- 41 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



(30 June 2017 – 30 June 2018)- Local Government Mutual Queensland

ADOPTED

B REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 8 JUNE 2017109/695/586/6


8. Section 201 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that as soon as practicable after a meeting of the Audit Committee (the Committee), Council must be given a written report about the matters reviewed at the meeting and the Committee’s recommendations about the matters.

9. The Chief Executive Officer is to present the report mentioned in section 201(1)(c) at the next meeting of Council.


11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTES THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 8 JUNE 2017, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A (submitted on file).

ADOPTED

C CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21 – 2017 UPDATE103/590/785/9

6/2017-1812. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

13. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires Council to prepare a corporate plan (the plan). The plan is Council’s principal medium-term planning document. It outlines Council’s medium-term goals and objectives and what Council will do to deliver on those goals and objectives to work towards achievement of the Brisbane Vision 2031.

14. Council’s programs were restructured in 2017. These changes include renaming, renumbering and restructuring of programs and outcomes, rewording of descriptions and realignment of projects and core services.

15. The 2017 update of the plan ensures that it aligns with the programs in the Council Annual Plan and Budget 2017-18. Where relevant, programs and outcomes have been reworded, renumbered and restructured in the plan. The key medium-term objectives and actions from Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 – 2017 Update have been reassigned to reflect the updated program structure.

16. As required by the Queensland Plan Act 2014, Council had regard to The Queensland Plan


- 42 -

when preparing the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 – 2017 Update.

17. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

18. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21 ‒ 2017 UPDATE

As:

(i) section 157 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 permits Council to amend the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 (corporate plan) by resolution at any time

(ii) Council has prepared an updated (amended) draft corporate plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 and the Queensland Plan Act 2014,

then Council:

(i) resolves to adopt the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 – 2017 Update as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file).

ADOPTED

D CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR JUNE 2017109/695/586/2-04


20. Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) provide that Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.

21. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.

22. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; and (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to


- 43 -

inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).


24. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTES THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR JUNE 2017, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A


- 44 -

Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for June 2017Contract Number/Contract Purpose/Successful Tenderer/ Comparative Tender Price/Value for Money Index (VFM)

Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE1. Contract No: not applicable (N/A)

Telegraph Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 2 – Relocation of Optus Assets along Telegraph Road and Lemke Road, Bracken Ridge

Optus Networks Pty Limited – $240,061

Lump sum

$240,061

This contract is entered into under section 2.4(c) Sole or Select Sourcing of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010. The marketplace in relation to these goods/services is restricted by statement of licence or third-party ownership of an asset.

N/A DelegateCPOApproved08.06.17Start12.06.17Term16 weeks


Tennis Avenue Footbridge Replacement

Pensar Civil Pty Ltd – $1,486,969Achieved the highest VFM of 52

Schedule of rates

$1,486,969


Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & CivilAchieved VFM of 44

Offers not recommended

Moggill Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 35

Epoca Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 22

$1,695,050

$1,973,873

$1,948,882



Toowong Bus Depot Water Mains Relocation – Engagement of Principal Contractor

Roman Contractors Pty Ltd – $235,604Achieved the highest VFM of 30.42

Lump sum

$235,604

AWD Civil Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 15.43

$473,000 DelegateCPOApproved29.06.17Start03.07.17TermFive weeks


Colmslie State Emergency Services Training Facility Upgrade – Separable Portions 1 and 2 (SP1 and SP2)

Box & Co Pty Ltd – $1,639,265*Achieved the highest VFM of 43.92

*Price is the combined price for SP1 and SP2 plus additional bushfire mitigation costs.

Lump sum

$1,639,265*


A Dart & CoAchieved VFM of 39.75

KANE Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 38.09

Offers not shortlisted

J.MAC Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 33.83

Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 30.98

$1,673,000*

$1,759,103*

$1,980,589*

$1,853,138*

Delegate:CPOApproved:25.05.17Start:20.06.17Term:17 weeks total with SP1 to be completed within 11 weeks


Catalina Riverwalk Remediation at Macquarie Street, Teneriffe

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd – $3,361,439*Achieved the highest VFM of 20.2

*Price is the combined price for all four separable portions of this project.# The price provided by Waterway Constructions Pty Ltd for Separable Portions 3 and 4 has been normalised for the provision of stainless steel balustrades.

Lump sum

$3,361,439*

Waterway Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 17.2

McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 15.4

$4,441,265* #

$5,182,497*

DelegateCEOApproved06.06.17Start28.06.17Term22 weeks


Mount Coot-tha Lookout Embankment Remediation

Schedule of rates

$217,745

Crosana Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Michael Reid Family Trust trading as Crosana Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 2,904

$268,620 DelegateCPOApproved01.06.17


- 45 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd trading as Australian Marine & Civil – $217,745Achieved the highest VFM of 3,398

Start02.06.17TermSix weeks


Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge at the Albany Creek Bikeway, Darien Street, Bridgeman Downs

Pensar Civil Pty Ltd – $278,289Achieved the highest VFM of 28.93

Lump sum

$278,289

Shortlisted to Round 2 negotiations but not recommended

BMD Urban Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 27.72

Shortlisted to Round 1 negotiations but not recommended

CPM Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 26.35

Offers not shortlisted and not recommended

Ark Construction Group Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 24.01

Epoca Construction Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 23.52

$270,000

$293,499

$304,086

$292,719

DelegateCPOApproved:31.05.17Start:05.06.17Term:Seven weeks


Wynnum Aquatic Playground

M & N Enterprises Pty Ltd trading as Playscape Creations – $747,200Achieved the highest VFM of 116.43

Lump sum

$747,200

Playrope Pty Ltd as agent for Parigon Pty Ltd as Trustee for Playrope Trading Trust and Wilson Investment (Vic) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Wilson Family TrustAchieved VFM of 78.26

$843,305 DelegateCPOApproved29.06.17Start30.06.17Term22 weeks


Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse – Wakefield Park

Turf Irrigation Services – $408,543Achieved the highest VFM of 157.3

Lump sum

$408,543

Offers not recommended

Pensar Utilities Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 79.1

Optimal Stormwater Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 48.8


Project Pumps & IrrigationOptimal Stormwater Pty Ltd (alternative offer)

$711,301

$512,000

N/AN/A


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICESNilTRANSPORT FOR BRISBANENilCITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY10. Contract No: 510666

Artforce Public Art Project

Urban Smart Projects Pty Ltd – $98,000Achieved the highest VFM of 73

Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)Schedule of rates

$480,000(over the potential

maximum period of four years)


Catherine Jackson trading as ArtfullyAchieved VFM of 69

Offers not shortlisted or recommended

Hands on Art Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 62

Human Ventures LimitedAchieved VFM of 51

$108,000

$72,513

$106,600

DelegateCPOApproved01.06.17Start01.07.17TermThree years with an option to extend for one additional year


- 46 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



Flying Arts Alliance Inc.Achieved VFM of 49

Engage Arts Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 41

$140,000

$123,130

CITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCENilORGANISATIONAL SERVICES11. Contract No: QGCPO835-10

Probity Auditing Services

Argus Probity Auditors and Advisors Pty LtdBDO (Qld) Pty LtdCharles Kendall Australia (formerly Project Procure Pty Ltd)Local Buy Pty LtdManagement Options Pty LtdO'Connor Marsden and Associates Pty LtdOrigin Securities Pty LtdPriceWaterHouseCoopersQprocurement Pty LtdRBG LawyersTressCox LawyersUHY Haines Norton

Queensland Government Standing Offer ArrangementSchedule of rates

$210,000

This contract is exempt from the quoting and tendering requirement in accordance with section 2.5(b)(i) - (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A DelegateCPOApproved15.06.17Start01.07.17TermUntil 15.10.17 with an option to extend until 31.12.18


Kerbside Large Item Collection Services

Curbside Services Pty Ltd



maximum period of four years)

Contract was entered into without seeking tenders from the market in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A DelegateE&CApproved05.12.16Start01.07.18TermThree years with an option to extend for one additional year


Provision of a Microsoft Enterprise Licence Agreement

Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) under Queensland Government Standing Offer Arrangement (SOA) ICTSS.13.05 for the Provision of Microsoft Products including Online Services

Insight Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd Provision of Microsoft Products and Associated Licensing Solution Partner (LSP) Services, under Queensland Government SOA ICTSS.13.08, as the preferred LSP

Lump sum and schedule of rates

$15,000,000

Contract was entered into without seeking competitive tenders from industry in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A DelegateE&CApproved26.06.17Start01.07.18TermThree years for the EA with Microsoft Operations Pte Ltd and 18 months for the LSP with Insight Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd


Recyclable Materials Recovery Services

Visy Paper Pty Ltd, trading as Visy Recycling

CPA (Strategic Partnering Agreement)

$9,960,000(estimated revenue to Council over the potential maximum

Contract was entered into without seeking tenders from the market in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010, following direct negotiations as per the SCP which was approved by E&C on 23 November 2015.

N/A DelegateE&CApproved05.06.17Start01.07.18TermFour years


- 47 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



period of six years) with an option to extend for up to two additional years


- 48 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Cleaning Services for Park Facilities

A. Cleaning Services for Park Facilities (Unreserved Facilities) – Preferred Supplier Arrangement*

Jampak Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jampak Trust trading as Retro Clean* – $1,201,524Achieved the highest VFM of 63*includes the public toilet facilities in the south and west regions for which no offers were received from Social Enterprise Organisations.

B. Cleaning Services for Park Facilities (Reserved Facilities for Social Enterprise Organisations) – Panel Arrangement

BARBECUES – NORTH REGION yourtown – $8,736Achieved the highest VFM of 72

Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group Incorporated trading as Seed Parks and Property – $9,194Achieved VFM of 62

The Trustee for Diverciti Enterprises Trust trading as Diverciti Services – $10,816Achieved VFM of 44

Endeavour Foundation – $13,062Achieved VFM of 40

BARBECUES – SOUTH REGION

yourtown – $24,934Achieved the highest VFM of 25 Endeavour Foundation – $35,907Achieved VFM of 14

BARBECUES – EAST REGION

yourtown – $21,840Achieved the highest VFM of 29



CPA (Preferred Supplier and Panel Arrangements)



A. Cleaning Services for Park Facilities (Unreserved Facilities) – Preferred Supplier Arrangement*

Harvent Pty Ltd trading as Total Building Maintenance – QueenslandAchieved VFM of 22

Brisbane Cleaning and Maintenance Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 22

Advanced National Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 19

RJ Kachel Cleaning Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 17

APS Cleaning Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 10

B. Cleaning Services for Park Facilities (Reserved Facilities for Social Enterprise Organisations) – Panel Arrangement

All Social Enterprise Organisations that submitted an offer have been included in the CPA. Initial allocation of work has been based on the VFM achieved.

$2,677,796

$1,505,178

$2,912,553

$2,684,916

$1,769,893

DelegateCEOApproved20.06.17Start01.07.17TermThree years with an option to extend for up to two additional years


- 49 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



BARBECUES – WEST REGION



BARBECUES – CENTRAL REGION




PUBLIC TOILETS – NORTH REGION

Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group Incorporated trading as Seed Parks and Property – $53,966Achieved the highest VFM of 11


PUBLIC TOILETS – EAST REGION


PUBLIC TOILETS – CENTRAL REGION


PUBLIC TOILETS – SOUTH REGIONNo offer received

PUBLIC TOILETS – WEST REGIONNo offer received16. Contract No: 510627

ICT Security Review Services

Alcorn Security Group Pty Ltd – $5,956,037*Achieved the highest VFM of 14*

*Final tendered price increased following negotiation round due to further normalisation of the basket of services to include additional reporting and audit services. The three tenderers shortlisted for negotiations achieved the highest VFMs and lowest prices prior to the final negotiation round.




Offers shortlisted for negotiations but not recommended

Data#3 Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 11*

PwC Consulting (Australia) Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 7*

Shortlisted offers not recommended for negotiation round

Telstra Corporation LtdAchieved VFM of 11.40

Intalock Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 9.27

$6,949,807*

$9,727,238*

$7,144,148

$8,025,247

DelegateCEOApproved20.06.17Start27.06.17TermThree years with an option to extend for up to two additional years


- 50 -


Achieved


Estimated Maximum

Expenditure



Ernst and Young Achieved VFM of 8.13

Yell IT Group Pty Ltd**CQR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd**Content Security Pty Ltd**Ionize Pty Ltd**Hivint Pty Ltd**

**Price and VFM not applicable as tenderers did not provide a compliant pricing clarification.

Offers not shortlisted(Price and VFM not applicable as tenders not shortlisted did not meet minimum non-price quality requirements)

Shearwater Solutions Pty Ltd Vectra Corporation LimitedBlack Swan Consulting Group Pty LtdFinXL Pty Ltd Privasec Pty LtdOptus Networks Pty Ltd Hatamoto Holdings Pty Ltd HCL Australia Services Pty LtdCybernetic Global Intelligence Pty LtdAccess Testing Pty Ltd trading as AccessHQEthan Group Pty Ltd


Intact Security Pty Ltd NCC Group Pty LimitedLoop Technology Pty LtdContext Information Security Limited

$9,220,136

N/A**N/A**N/A**N/A**N/A**

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/A

ADOPTED

ADJOURNMENT:8/2017-18

At that time, 4.05pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors had vacated the chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.07pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.


- 51 -


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, the Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) Corporate Plan is before Council. It outlines the future direction and financial position of QUU for the next five year period. As we know, the price increase including the state bulk water charge will be 2.4% for the 2017-18 financial year. Service dwellings, Madam Chairman, are expected to increase from 596,000 in 2016-17 to 641,300 by 2021-22; a 7.6% increase.

Capital investment by Queensland Urban Utilities over the next five years will be $1.678 billion according to the report and the plan. Madam Chairman, I note that Council remains the only local government in South East Queensland to offer any remission at all with respect to water, despite no longer providing water and sewage services. Madam Chairman, the water and rates subsidy, if you like, that we provide—remission that we provide—is quite a significant one. It's a very generous one by comparison to many of the schemes around Australia. So, the report is there for Council to comment.


Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, yes, the QUU report, shows it's a very profitable—very profitable—organisation. In fact, the figures for future dividends, cash flow for dividend payments, and total return to shareholders is substantially—in this year's corporate plan is substantially above what was estimated just in last year's plan. The total return to shareholders is probably the best one to compare it to in this year's report. It has got $204.2 million compared to the estimate from last year's report for this financial year was $140.7 million.

Then in 2017-18, $186.8 million compared to $145.9 million. 2018-19, $195.8 million compared to $152.6 million. So, Madam Chairman, these are all substantially higher figures and it's interesting to know why QUU is becoming more profitable. But, of course, what we do know is that the Brisbane City Council still holds 85.007% of the shareholding rights of QUU, which means 85.007% of the total return to shareholders, Madam Chairman. So in the words of Arthur Daley, I think it was his name, in the Minder series, it's a nice little earner for the Brisbane City Council, Madam Chairman.

A nice little earner. It is something, Madam Chairman, that gives the Council, if it chose to, plenty of money—plenty of money—to keep up those payments for water remissions to pensioners in Brisbane. Of course, as we know, the remissions were cut back at the start of last financial year and then, of course, if you make the mistake of changing your address in Brisbane, you won't get it at all, and if you become a pensioner since 1 July last year, you won't get it at all either, Madam Chairman.

So it's disappointing. I believe the Council, if they want to do—as we know, if they want to do, they have got plenty of revenue coming in from QUU. They don't directly run QUU anymore but they're the major shareholder. They're the one that reaps in the income from QUU. They could use that money to continue water remissions at the rate they were prior to 1 July last year. Madam Chairman, the capital expenditure seems to go up and down a lot. I guess it's the size—perhaps they've got large projects some years and other years they've got smaller projects.


- 52 -

The report of this year's capital expenditure, $224 million. Last year's estimate for this year was $235.4 million, so it's significantly under. But if you look out to 2018-19, the new plan has an estimate of $306.8 million, compared to the previous document having $281.1 million. So it seems to be up and down in terms of capital forecast. Look, generally from people in the industry, QUU is becoming a more—how would I describe it nicely?

It's becoming a more, I guess, money hungry organisation perhaps would be the—and also concerns in that industry too about less employed staff and more contractors. But—thank you. So, Madam Chairman, so there are concerns within QUU—and people in that industry about what's happening and how it's being run, Madam Chairman. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the QUU 2017 to 2022 Corporate Plan. Madam Chairman, there are two aspects of the debate that I would like to raise. One relates to the purpose and vision of QUU. The objectives that sit within that are things like this: ‘minimising cost whilst still maintaining a level of service our customers expect. Innovative in the way we develop better ways to deliver our services. A leader in improving and sustaining our natural environment.’ Now, Madam Chairman, these are the expressed purposes of Queensland Urban Utilities.

The problem is that those expressed purposes are not being reflected in sewage approvals for major developments. I would like to give just one brief example. It is not a level of service that our community expects, to have sewage being deliberately spilt into a residential street and into a waterway corridor at Moolabin Creek and the Rocky Waterholes. That is not in today in Brisbane in a first world country a desired standard of service. It is not something that will protect our environment, and it is certainly not something the residents of that street want to see happen.

But, yes, that is the current plan that is supported by the State Government and by this Council with respect to the Yeerongpilly TOD (Transit Oriented Development). When the stormwater gets into the sewage system, which it does now two to three times a year and will do in future, the sewage from the TOD will spill over into Moolabin and Allawah Street. It is a deliberate strategy in how the approval for the sewage treatment—for the sewage pipe—is going to operate. Now, I don't think this is acceptable.

If we cannot pipe sewage away to the wastewater treatment plant without it spilling into a residential street and into a waterway corridor, we should not be allowing that development. So I don't feel that QUU are meeting their own expressed goals, not meeting their purpose, and I'm extremely concerned that we are going down the path of allowing development that cannot be supported with the appropriate level of sewage infrastructure that's needed. That is not something that QUU should be proud of. That is not something that I would consider to be operational excellence, as they state.

We've had many discussions with them, and I will say, they've come out and they've talked to the residents and they've—I've been at those meetings, but at the end of the day, the approved plan includes deliberate spill-over into a residential street in a waterway corridor. I just cannot fathom why in this city and this State we would be allowing development with the express outcome of


- 53 -

sewage spills in a residential area. It's just not acceptable. So that troubles me and it certainly troubles the residents who live in that part of Yeerongpilly.

I too would also just like to mention the fact that we are the 85% owner of QUU, together with a few other councils that own the other 15%. So every time this Council say, ‘oh, it's not us, it's QUU’, it is us. We actually own 85% of QUU. Certainly I also noted the figures that Councillor CUMMING mentioned about the return to shareholders, which includes all shareholders, but 85% of that is a pretty significant number I'd be thinking, $204 million. So this Council's certainly going to be getting a huge chunk of funding back and you know, $170 million, $175 million maybe, back.

That is revenue from fees and from services that QUU delivers to its customers that comes back into this Council's budget. Now, certainly I don't feel that money is being spent on stormwater improvements around the city. It should be tied to investment in storm water and backflow valves, because the under-investment by this Administration into the necessary stormwater that we need for this city is astonishing. Equally, the decision last year without consultation and without notice to remove remissions for pensioners, new pensioners and any pensioner that moves is really outrageous.

They are the people in our community who are least able to afford services. Those services are increasing or the charges for those services are increasing significantly, and yet this Council no longer provides any remission for new pensioners and pensioners who move. Councillor ADAMS will publicly say that we can't afford it, and that's what she said in the debate in the budget, we can't afford it. Guess what; yes, we can.

One hundred and seventy-five million dollars in revenue to this Council is certainly a huge amount of money that I believe could be better spent by this Council on supporting our pensioners, and also investing back into stormwater drainage that is needed across the city. The fact that this Council rips this money out of this organisation without any accountability is really concerning to me, and I believe those funds should be tied in the budget, so that all residents can have confidence that this funding is being spent on improving the necessary stormwater drainage that this city needs. That certainly is not happening.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on the QUU Corporate Plan that is before us. I just would like to remind Councillors that this was a Corporate Plan based on Queensland Urban Utilities, an entity forced on us by the former State Labor Government, and its commercial arrangements that it made, something that this side of the Chamber fought, did not support, was against from the get go, but has obviously had no—


Councillor ADAMS: —say in the final way that the entity was set up as well. So I think what we need to do is look at this Corporate Plan, and unlike the person who spoke before me, I actually will talk about the plan, which is an outline of the future direction and the financial position of QUU for the next five years.

What we need to remember when we're talking here about QUU, we're talking about an area of 14,384 square kilometres, a $5 billion infrastructure network consisting of over 18,000 kilometres of water and sewage pipes, over a hundred


- 54 -

drinking water reservoirs, nearly 150 water waste pumping stations, over 300 sewage pumping stations, and 27 sewage treatment plants. That is a lot of infrastructure to look after, and they do it extremely well.

Service dwellings are estimated to increase from 596,000 in 2016-17 to 641,300 by 2021-22; a 7.1% increase in the dwellings that they need to service over those five years. The capital investment—and Councillor CUMMING touched on it—but when you add it together over the next five years will be $1.678 billion. They will provide an excess of 140 billion litres of drinking water, and treat 110 billion litres of sewage. This is not an organisation that is just there to provide drainage, and drainage alone, to the people of Tennyson. I know it's a shock.

I know it's a shock, but this is an enormous organisation that caters to several very large councils in the South East Queensland catchment and they are committed to make sure they deliver the infrastructure, again, on a catchment-wide priority. We've seen it down in the eastern suburbs in the south-eastern suburbs. They are spending that money and that infrastructure in Brisbane and we're very, very happy that they are doing so, and upgrading those pipes as well. They're also keeping their businesses a safe place to work.

They are making sure that their target loss time injury frequency rate is declining and will be less than one. They continue to decline as well. They are working through employee engagement as well as we see, they've been here now for six years and they are starting to mature through the way they are developing as a company in making sure that they are looking after the employees as well. But the report that we have here is a draft based on four key assumptions. Growth is expected as per the last State Government planning forecast, and as I mentioned, up to 7.6% in the next five years.

Per capita demand is expected to remain stable, so people of Brisbane in particular are quite good now at maintaining their water levels down to averagely 177 litres per person per day. That education did very well in 2008-10 and it stayed down. There's only going to be small price increases above inflation over the next five years. The majority of expenses are expected to move in line with inflation and wages growth, except State Government bulk water charges. That is one key assumption you can be guaranteed is going to go through the roof.

Labour will stay in line with inflation, and back of house costs they are keeping down and will not be expanded. The issue that our people in Brisbane have with their water prices is State Government bulk water charges. You can do as much as you like to keep your water usage down and control your bill, but when you are hit every time up and up and up on the State Government water charges, that is where the pain comes from the bills for the water.

Madam Chair, Councillor CUMMING mentioned the substantially higher figures in revenue from utility charges over the next six year period, and that is when you take out growth—it does sound enormous, but when you take out the growth expected, it is really just over about two per cent a year. Given that those on the other side were going to increase rates by six per cent on average, QUU is running an organisation pretty efficiently, I would say. What we need to be concerned about, as I said before, is that the State Government increase bulk prices revenue by 22.4% between 2013-14 and 2017-18.

That is the price line that we are most concerned about. Retail prices have only increased 10.6% over the same period. But the reality is it's about the growth that will see those substantially higher figures over the next few years. It is about the infrastructure that QUU is going to have to deliver and is delivering on


- 55 -

the ground, and making sure that they are delivering to the people of their catchment areas as well.

Yet again, we hear the argument about—I think it was actually—I'm not sure if you heard Councillor CUMMING, Madam Chair, ‘scrooge Councillor ADAMS’, ‘the scrooge’ or something quite like that. Would you not provide water and sewage services? We continue to be the only local government in South East Queensland that offers a pensioner water remission and this will not change.


Councillor ADAMS: This will not change.

Chairman: Order.

Councillor ADAMS: A full pensioner has a water remission up to $300 and a part-pensioner up to $150. Forty one thousand, three hundred and fifty-five pensioners are estimated to receive a water remission rebate in 2017-18. It is not viable for us to continue to offer a remission seven years after an entity was set up and took the provision of water and services away from us for a service that we do not provide. I hear them saying, this has been done without any heads up, nobody knew it was happening. The reality is that there are still 41,355 pensioners that will receive a water remissions rebate in 2017-18, and we will continue that. I support the Corporate Plan to the Chamber.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair.

I rise to talk on the QUU Corporate Plan before us, and I knew Councillor ADAMS would go there and try and spin her way out of cutting water remissions for pensioners, Madam Chair, by saying nothing's changed, this will not change, except the caps that she just read—

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, come on. This is about the QUU Corporate Plan. Just come back to it.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes. Talking about—just responding to what Councillor ADAMS just—literally just said in her contribution to the debate, talking about the—and the LORD MAYOR mentioned it as well, Madam Chair, about the pensioner remissions that this Council provides, Madam Chair. That has changed. That did change. Those caps were reduced, Madam Chair. The remissions did change. If a pensioner moves home, they lose it.

If a person is lucky enough in this day and age to get a—and in the future to get a pension from the Federal Government, unless they're messing around with it, Madam Chair, like they have in the last few years, they won't be getting that either. Yet, we're seeing an increase in profit. Now, Councillor ADAMS says we don't provide these services anymore; we haven't for seven years. We know that. Everyone knows that, Madam Chair, but what we do get from QUU is an enormous income in terms of—

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair.


- 56 -

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Would the Councillor for Deagon take a question?

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY?

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ALLAN: Councillor CASSIDY, could you tell me what was the equivalent rate of water and rates pensioner remissions when the Labor Administration left office in 2004?

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: I'm not sure, Madam Chair. I was in school. I was in school at the time, so I wasn't in this place, Madam Chair.


Chairman: Order.

Councillor CASSIDY: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I can't answer it unfortunately. So $167 million is coming to this Council in terms of profit. Now, that's just cold hard cash that's coming to this Council from QUU, Madam Chair, in terms of profits. So we don't have to lift a finger here as the LNP will say, these services aren't being provided by this Council, but we can reap $167 million in terms of profit. When you look at the Corporate Plan last year to the Corporate Plan this year in terms of projections, I don't understand how QUU could get it so wrong in terms of the return to shareholders, Madam Chair.

They've predicted $140 million in 2016-17, and that actually turned out to be $204 million, predicted in 2017-18 to be $145 million. That's now predicted to be $186 million. For 2018-19, $152 million, and that's now predicted to be $195 million. This growth in profit coming back to Council as an 85% shareholder has skyrocketed, Madam Chair. Councillor ADAMS talked about all the huge costs for bulk water. Well, they're still able to make an enormous profit and that profit is growing year on year, which is being funnelled directly back to Brisbane City Council, Madam Chair.

So this Council, again, we say, can afford to provide those remissions as water remissions to pensioners who have worked damn hard their entire lives. They're lucky enough to get a Federal Government pension, whether they're an age pension or a Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension. If they move, they shouldn't lose this, Madam Chair. It's really, really unfair, and if they get a pension, and they know that their Council gets an 85% share of—an enormous profit of almost $200 million a year profit, that they should certainly get something for that, Madam Chair, as the ratepayers collectively own this organisation.

It's them, Madam Chair, and they should be getting their rates remission and no amount of spin from Councillor ADAMS will be able to fool the voting public, Madam Chair.



- 57 -

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, if those said pensioners were to move to Ipswich, if they were to move to Logan, if they were to move to the Sunny Coast or the Gold Coast, they would lose it. Not only would the ones moving lose it, Madam Chairman, but the ones that are currently there, that have been there since time immemorial don't get it. Don't get it. So—


LORD MAYOR: —the reality is, Madam Chairman, that Brisbane City Council ratepayers, if you are on a pension, are far better off than in any other location in South East Queensland and beyond. Now, to that point, Councillor CASSIDY, I accept that you were in school at the time of 2004, so let me tell you basically—we certainly couldn't expect you to know it and have that interest in it as a schoolchild—let me tell you what it was. If you look in today's dollars, Madam Chairman, in 2004, the pensioner remission for water and rates was $851 and today, Madam Chairman, that figure is $1290.

So that's in equivalent dollars, so the actual amount in 2004 was much less than $851. What we've done, of course, is to take into account the bringing the dollar up to today's values to demonstrate what it now is. So, Madam Chairman, I believe that we do have a fair and reasonable scheme. There has often been an argument, of course, that has been put by self-funded retirees that they are often nearly as badly off, if not as badly off as some ratepayers with the various concessions that—of pensioners, rather with the various concessions that pensioners get.

Madam Chairman, they don't get anything. So there's a limit. What I would say to you though, people often—or are always talking about the amount of money that Council receives from QUU. Well, when we talk about Council receiving that money, it's actually the ratepayers of this city that are receiving that money, because every cent of that that comes back from QUU is of course distributed in the services and amenities and infrastructure that this city is providing, Madam Chairman. There's no little pot over there somewhere where all that QUU money goes.

It gets distributed out in the budget to provide the various services; the lighting out at Tennyson that we were talking about earlier today; the various road projects, Madam Chairman, bikeways and the like. So it's all distributed. So, Madam Chairman, but the plan here today, which was the central purpose of this item, which sets out the infrastructure spend, sets out the plan around QUU, I mean, if we just make one point, I don't know where Councillor CUMMING has got his negative responses from in relation to performance of QUU.

I hope that's not out of Unitywater further north of here, but that said, Madam Chairman, QUU, I believe, are more and more innovative in the space if you look at—and it would pay some Opposition Councillors to have a look at what they're doing, particularly in the area of environmental improvements in the water supply and sewage area in sewage treatment and the like. Madam Chairman, the level of innovation there is quite strong. So I, Madam Chairman, move that report.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division,


- 58 -

which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Jonathan SRI.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.


A QUEENSLAND URBAN UTILITIES 2017-22 CORPORATE PLAN140/695/583/14, 140/695/583/13 and 140/695/583/12

9/2017-181. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.

2. In accordance with the Central SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority Participation Agreement (s.14.1), Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) is required to prepare a five-year Corporate Plan each year which is to be approved by special majority of participants.

3. The draft QUU 2017-22 Corporate Plan (Draft Corporate Plan) is provided at Attachment A (submitted on file) for shareholder consultation and approval.

4. The Draft Corporate Plan provides the following information:- introductory information, including Chairman’s message, overview of QUU, and challenges

and opportunities considered- strategic direction, represented through the strategic pillars- financial forecasts- strategic risks; the risks that may prevent the achievement of outcomes identified in the Draft

Corporate Plan.

5. The Draft Corporate Plan has been developed using a strategic planning framework endorsed by the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The framework commences with scanning of the internal and external strategic environment, which includes consideration of shareholders’ aspirations gathered from strategic plans and related documents, and ongoing engagement with shareholders.

6. The strategic direction is developed in consultation with the QUU Board, Executive Management and Managers within QUU.

7. The five-year financial forecasts have been updated for the new period based on updated assumptions and statistics and planned capital investment. The forecasts represent an improved outcome across the Draft Corporate Plan, with underlying increases in financial outcomes at operational profit and net profit levels.

8. Key aspects of QUU’s five-year financial forecasts are:- a forward investment program in excess of $1.6 billion over the five years to maintain service

standards and meet growth requirements- continued focus on optimising capital and operational expenditure to minimise upward

pressure on prices- limited borrowing requirement over the five years, with key credit metrics remaining strong.


- 59 -

9. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 24 July 2017.

10. DECISION:

THAT E&C, AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE THE DRAFT QUEENSLAND URBAN UTILITIES 2017-22 CORPORATE PLAN, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A (submitted on file).

ADOPTED

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually coming under the jurisdiction of the Public and Active Transport Committee, be noted.


DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, there's an item on the agenda today for noting, which is a petition regarding a bus stop in Dornoch Terrace at Highgate Hill. The petition has 29 signatures and they're all residents of Dornoch Towers, a particular building along Dornoch Terrace. Council has proposed to consolidate some bus stops that are only 165 metres apart, which is obviously a very short distance between bus stops to achieve a more recommended level of bus stop spacing, which is between 300 and 400 metres.

The proposed consolidation is part of our upgrade and enhancement program for bus stops across the city and will involve a new bus shelter and seating. The petitioners, obviously, were opposed to the consolidation and relocation of the bus stop. We noted that there were a relatively small number of patrons boarding the bus at each of the stops, but together, obviously, it's a more significant number.

The ultimate recommendation here, which is actually something the LORD MAYOR has previously committed to out to various local residents in the area is to proceed with the consolidation of the bus stop. So I'm aware that the local Councillor does not support this recommendation, but obviously this matter was considered by Cabinet and the LORD MAYOR's decision to go ahead will be honoured.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm reluctant to take up too much of the Chamber's time on discussions about a single bus stop, but I feel it's important that I object strongly in a public forum to this decision for a couple of reasons. The first is simply that this entire process to decide—for deciding to relocate this bus stop has been, to my mind, quite questionable and problematic. There are dozens of bus stops all around my ward that are in odd locations, where the spacing is


- 60 -

quite uneven and there's probably a strong argument for even relocating and amalgamating bus stops.

But for some reason Council has focused only on this one bus stop, and I would suggest to the Chamber that it's because a particularly rich resident who lives on Dornoch Terrace didn't want poor people sitting on a bus stop outside—


Chairman: Councillor SRI, order. Councillor SRI, that is crossing the line. It is not appropriate for you to make comments about individuals in the city in that way in this place. I ask that you withdraw.

Councillor SRI: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I'm just suggesting that—

Chairman: No. Councillor SRI, you weren't suggesting. You were making a very directed comment, which I have determined—


Chairman: Order. Don't you interrupt me, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor SRI, I've given you a direction. Can you please withdraw the comment.

Councillor SRI: Madam Chair, I haven't named any—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I am directing to withdraw that comment. I have decreed that it has crossed the line. It is inappropriate and—an inappropriate comment and it is imputing motive on an individual of this city and I directed you to withdraw.


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, sit down. Sit down, Councillor JOHNSTON. I am dealing with something here.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, you had finished—

Chairman: I am dealing with something. Sit down now.

Councillor JOHNSTON: I would like to raise a point of order.

Chairman: You need to sit down till I finish dealing with this.

Councillor SRI, I have directed you to withdraw. Are you refusing to follow my direction?

Councillor SRI: No, Madam Chair, I'm not. I'm just asking for you to clarify exactly what statement you want me to withdraw because I'm not clear on what I've said that is problematic in any way.

Chairman: Your comments in respect of an individual in relation to their property. Will you—

Councillor SRI: Okay.


- 61 -

Chairman: —comply with my direction and withdraw as requested?

Councillor SRI: No, Madam Chair. I'm not clear on what individual you're talking about.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, can you just agree to withdraw the statement that refers to an individual in this city and their property?

Councillor SRI: Okay. Sure, Madam Chair. I withdraw.


Councillor SRI: So to clarify—



Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I direct your attention to the Meetings Local Law section 21, which matters that constitute an act of disorder by Councillors. Under subsection (1)(c), if you make a statement reflecting adversely on the character of a member of the public, Madam Chairman, then that can be considered a disorderly matter. I'm not aware that Councillor SRI mentioned any member of the public at all. No names were mentioned. Nothing specific was mentioned. Nothing identifying a person was mentioned.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor SRI was referring to a resident living in a particular location. I have made my decision and that is referring to a member of the public. Now, I do not uphold your point of order. Please resume your seat.



Councillor JOHNSTON: I move dissent in your ruling as it does not reflect the Meetings Local Law. I would appreciate a seconder.

Chairman: There being no seconder, your point of dissent is not upheld.

Councillor SRI, please continue.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. So as I was saying, my concern is that the decision to relocate this particular bus stop has been made because residents living within the vicinity of the current bus stop objected to the presence of other residents using that bus stop on a regular basis. So my suggestion to this Chamber is that the complaints of residents that initiated Council to investigate relocating this bus stop were based on the fact that they were prejudiced against some of the users of the bus stop. Now, I think it's perfectly appropriate for me to make that suggestion in the public realm.

I don't see that I'm naming any individuals or pointing at the finger at anyone specifically, but that is my very strong concern and I think I'm perfectly entitled to make that point here. The current location of the bus stop, while close to the other bus stop, it's important to remember that this is a very hilly area of the inner city, Highgate Hill, Dornoch Terrace. While most of the petition signatures are from a single tower further down, I've had concerns from a—


- 62 -

Chairman: Just a moment, please, Councillor SRI.

Would those Councillors having conversations on the other side of the Chamber please cease or take it outside.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: So I've had conversations with a number of residents who will be affected by this change and including quite a few older residents who have limited mobility and they've expressed concerns to me that if these bus stops are amalgamated, it will make it much harder for them to walk up and down that steep hill to access the relocated bus stop. So there's a clear equity issue here where we're actually removing access to that public transport service for people with limited mobility.

I'm also concerned that although Council took the time to seek out my opinion as the local Councillor, and I then engaged in extensive consultation with local residents about these proposed changes, about how it would impact them. I provided my feedback back to Council officers, who seemed to take it on board and they were grateful and they said, thank you, Councillor SRI, for taking the time to do this properly. We looked at the numbers of people who used both bus stops, we compared usage statistics across different stops along the network and we came to the view that on balance the right thing to do was to keep the bus stops where they were. That was my recommendation. Then bizarrely for no strong reason, the bus stops are still being amalgamated. It's a clear lineball call, where you could argue the toss either way; yes, you could amalgamate; no, you couldn't.

The Councillor and the community’s very strong view was that the bus stops didn't need to be amalgamated but Council is still spending a lot of money to relocate a bus stop which was only recently renovated to begin with. So this is a fairly new bus stop and presumably in the last few years when we upgraded this bus stop, put in new seats and new signage et cetera, we would have looked at this and said, okay, well, that's where the bus stop is. It's appropriate to upgrade it. Why did we not upgrade it at that time? I would again suggest to you that the decision to relocate and amalgamate the bus stops at this time is motivated largely by prejudice and by the fact that certain wealthy residents in the vicinity of the existing bus stop object to the presence of poor people using that bus stop.

Chairman: No. Order. Councillor SRI, you can't infer that a person's personal wealth has got an impact on a particular situation. You are inferring certain facts that may not necessarily be the case and certainly the instances that come about through people having the right as individuals to have a say does not come down to that circumstance. So can you just—

Councillor SRI: Yes, I—thanks, Madam Chair. I understand what you're saying, and I think it is important to acknowledge that prejudice does exist in this city and that sometimes—


Chairman: Order. Order. Councillor WINES.

For goodness sakes, why do you all have to keep interjecting?

Councillor SRI, you cannot state categorically in this place that it is prejudice or it is due to a person's financial position that a decision has been made on their—


- 63 -

Councillor SRI: Okay.

Chairman: —behalf. So, you know, what you may have a perception of is different to what may be the case, so you just have to be very careful how you phrase your statements please.

Councillor SRI: Sure. Thanks, Madam Chair, and I've been very careful and very specific in stating that I suspect and I suggest. I'm definitely—this is my opinion. I'm not saying—I'm not proclaiming to, like, know the internal workings of the minds of every resident in my ward. But I'm saying very strongly that there is a strong suspicion that the decision to recommend moving this bus stop originally or the push from the certain residents who wanted this bus stop moved was motivated by prejudice. I don't see why that it's so controversial for me to suggest that.

I mean, surely I'm not the only Councillor who has residents objecting to bus stops outside their houses—outside certain houses. That happens from time-to-time and often it is the case that residents don't want a bus stop outside their home but that shouldn't be the main motivating factor in deciding to relocate a bus stop. My concern in this case is that Council is still taking a really ad hoc approach to amalgamating and relocating bus stops and that rather than taking a whole-of-network approach, particularly with this route and this very hilly area of the suburb, rather than make—taking—have an evidence based approach to amalgamating these stops, we're—sorry. I'm—Councillors—anyway, I'll—

Chairman: Amalgamating these stops. Keep going—

Councillor SRI: Yes.

Chairman: —Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Yes. All right. Sorry. I'm just—sorry. For the record, if anyone is reading this later and wondering why I keep pausing, it's because other Councillors—

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, just please continue.

Councillor SRI: Yes. So my point is—



Councillor JOHNSTON: Would Councillor SRI take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SRI, would you like to take a question?

Councillor SRI: Sure.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor SRI, is your—

Chairman: Through the Chair.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Thank you. Through the Chair, and now I can put my question to him, Madam Chairman. Councillor SRI, is your debate being disrupted by LNP Councillors and is that why you're finding it difficult to make these statements?


- 64 -

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, that is not an appropriate question. It is not related to the topic that Councillor SRI is talking on and I have already been dealing with Councillors who have been interrupting this meeting. Your continued incessant points of order are disruptive in themselves.

Councillor SRI, please continue.

Councillor SRI: I won't drag this out, Madam Chair. My core points are that the decision to amalgamate this bus stop seems to have been made on an ad hoc basis, not by any overarching drive to reform the network, but because a few residents made complaints based on prejudice. My concern is that the relocation of this bus stop will significantly disadvantage residents who have impaired mobility and will have trouble accessing the new bus stop, because of the increased distance they have to travel up steep hills.

I'm particularly frustrated that as the local Councillor my views and the views of residents have been ignored by Council officers in a situation where the decision could have gone either way and there was a clear—there were—and that—and there was a clear case for listening to the local community and putting their views first. That doesn't seem to have happened in this case and I don't understand why the Council has ignored the views of so many local residents when it appears that the Council gains very little by spending all that money to move a bus stop.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SRI.

Further debate?

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's fascinating how a Greens Councillor can turn a bus stop into class warfare. I remember distinctly a couple of years ago reading—


Madam Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.


DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. I remember distinctly reading some information which was electoral research done across Australia, which indicated that the group of voters with the highest average income were, in fact, Green voters. These are the ones that live out in the western suburbs that can buy a $30,000 bike. They can buy a $30,000 bike. They've got massive expendable income and these are the people that are also voting for you. So don't disenfranchise your own voters, those wealthy Green voters that are rolling in the cash, but need to absolve their conscious by voting Green. That's—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam—

DEPUTY MAYOR: —a reality.



- 65 -

Chairman: Order.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Now, Madam Chairman, if you felt that Councillor SRI's commentary about rich people was inappropriate, then the statements being made by the DEPUTY MAYOR—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —are absolutely inappropriate.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, the DEPUTY MAYOR was specifically referring to research and he identified that research—


Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, please continue.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear Madam Chairman, I would like you to go on the record and either uphold or refuse my point of order against the DEPUTY MAYOR's comments.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I don't uphold your point of order. I made it quite clear that Councillor SCHRINNER was referring specifically to research, which he identified.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I'll bring the book in next week. It'll be a good read for all Councillors. You'll love it. You'll love it. But the interesting thing is a matter like a bus stop has nothing to do with how much money someone has. That is just ludicrous. Councillor SRI was referring to a particular individual, and I have to say, I have no idea which individual Councillor SRI is referring to, nor have I ever seen anyone's name associated with this matter. So, look, it's just ludicrous that he would suggest that a decision is made on that sort of basis.

This is part of an ongoing program we've got right across the city where we're looking at upgrading our bus stops to meet disability access requirements. Now, in cases where there are a number of bus stops within a short period of—a short distance of each other, we look at whether there's an opportunity to consolidate those bus stops, so reducing them from two into one. Now, that has benefits for multiple reasons. Number one; it helps reduce the cost to the ratepayers of upgrading two bus stops instead of one. That's a benefit to the ratepayers of Brisbane.

Number two; it actually improves the efficiency of the bus network as well, because the buses then have to stop fewer times along the route. So there are a range of benefits associated with doing this. It's not some kind of outrageous thing that we're doing, but we're trying to increase the efficiency of the network


- 66 -

and reduce the cost to ratepayers. Council is investing tens of millions of dollars into upgrading bus stops, and so if we can save money for the ratepayers by consolidating some bus stops that are too close together, then that's something we should seriously consider.

I take that Councillor SRI has a right to object. I take that some residents nearby have a right to object. That's not the issue I had a concern with. What I objected to and what you rightly objected to, Madam Chairman, was the absolute ridiculous and outrageous claims about the motives behind this decision. That is not true and—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —it is completely inappropriate.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor—



DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: No thanks.

Chairman: Okay. Councillor SRI, you had two points of misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. Councillor SCHRINNER appeared to be accusing me of starting a class war. I would suggest that they only call it class war when the poor fight back and that in this case at—


Councillor SRI: In this case, the class—I'm not starting a class war over a bus stop. This was started by wealthy residents who didn't want poor residents sitting outside their home.


Chairman: Right. Order.

Councillor SRI: I've made that point.

Chairman: Order. For goodness sake, I am trying to deal with Councillor SRI's misrepresentation. So, Councillor SRI, when you do your misrepresentation, it doesn't mean you can go into a monologue about all your reasons behind it. You just need to state what you believe was misrepresented, which you have done on your first point now. Would you care to move to your second point of misrepresentation, please?

Councillor SRI: No. I will spare us all the time. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Right. We are now at the end of the report. I now put the report.



- 67 -


A PETITION – TO LEAVE BUS STOP 1145 IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AT 116 DORNOCH TERRACE, HIGHGATE HILLCA17/265267

10/2017-181. A petition requesting Council to leave bus stop 1145 in its current location outside

116 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 March 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

2. The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy and Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

3. The petition contains 29 signatures from residents of Dornoch Towers located at 104 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill.

4. On 13 March 2017, Council sent notification letters to residents of 92, 104 and 116 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill, seeking their feedback about the proposed consolidation of the existing bus stops at 92 Dornoch Terrace (stop 1144), and 116 Dornoch Terrace (stop 1145). The proposed consolidation is part of Council’s Bus Stop Improvement Program which aims to upgrade the bus stop network across Brisbane to provide improved accessibility for all public transport users. Council is proposing the new stop will be located outside 104 Dornoch Terrace, and will include a bus shelter with seating. All buses currently servicing stop 1144 and stop 1145 will service the new stop. Attachment B, available on file, shows the proposed new stop location in relation to the current stops.

5. Council did not receive feedback from residents of 92 and 116 Dornoch Terrace. Three residents from 104 Dornoch Terrace provided feedback separately from this petition. Two were opposed to the project and one was in support of the project. Currently, stop 1145 and stop 1144 are located within 165 metres of each other, which impacts efficiency and reliability of the bus network. Bus stop spacing of 300 to 400 metres is ideal to achieve network efficiency and is Council’s desired standard of service, as identified in the Public Transport (bus stops) Network section of Brisbane City Plan 2014. Each stop in the network also must have a pair stop. Currently inbound stops 1145 and 1144 share one pair stop (located outside 103A Dornoch Terrace). By consolidating the stops, this will improve efficiency of the bus network, allow kerb space to be reallocated at the existing stop locations, and will provide a more legible bus network with standard stop pairing arrangements.

6. The current bus stop patronage is set out below.- Stop 1144 – average daily boarding of 10.9 patrons and average daily alighting of

16.2 patrons.- Stop 1145 – average daily boarding of 26 patrons and average daily alighting of

8.4 patrons.

7. Both stops are currently serviced by outbound service 192 to the University of Queensland and the 198 anti-clockwise Highgate Hill service that connects the Princess Alexandra Hospital, West End and South Bank.

8. The petitioners have raised concerns with the proposed consolidation and relocation of the bus stops as outlined in the points below.- Safety concerns about buses stopping outside 104 Dornoch Terrace as the road has a

slight curve that may limit visibility of vehicles travelling behind the bus.

In response, there is dedicated space that allows buses to pull off the road and not


- 68 -

restrict visibility to any vehicles travelling behind. When the bus is ready to exit the stop, vehicles are required to give way to the bus as per the Queensland road rules.

- The installation of a bus stop at 104 Dornoch Terrace will impact telecommunications equipment hosted on site from Optus, Vivid Wireless and Vodafone.

In response, in future, telecommunication companies will still be able to move this equipment by a mobile crane, acquiring the relevant Council permits to do so.

- The inbound stop 1146 is directly opposite the proposed new outbound stop location at 104 Dornoch Terrace.

In response, there is adequate lane width of approximately 13 metres. An inbound and outbound bus can safely operate at the same time to load and unload bus patrons.

- There are 44 units at 104 Dornoch Terrace with vehicles of owners, visitors and tradespeople currently utilising the car parking outside 104 Dornoch Terrace. The proposed bus stop relocation will prevent parking in this location.

In response, while Council understands this will create changes for local residents, the relocation will improve efficiency across the bus network. There is also on-street parking available on Dornoch Terrace on either side of the unit complex.

- To save money, close stop 1144 and retain stop 1145 in its current location at 104 Dornoch Terrace.

In response, the option to close stop 1144 and retain stop 1145 in its current location at 104 Dornoch Terrace has been investigated and it was identified that this option would not improve network legibility in that the spacing between the pair stops 1146 and 1145 will not have been resolved.

9. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will consolidate stop 1144 and stop 1145 into one stop located outside 104 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill. This will improve the efficiency of the bus network.

Funding

10. Funding for these works is allocated in the 2017-18 financial year under the Delivering an Accessible Public Transport Network budget.

Consultation

11. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

12. The Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 24 July 2017.


- 69 -

13. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL CONSOLIDATE STOP 1144 INTO ONE STOP, LOCATED OUTSIDE 104 DORNOCH TERRACE, HIGHGATE HILL. THIS WILL IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE BUS NETWORK.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA17/265267

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to leave bus stop 1145 in its current location outside 116 Dornoch Terrace, and not relocate it to outside 104 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill.

Council sent notification letters to directly affected residents along Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill, on 13 March 2017 about the proposed consolidation of the existing bus stops at 92 Dornoch Terrace (stop 1144) and 116 Dornoch Terrace (stop 1145), and the relocation to outside 104 Dornoch Terrace. The proposed consolidation and relocation is part of Council’s Bus Stop Improvement Program which aims to upgrade the bus stop network across Brisbane to provide improved accessibility for all public transport users.

Currently, stop 1145 and stop 1144 are located within 165 metres of each other, which impacts efficiency and reliability of the network. Bus stop spacing of 300 to 400 metres is ideal to achieve network efficiency and is Council’s desired standard of service as identified in the Public Transport (bus stops) Network section of Brisbane City Plan 2014. Each stop in the network also must have a pair stop. Currently, inbound stops 1145 and 1144 share one pair stop (located outside 103A Dornoch Terrace).

By consolidating stops 1145 and 1144, this will improve efficiency of the network and allow kerb space to be reallocated at the existing stop locations, providing on-street parking.

Council has noted your suggestion to close stop 1144 and retain stop 1145 in its current location. Council investigated this option but it was identified that closing stop 1144 will not improve network legibility as the spacing issue between the pair stops 1146 and 1145 will not have been resolved.

Council notes your safety concerns regarding buses stopping outside 104 Dornoch Terrace and your comment regarding limited visibility of vehicles travelling behind a bus. Council can confirm there is dedicated space, allowing the bus to pull off the road and not restrict any vehicles travelling behind. When the bus is ready to exit the stop, vehicles are required to give way as per the Queensland road rules.

In light of the above, Council will proceed with the consolidation of bus stop 1144 and bus stop 1145 and relocation to outside 104 Dornoch Terrace, Highgate Hill.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Mark Pattemore, Transport Planning and Programs Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.

NOTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE


- 70 -

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually considered by the City Planning Committee, be noted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. There is six petitions on the committee report. They speak for themselves. I'm happy to yield the floor to debate in answering any questions during the sum-up. Thank you.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this report and, I guess, firstly to note my concerns that so many petitions are being dealt with during recess that are of such significance to so many local residents. I'm thinking particularly about three petitions regarding development applications in my ward. These are highly controversial developments for really big multi-residential towers that have a huge impact on the neighbourhood and that many residents are concerned about.

It is concerning to me that residents take the time to collect signatures, to talk to their neighbours, to engage, I guess, in that civic process and they're—the decision is made by Civic Cabinet and then brought to Council after the decision has already been made and after the response has already been sent to the petitioners. I don't think that's good process. I think if people are getting a letter saying Council has made a decision regarding your petition, but actually Council hasn't made a decision. A couple of Civic Cabinet members have made a decision and then put our names as Councillors to that.

I find that really problematic. I know that that's what happens in this place, but I don't think that that makes it right. Speaking particularly about DAs for Ferry Road and for Cairns Street, none of these comply with the neighbourhood plan. They violate a range of elements of the neighbourhood plan, including height limits, setbacks, failures to comply with deep planting requirements.

I've spoken extensively about the DA for 26 Cairns Street in this place before and again I say that if there is alleged to be a public interest in allowing developers to build higher than the neighbourhood plan allows, then the correct process should be to take the time to amend the neighbourhood plan, and then once the height limits have been increased to reflect community needs and values, then developers can come in and put their DAs, but that case of the 26 Cairns Street development, that site was only for three storeys and Council has gone ahead and approved, what was it in the end, 16 storeys?

Have I remembered that correctly? Maybe it was 15. But—no. Maybe it 17 storeys, sorry. Yes. 17 storeys and 13 storeys, I think it was. The height limit under the neighbourhood plan very clearly said that the site was a maximum of three storeys. Councillor SIMMONDS has previously raised the argument in this place that the City Plan height limit was 15 storeys for that site. But the neighbourhood plan height limits trump the City Plan general height limits. That's very clear in the City Plan itself. That's a well-established rule in this place and it is in—sorry.


- 71 -

It's incredibly disappointing to me that we continue to bend the rules and ignore the rules in order to accommodate a few big developers at a time when—

Councillor SIMMONDS: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Just imputing motive. Officers do not bend or break the rules. They assess all applications in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act and City Plan.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SRI, you just have to be careful that you do not refer to Council officers breaching the rules or not following the processes.

Councillor SRI: Sorry. Madam Chair, no. I didn't say anything about the Council officers. I—

Chairman: You did refer to developers getting things done from a particular perspective, so just be very, very careful—

Councillor SRI: Sure.

Chairman: —with how you're phrasing.

Councillor SRI: Yes. No. I think probably most people in this place or maybe most people in Brisbane—maybe not most people in this place, but most people in Brisbane would recognise that there is one set of rules for ordinary residents and another set of rules—


Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair.


Councillor ADAMS: He is absolutely imputing motive and I ask Councillor SRI to learn the rules of this place. This is ridiculous.

Chairman: Yes. Councillor SRI, I hereby direct you to withdraw the statement—

Councillor SRI: Sure, Madam Chair. I will withdraw.

Chairman: —that there is one set of rules for some and not for others. So—

Councillor SRI: I will withdraw.


Councillor SRI: So consistently Council stated justification for allowing developers to build above neighbourhood plan limits and over the GFA limits—GFA, Gross Floor Area limits—is that we have this shortage of affordable housing in the inner city and that the public interest is served by allowing developers to build higher, to build with greater yield. But that's not translating to improved affordability outcomes for people on lower incomes who need to be living in the inner city, close to their places of work, close to opportunities for betterment.


- 72 -

I think it is—it's really disappointing to me that we continue down this flawed strategy of increasing the supply of private residential apartments because that's actually making it more difficult for both the NGO sector and government and councils if Council decided it had any responsibility for affordable housing. It makes it difficult for those other stakeholders to provide affordable housing because the market is overheated and inflated by private sector investment.

So every time we keep approving these developments that exceed limits of the neighbourhood plan, we're signalling to the development industry that there's money to be made in the inner city. That there are huge profits to be generated through performance outcomes that violate residents' expectations and are in conflict with the long-term interests of the city as a whole.

What we're seeing with these sorts of developments like the three that are the subject of the petitions in this report is that Council is adopting a flawed strategy of extreme density hyper-compaction and still also supporting suburban sprawl on the suburban outskirts while failing to deal with the problems of inefficient low density in middle suburbia.

So we've kind of—rather than addressing that core problem we've actually taken an area that already had a fairly sustainable level of density with three and four and five storey apartments and we're saying no, no that level of density which was quite appropriate for the area we're going to wrap—significantly increase that level of density.

We're also going to continue to approve sprawling developments on the suburban fringe but we're not dealing with the concerns about inefficient density in middle suburbia. I think that's a broader conversation that we need to have and I don't want to track too far from the subject of these petitions but it's concerning to me that we don't have the maturity as a Council to have those discussions.

I'm sure that by suggesting that we need to have that conversation about density in middle suburbia I'm going to be subjected to some kind of attack on the ground that I'm a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) by Councillors opposite but the point is that really ultimately a straightforward one. It's that we have neighbourhood plans, they have height limits. I have a lot of concerns about the processes by which neighbourhood plans are drafted and by which those rules are agreed to. I don't think they are genuinely democratic.

I don't think they're genuinely consultative but we have a neighbourhood plan and we're still not sticking to it. I think that's really disappointing and the petitioners who put their names to these petitions against these developments have a right to be disappointed. They have a right to feel frustrated with current Council processes and they're correct in their assumptions that this Council does not listen to ordinary residents. I think it's a very like—I guess I'm sad because I'm not surprised. Like, I knew that this would be the response to these petitions when I saw them come through. I was like, of course this is what Council is going to do.

Council's habit of ignoring residents is now so predictable that residents ask me, ‘should I put in a petition against this DA?’, I tell them don't even bother. They still do it out of a blind faith that it's going to make a difference but it's clear that when it comes to sustainable planning in this city and residents trying to have a voice, signing petitions doesn't even make a difference anymore. That's I think reflects poorly on the state of our democracy in this city overall.



- 73 -

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thanks Madam Chair. I just rise to talk on items D, E and F in this report.

Seriatim – Clauses D, E and FCouncillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause D, PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 31 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004595391), Clause E, PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 162 LAMBERT STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004506820), and Clause F, PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 26 CAIRNS STREET, AND PART OF 35 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004060583), be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Councillor SUTTON: We won't be supporting these petition responses today and I just want to speak briefly about the reasons why. To start with, item D; this is the petition objecting to the development application at 31 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point. This is an application that is still under assessment, has not yet been approved.

I guess what I'd like to say obviously the residents are already raising some concerns about it and what I would like to see as a member of the Planning Committee is that given that this Council has fully considered a petition on this already, that when the final decision is being made by the Council officers as to whether or not to recommend this for approval that that recommendation comes before the City Planning Committee and full Council.

I think if it is enough for residents to take the time to petition Council about it, we as their elected representatives should have the ability to fully scrutinise and to fully debate it. So I think that it would be a good standard operating procedure for Councillor SIMMONDS to adopt in this place. If a petition on a development application is received by this Council that the application comes to Planning Committee for full scrutiny and full decision and for recommendation.

I would just appeal to Councillor SIMMONDS to do just that. On item E and item D, these are both applications that have already been approved. Approved in the recess. It is very, very disappointing that residents having taken the time to petition this Council were not actually given the courtesy of a response by this Council prior to a decision being made.

Again, these petitions should have been gone through the full city planning process and not signed off behind closed doors in the recess period. I guess that is Councillor SIMMONDS' style in this place. He doesn't like to bring anything controversial to the City Planning Committee. He only likes to bring the nice, fluffy stuff. He is not like Councillor COOPER who had the courage of her convictions to stand up and justify why this Administration was approving the development that it was.

Councillor SIMMONDS has won every fight he's ever had by 50 metres by running away from the people who are having it with him. I mean I know he's a fan—I know he supported the boxing match that happened in Brisbane not so long ago but he's not prepared to stand up and fight his own fights. He'd prefer to actually make the decision behind closed doors where nobody else has a voice, Madam Chairman. I don't think that that's good enough.

Now on 26 Cairns Street, I also have real concerns about the way in which this development application has been assessed by Council. I listened to the debate that happened in this Council last time Councillor SRI raised this in terms of what the Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan said about the height


- 74 -

limits and I listened to what Councillor SIMMONDS said about the City Plan provisions.

I have to say, Madam Chairman, I agree with Councillor SRI's assessment on this; the neighbourhood plan is supposed to trump the general provisions of the City Plan. So I got out, I looked up 26 Cairns Street; I worked out where it was. Identified that it was actually in sub-precinct NPP004I. I compared that to the Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan which I have here.

I'm happy to give a copy to Councillor SIMMONDS if he somehow lost his copy of it. I saw that the height chart—the height table, Table 7.2.11.1.3.b, maximum building height for Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan sub-precinct NPP004I clearly, clearly says it's three storeys and clearly says it has a maximum building height of 9.5 metres.

I am concerned that if Councillor SIMMONDS and his development assessment team is prepared to make some kind of bogus argument that this application shouldn't have been assessed against the provisions of the neighbourhood plans; you know, those plans that have community planning teams where communities are invited to have a say over the type of the development that they're having in that area, that if they are so prepared to walk away from those plans at the drop of a hat, we're all in a whole lot of trouble.

I mean, I understand why local residents are fighting like they are about this development application. I understand why Councillor SRI is making these comments. I tell you what; if they tried this on in my ward I'd be screaming from the rooftops as well. To this date, have not heard a comprehensive and convincing argument from Councillor SIMMONDS as to why they have used the broader assessment tools in the City Plan.

I would hope Councillor SIMMONDS knows me well enough by now to know that if you put forward a valid and reasoned argument, I'd be happy to take it on board—take it on board and say, well fair enough, but I haven't heard that from him yet. I haven't heard him explain why the provisions of this neighbourhood plan weren't protected. I don't think it's that's old. I don't think it is old. It's under review at the moment.

Okay, so it's under review at the moment and if it's under the review and if the draft neighbourhood plan is proposing high density in that area, we still shouldn't be approving development applications until the community has a chance to submit on it and that we have been able to fully consider those submitted concerns and the State Government has been able to sign off on those changes as well.

This is an application that is so out of whack from the current three storey height limit that it is right that people are asking questions about it and it is right that Councillor SIMMONDS should have to justify why he's chosen to ignore this neighbourhood plan so blatantly. Councillor SIMMONDS, has chosen to ignore the provisions of that neighbourhood plan so blatantly in their decision to approve this.


Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just to respond to a little bit of the debate there. First of all to take Councillor SUTTON's comments first. So, spent a lot of time talking about why we didn't use the neighbourhood plan, why we talked


- 75 -

about the zoning for this site being 15 storeys when the application was assessed. Then promptly in the last few sentences—she was going oh so well and then promptly in the last few sentences blew her own argument out of the water when she said this plan isn't that old is it? She looks at Councillor SRI, yes, yes, it is old. Yes, it is a number of decades old. That's probably why, Madam Chairman, that we looked at the more up to date—


Councillor SIMMONDS: —zoning that is in line with community expectations. The fact that this neighbourhood plan is out of date and not in line with community expectations is exactly the argument that was used by your Labor Councillor and now the Greens Councillor to get a new neighbourhood plan. You can't on one hand argue that the neighbourhood plan is out of date—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chairman.





Councillor SIMMONDS: You can't on one hand have Labour Councillors arguing it's out of date and therefore they need a new neighbourhood plan and then say, ‘oh, but this plan that we say is totally out of date actually it's not out of date. You should assess everything against it.’ You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a bob each way. It's either out of date or it's not.

The fact is that it is decades old. It does need renewal and that is exactly why we were out to community consultation at the moment. City Plan in this respect, in this particular site, it's not setting a precedent, this particular site is far more up to date with community expectations and is zoned 15 storeys and that is what the officers have quite rightly taken into account. We've been through this.



Councillor SRI: Would Councillor SIMMONDS take a question?

Councillor SIMMONDS: No.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS? No.

Councillor SIMMONDS: We've been through this. We've been through this a number of times, Madam Chairman, about this particular application. They can again, I am not going—if officers are ready to make decisions on applications, I am going to let them make it. I am not going to hold up the community. I am not going to hold up the applicants so that we can have some—so that those opposite can have their moment in the political spotlight in this Chamber. If the decision is ready, we will—the decision will be made.


- 76 -

Just like Councillor SRI, the reason that the petitions are here is because they were ready. The officers drafted the response, you were consulted, you responded and it was ready to respond to the petitioners. Should I have said to the petitioners, ‘No, sorry, the response is there. We're ready to tell you the outcome but we can't because Councillor SRI needs his moment in the political spotlight.’ No. Look, the decisions are ready, and we made those decisions.

It didn’t stop you, I might add, from having your self-indulgent ideological diatribe in this place which is what it was. Self-indulgent Councillor SRI. ‘Woe is me. Woe is me. I don't even tell the community to make submissions anymore.’ Look, Councillor SRI, if after a year you have lost your passion to represent your community, quit.


Councillor SIMMONDS: Quit.





Councillor SIMMONDS: Leave this place if your passion is so ‘oh woe is me, I don't even bother telling them to make a submission anymore.’ I hear there's some senate spots opened up for the Greens. Run for that if you'd like but if you're going to be in this Chamber, have the courage of your convictions, represent your community and explain to them how to be part of the process instead of harping from the background.

Look, and turning every argument into a class warfare debate, it's beneath you Councillor SRI. I would really encourage you to look at these applications on their merits. Look, all of these decisions in terms of—particularly the three in Kangaroo Point, have been made in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act and of course the City Plan. Even though the neighbourhood plan is currently under assessment—I take your point—currently under renewal. I take your point Councillor SRI.

I cannot under the Sustainable Planning Act in the meantime, while this neighbourhood plan is re-done by the community, stop applicants putting in applications and nor can I pause the timeframes. The Labor State Government legislation does not allow me to do that. Applications still need to be assessed and that is why you should be telling your residents why these applications are decided in the meantime while we continue to consult with the community about a new neighbourhood plan.

So I would encourage all Councillors support these petitions for the reason that they were given consideration. The community's input did form a part of the assessment of all of these applications. We thank residents very much for their time in terms of taking the effort to put forward their submissions and concerns.

Unlike Councillor SRI, we would encourage them to continue to do it because this Administration, unlike the Greens and unlike Labor, believe in involving the community as part of the development assessment process. We want their input so that we can use their feedback to get the best—


- 77 -


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, this is Councillor SIMMONDS summing up. You were heard with appropriate courtesy, please allow Councillor SIMMONDS to complete what he is saying.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much because this Administration believes that community feedback helps us to best represent our communities and get the best outcomes for our city. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you had two points of misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chairman. On the first point Councillor SIMMONDS suggested that I'm encouraging residents not to make submissions. I do still encourage residents to make submissions but I don't encourage them to make petitions because, as I said, the clear experience has been that petitions regarding development applications are frequently ignored and rejected by this Council and on the second point, Councillor SIMMONDS seemed to be suggesting that I was ignoring community expectations.

The point I am making is that this Council can't claim to know what the community's expectations are regarding the new neighbourhood plan because the process hasn't been completed yet and the neighbourhood plan—the new neighbourhood plan hasn't been drafted or adopted or released. So Councillor SIMMONDS is asserting that the 26 Cairns Street height limits are in line with community expectations but there's no document to back up his claim about what the community expectations actually are.


Sorry, Councillor SIMMONDS, thank you for summing up.


Chairman: I will now put items A, B and C.

Clauses A, B and C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and C of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put items D, E and F.

Clauses D, E and F put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses D, E and F of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and


- 78 -

Norm WYNDHAM.



A PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REJECT CHANGES PROVIDED BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT TO THE PROPOSED FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANCA17/452925 and CA17/478785

11/2017-181. Two petitions requesting that Council advocate on behalf of residents affected by the

Queensland Government’s changes to the draft Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan (the draft neighbourhood plan), were presented to the meeting of Council held on 30 May 2017, by Councillor Steven Toomey, and received.

2. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, supplied the following information.

3. The two petitions contain a total of 465 signatures.

4. Council endorsed the draft neighbourhood plan on 6 December 2016, for a State interest review (SIR) prior to proceeding to public notification. The draft neighbourhood plan considered the previously issued State interest statement and focused on the Cedar Creek south precinct. The draft neighbourhood plan responded to various site characteristics, the technical studies undertaken across the site, and considered public submissions on the draft land use strategy which was advertised in October 2016. Council provided the Queensland Government with a comprehensive response to all State interests for consideration during the SIR.

5. Council received a response from the Queensland Government on 20 April 2017, which included directions to Council related to bushfire hazard, housing diversity and yield. The changes would result in 33 hectares being moved from Urban Edge to Housing Diversity, and removed reference to the maximum nine to 12 dwelling units per hectare provisions.

6. On 18 May 2017, the Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister), advised that Council’s amendment package had been reassessed and concluded that the only matter requiring direction related to bushfire hazard. The Minister’s amended direction confirmed Council’s original density proposal, stating that “density and yield is a matter for Council to determine” and the conditions provided related to bushfire “should result in no increase to the density or yield provided for on the site put forward by Council in the proposed amendment.”

7. Changes to the bushfire hazard include introducing a new revegetation and rehabilitation plan, which may result in a reduced ecological outcome in the future vegetated corridors through the precinct. Council has incorporated changes in accordance with the Minister’s conditions of 18 May 2017 and the revised draft neighbourhood plan is currently going through the formal public notification period from 1 June to 14 July 2017.

8. The Minister’s directions have changed significantly since the petitions were submitted. The petitions were not received during the formal public notification period. Council encourages those who have signed the petition to review the current draft neighbourhood plan that is currently going through the public notification period, and make formal submissions via email, online, or in writing, during the formal public notification period from 1 June to 14 July 2017.

9. It is recommended that the petitioners be advised in accordance with the response set out in Attachment A.

Consultation


- 79 -

10. Councillor Steve Toomey, Councillor for The Gap Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

11. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 26 June 2017.

12. DECISION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.


Petition Reference: CA17/452925 and CA17/478785

Thank you for your petitions requesting that Council advocate on behalf of residents affected by the Queensland Government changes to the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan (the draft neighbourhood plan).

Your petitions were considered by Council at the meeting of [day] [month] 2017 and I can now respond to you with the following information.

Since issuing a letter directing Council to amend the draft neighbourhood plan on 20 April 2017, the Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister), issued a letter on 18 May 2017, advising that Council’s amendment package had been reassessed and concluding that the only matter requiring direction relates to bushfire hazard. The Minister’s amended direction confirms Council’s original density proposal, stating that “density and yield is a matter for Council to determine” and the conditions provided related to bushfire “should result in no increase to the density or yield provided for on the site put forward by Council in the proposed amendment”. The Minister’s directions have changed significantly since the petitions were submitted.

As required by Queensland planning legislation, Council has incorporated the Minister’s directions received on 18 May 2017, into the draft neighbourhood plan that is now going through the public notification period. Following public notification, Council will consider the submissions and make changes to the draft neighbourhood plan, if considered appropriate, before submitting the revised plan to the Queensland Government for the second State interest review.

Council encourages all those who have signed the petitions to review the draft neighbourhood plan that is currently going through the public notification period, and make formal submissions via email, online, or in writing, during the public notification period between 1 June and 14 July 2017.

Thank you for raising this matter. Would you please advise the fellow petitioners accordingly.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Sonia Kirby, A/Principal Urban Planner, Neighbourhood Planning Brisbane, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.

NOTED

B PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF A MOSQUE AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003247857)CA17/386030

12/2017-18


- 80 -

13. A petition objecting to the Planning and Environment Court (P&E Court) approved development of a mosque at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 9 May 2017, by Councillor Steven Huang, and received.


15. The petition contained 2,703 signatures.

16. The petitioners’ concerns include amenity and social impact of the proposal, procedural injustice caused by insufficient notice of the appeal, child safety, conflict with the planning schemes, and noise and onsite facilities assessment considered insufficient.

17. Council refused the development application for the mosque on 16 May 2014, for a number of reasons including bulk, height and scale of the proposed development, traffic, ecology, hydrology, and planning related issues. The developer filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 June 2014, with the P&E Court. None of the 535 original submitters to the application chose to join the appeal.

18. Following the decision to appeal by the applicant, Council was involved in a lengthy court process which concluded on 16 December 2016. The P&E Court determined that Council’s decision should be overturned and a revised version of the mosque was approved.

19. In the judgement handed down, the Judge overseeing the appeal stated that a clear, demonstrable need for the mosque in the local area was identified, however, not at the size and scale which Council originally refused.

20. The Final Order of the P&E Court resulted in a sizeable reduction in the development footprint, which in turn reduced the traffic and amenity impacts of the proposal. The P&E Court’s conditions upon the proposal will also restore an ecological corridor with neighbouring habitat areas.

21. Discussions between Council and the applicant were conducted on a without prejudice basis and are subject to legal privilege. As in all similar legal cases this means that copies of documents cannot be released to parties that were not involved in the appeal.

22. Council's legal team represented Council's position thoroughly and in accordance with the law. During the appeal and also at the hearing of the matter, Council maintained and called expert witnesses to give evidence in relation to the concerns raised by residents and Council.

23. Council reviewed the decision of the P&E Court, and determined that there were no additional points of law which would have enabled Council to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. If local residents consider that their rights have been affected and have evidence to support this, it is suggested that they commence proceedings after having sought independent legal advice.

Consultation

24. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for Macgregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.


26. DECISION:





- 81 -

Thank you for your petition of 8 May 2017, objecting to an approval granted by the Planning and Environment (P&E) Court for a proposed mosque at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains (application reference A003247857).

Your petition was considered by Council at the meeting of insert meeting date and Council can respond to you as follows.

Council refused the development application for a mosque on 16 May 2014, for a number of reasons including bulk, height and scale of the proposed development, traffic, ecology, hydrology, and planning related issues. The developer filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 June 2014, with the P&E Court. None of the 535 original submitters to the application chose to join the appeal.

Following the decision to appeal from the applicant, Council was involved in a lengthy court process which concluded on 16 December 2016. The P&E Court determined that Council’s decision should be overturned and a revised version of the mosque was approved.

In the judgement handed down, the Judge overseeing the appeal stated that a clear, demonstrable need for the mosque in the local area was identified, however, not at the size and scale which Council originally refused.

The Final Order of the P&E Court resulted in a sizeable reduction in the development footprint, which in turn reduced the traffic and amenity impacts of the proposal. The P&E Court’s conditions upon the proposal will also restore an ecological corridor with neighbouring habitat areas.

Discussions between Council and the applicant were conducted on a without prejudice basis and are subject to legal privilege. As in all similar legal cases this means that copies of documents cannot be released to parties that were not involved in the appeal.

Council's legal team represented Council's position thoroughly and in accordance with the law. During the appeal and also at the hearing of the matter, Council maintained and called expert witnesses to give evidence in relation to the concerns raised by residents and Council.

Council has reviewed the decision of the P&E Court, and determined that there were no additional points of law which would have enabled Council to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. If local residents consider that their rights have been affected and have evidence to support this, it is suggested that they commence proceedings after having sought independent legal advice.

Details of the development application can be viewed online by visiting Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and searching the application reference.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Thank you for raising this matter.NOTED

C PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF A MOSQUE AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003247857)CA17/504076

13/2017-1827. A petition objecting to the Planning and Environment Court approved development of a mosque at 161

and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Steven Huang, and received.



- 82 -

29. The petition contains six signatures.

30. Council refused the development application for the mosque on 16 May 2014, for a number of reasons including bulk, height and scale of the proposed development, traffic, ecology, hydrology, and planning related issues. The developer filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 June 2014, with the P&E Court. None of the 535 original submitters to the application chose to join the appeal.

31. Following the decision to appeal by the applicant, Council was involved in a lengthy court process which concluded on 16 December 2016. The P&E Court determined that Council’s decision should be overturned and a revised version of the mosque was approved.

32. In the judgement handed down, the Judge overseeing the appeal stated that a clear, demonstrable need for the mosque in the local area was identified, however, not at the size and scale which Council originally refused.

33. The Final Order of the Court resulted in a sizeable reduction in the development footprint, which in turn reduced the traffic and amenity impacts of the proposal. The P&E Court’s conditions upon the proposal will also restore an ecological corridor with neighbouring habitat areas.

34. Council's legal team represented Council's position thoroughly and in accordance with the law. During the appeal and also at the hearing of the matter, Council maintained and called expert witnesses to give evidence in relation to the concerns raised by residents and Council.

35. Council reviewed the decision of the P&E Court, and determined that there were no additional points of law which would have enabled Council to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. If local residents consider that their rights have been affected and have evidence to support this, it is suggested that they commence proceedings after having sought independent legal advice.

Consultation

36. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for Macgregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.


38. DECISION:




Thank you for your petition of 29 May 2017, objecting to an approval granted by the Planning and Environment (P&E) Court for a proposed mosque at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains (application reference A003247857).


Council refused the development application for a mosque on 16 May 2014, for a number of reasons including bulk, height and scale of the proposed development, traffic, ecology, hydrology, and planning related issues. The developer filed a Notice of Appeal on 13 June 2014, with the P&E Court. None of the 535 original submitters to the application chose to join the appeal.


- 83 -

Following the decision to appeal from the applicant, Council was involved in a lengthy court process which concluded on 16 December 2016. The P&E Court determined that Council’s decision should be overturned and a revised version of the mosque was approved.

In the judgement handed down, the Judge overseeing the appeal stated that a clear, demonstrable need for the mosque in the local area was identified, however, not at the size and scale which Council originally refused.

The Final Order of the P&E Court resulted in a sizeable reduction in the development footprint, which in turn reduced the traffic and amenity impacts of the proposal. The P&E Court’s conditions upon the proposal will also restore an ecological corridor with neighbouring habitat areas.

Council's legal team represented Council's position thoroughly and in accordance with the law. I can advise that, during the appeal and also at the hearing of the matter, Council maintained and called expert witnesses to give evidence in relation to the concerns raised by residents and Council.

Council reviewed the decision of the P&E Court, and determined that there were no additional points of law which would have enabled Council to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. If local residents consider that their rights have been affected and have evidence to support this, it is suggested that they commence proceedings after having sought independent legal advice.

Details of the development application can be viewed online by visiting Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and searching the application reference.



D PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 31 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004595391)CA17/485486

14/2017-1839. A petition objecting to a development application for 31 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point (application

reference A005495391), was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.


41. The petition contains 28 signatures.

42. The petitioners’ concerns include building height, site cover and gross floor area, non-compliance with design codes, building design, deep tree planting, flood immunity and stormwater, and potential contamination of the site.

43. The subject site is within the High density residential zone, and is located in the Kangaroo Point Peninsular neighbourhood plan as part of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). This site was previously zoned as High density residential under Brisbane City Plan 2000, therefore the intent for future residential re-development of the site has not changed.

44. The subject site has had previous development approval, provided by the Planning and Environment Court (application reference A001973864) dated 16 May 2013. Under Brisbane City Plan 2000, approval was granted for a multi-unit dwelling (102 units), supermarket, shop, office and restaurant contained within two buildings of 17 and 20 storeys.


- 84 -

45. The current application is for a multiple dwelling (102 units) and food and drink outlet with a total gross floor area of 14,795 m2. This development is proposed within two towers of 21 storeys (including proposed blade fin structures located on the private roof terrace) over a four-storey podium level which contains 575 m2 of café/restaurant, communal open space, resident-only gym and lap pool. Vehicle access is proposed from Prospect Street and car parking is provided within four basement levels comprises of 187 spaces (168 resident spaces, 16 visitor spaces and three retail spaces).

46. The application is currently being assessed against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).

47. An Information Request was issued by Council on 19 April 2017, requesting that the applicant respond to the matters raised including building height, building design and articulation, interface with adjoining development, road dedication, stormwater, private open space, flooding, access and traffic, refuse arrangements and deep planting.

48. The applicant has not yet responded to this Information Request and, under SPA, has until 19 October 2017 to do so. At such time as the applicant responds to the Information Request, public notification will be required in accordance with the impact-assessable provisions of SPA. Residents will be able to lodge a submission during the public notification period and formal submitters will be afforded appeal rights in the Planning and Environment Court if not satisfied with Council’s decision. The petitioners’ concerns will also be taken into consideration as part of the assessment.

Consultation



51. DECISION:




Thank you for your petition of 1 June 2017, objecting to the proposed development at 31 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point (application reference A004595391).


The subject site is within the High density residential zone and is located in the Kangaroo Point Peninsular neighbourhood plan as part of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). This site was previously zoned as High density residential under Brisbane City Plan 2000, hence the intent for future residential re-development of the site has not changed.

The subject site has had previous development approval, provided by the Planning and Environment Court (application reference A001973864) dated 16 May 2013. Under Brisbane City Plan 2000, approval was granted for a multi-unit dwelling (102 units), supermarket, shop, office and restaurant contained within two buildings of 17 and 20 storeys.

The current application is for multiple dwelling (102 units) and food and drink outlet with a total gross floor area of 14,795 m2. This development is proposed within two towers of 21 storeys (including proposed blade fin structures located on the private roof terrace) over a four-storey podium level which contains 575 m2 of café/restaurant, communal open space, resident-only gym and lap pool. Vehicle


- 85 -

access is proposed from Prospect Street and car parking is provided within four basement levels comprised of 187 spaces (168 resident spaces, 16 visitor spaces and three retail spaces).

The application is currently being assessed against the requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).

An Information Request was issued by Council on 19 April 2017, requesting that the applicant respond to the matters raised including building height, building design and articulation, interface with adjoining development, road dedication, stormwater, private open space, flooding, access and traffic, refuse arrangements and deep planting.

The applicant has not yet responded to this Information Request and, under SPA, has until 19 October 2017 to do so. At such time as the applicant responds to the Information Request, public notification will be required in accordance with the impact-assessable provisions of SPA. Residents will be able to lodge a submission during the public notification period and formal submitters will be afforded appeal rights in the Planning and Environment Court if not satisfied with Council’s decision. The petitioners’ concerns will also be taken into consideration as part of the assessment.

Details of the development application, and any formal response to the Information Request can be viewed online by visiting Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline by searching the application reference.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Suvela Tieken, Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.



E PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 162 LAMBERT STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004506820)CA17/485515

15/2017-1852. A petition objecting to a development application for 162 Lambert Street, Kangaroo Point (application

reference A004506820), was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.


54. The petition contained 19 signatures.

55. The petitioners’ concerns include the building height, bulk, and gross floor area, deep tree planting, stormwater, setbacks, potential impacts on the local heritage place, and views.

56. The subject site is within the High density residential zone and is located in the Kangaroo Point Peninsular neighbourhood plan as part of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). The site also accommodates a local heritage place. This site was zoned as High density residential under Brisbane City Plan 2000, therefore the intent for future residential redevelopment of the site has not changed.

57. As the site is also located in City Plan’s Heritage overlay, any proposed redevelopment of the site and adjoining sites is required to ensure that the heritage value is preserved and must not impact on the values of the heritage place. While the subject site contains a heritage place, proposed future development on the site or adjoining sites is not necessarily precluded but rather needs to ensure that the heritage values are not compromised.


- 86 -

58. The development application for the partial demolition and relocation of a local heritage place and proposed multiple dwelling (34 units) was assessed by Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of City Plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and was subsequently approved on 22 June 2017.

59. During the assessment of the application, an Information Request was issued by Council on 2 December 2016, requesting the applicant to respond to the matters raised including impact on the heritage place, building height, building separation and setbacks, site cover, private open space, car park layout and function, stormwater, landscaping/deep planting and streetscape works. The applicant responded to the Information Request on 7 February 2017.

60. Following receipt of the applicant’s response to the Information Request, public notification took place under the requirements of SPA for 15 business days from 9 February to 1 March 2017. During this period 38 valid submissions were received. As the proposal is an impact-assessable application, any matters raised by submitters were considered as part of the assessment process. Formal submitters are also afforded appeal rights within the Planning and Environment Court if they are not satisfied with Council’s decision.

61. After submissions were received and assessment was made of the applicant’s responses, Council sent a Further Issues letter to the applicant on 4 April 2017. This letter requested additional information addressing the issues considered insufficiently responded to within the Information Request response. The applicant responded to this request on 4 May 2017. Council assessed the applicant’s response to the Further Issues letter and made a decision to approve the application on 22 June 2017.

Consultation



64. DECISION:




Thank you for your petition of 1 June 2017, objecting to the proposed development at 162 Lambert Street, Kangaroo Point (application reference A004506820).


The subject site is within the High density residential zone and is located in the Kangaroo Point Peninsular neighbourhood plan as part of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). The site also accommodates a local heritage place. This site was zoned as High density residential under Brisbane City Plan 2000, therefore the intent for future residential re-development of the site has not changed.

As the site is also located in City Plan’s Heritage overlay, any proposed redevelopment of the site and adjoining sites is required to ensure that the heritage value is preserved and must not impact on the values of the heritage place. While the subject site contains a heritage place, proposed future development on the site or adjoining sites is not necessarily precluded but rather needs to ensure that the heritage values are not compromised.


- 87 -

The development application for the partial demolition and relocation of a local heritage place and proposed multiple dwelling (34 units) was assessed by Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, against the requirements of City Plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and was subsequently approved on 22 June 2017.

During the assessment of the application, an Information Request was issued by Council on 2 December 2016, requesting the applicant to respond to the matters raised including impact on the heritage place, building height, building separation and setbacks, site cover, private open space, car park layout and function, stormwater, landscaping/deep planting and streetscape works. The applicant responded to the Information Request on 7 February 2017.

Following receipt of the applicant’s response to the Information Request, public notification took place under the requirements of SPA for 15 business days from 9 February to 1 March 2017. During this period, 38 valid submissions were received. As the proposal is an impact-assessable application, any matters raised by submitters were considered as part of the assessment process. Formal submitters are also afforded appeal rights within the Planning and Environment Court if they are not satisfied with Council’s decision. I note that you were not a submitter to the application.

After submissions were received and assessment was made of the applicant’s responses, Council sent a Further Issues letter to the applicant on 4 April 2017. This letter requested additional information addressing the issues considered insufficiently responded to within the Information Request response. The applicant responded to this request on 4 May 2017. Council assessed the applicant’s response to the Further Issues letter and made a decision to approve the application on 22 June 2017.

Further information detailing Council’s response to concerns raised by submitters can be found on Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and searching the application reference.

If you wish to discuss these matters further, please contact Ms Suvela Tieken, Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.


Thank you for raising this matter.

NOTED

F PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 26 CAIRNS STREET, AND PART OF 35 FERRY STREET, KANGAROO POINT (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004060583) CA17/485581

16/2017-1865. A petition objecting to a development application for 26 Cairns Street, and part of 35 Ferry Street,

Kangaroo Point (application reference A004060583), was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.



68. The petitioners’ concerns include the height, site cover and, gross floor area, building design and tower separation, deep tree planting and landscaping, stormwater, setbacks, views, traffic and car parking, and perceived lack of detail in the applicant’s responses.

69. The subject site is located on the corner of Cairns and Deakin Streets, Kangaroo Point, with a total area of 4,964 m2, and is located in the High density residential zone (up to 15 storeys). The site is included in the Dockside precinct within the Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan. The site also has a frontage to the existing public pedestrian footbridge that links Cairns Street to the Dockside precinct.


- 88 -

The surrounding area is also identified in the High density residential zone that includes a range of building heights from one to 23 storeys. The site is in proximity to the Bradfield Highway which connects to the nearby Story Bridge.

70. The adjoining property at 78 Cairns Street, and the dry dock at 44 Ferry Street, are also local heritage listed. Furthermore, four cottages across from the site along Cairns Street are also heritage listed. These cottages are currently used as office space. The part of the subject site that also contains a dry dock is not heritage listed, as this was constructed in 1969, as an extension to the existing dock and it was then used as a ship repair facility.

71. The current application is for Material change of use (development permit) for a multiple dwelling (311 units), indoor sport and recreation, food and drink outlet, shopping centre, shop, office, home business, caretaker's accommodation and a preliminary approval for operational works to fill the portion of dry dock located within the subject site. This application was approved against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) on 17 May 2017.

72. During the assessment of the application, an Information Request was issued by Council on 2 April 2015, requesting the applicant respond to the matters raised including building height, site cover, view corridors, interface to the dry dock, compatibility with the Dockside precinct, setbacks and building separation, façade details, private open space, stormwater, landscaping/deep planting, and engineering details. The applicant responded to the Information Request on 10 August 2015.

73. After the applicant responded to the Information Request, public notification took place under the requirements of SPA for 15 business days from 13 August to 4 September 2015. During this period 27 valid submissions were received. As the proposal was an impact-assessable application, any matters raised by submitters were considered as part of the assessment process. Formal submitters are afforded appeal rights within the Planning and Environment Court if they are not satisfied with Council’s decision.

74. After submissions were received and assessment was made of the applicant’s responses, Council sent a Further Issues letter to the applicant on 18 November 2015. This letter requested additional work on addressing the issues not considered sufficiently responded to within the Information Request response. The applicant responded to this request on 7 February 2017, with a reduction of building height, reduction of building footprint and an increase in setbacks and deep planting. Council assessed the applicant’s response to the Further Issues letter and made a decision to approve the application on 17 May 2017.

Consultation



77. DECISION:




Thank you for your petition of 1 June 2017, objecting to the proposed development at 26 Cairns Street, and part of 35 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point (application reference A004060583).


- 89 -


The subject site is located on the corner of Cairns and Deakin Streets, Kangaroo Point, with a total area of 4,964 m2 and is located in the High density residential zone (up to 15 storeys). The site is included in the Dockside precinct within the Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan.

The adjoining property at 78 Cairns Street and the dry dock at 44 Ferry Street are local heritage listed. Furthermore, four cottages across from the site along Cairns Street are also heritage listed. These cottages are currently used as office space. The part of the subject site that also contains a dry dock is not heritage listed, as this was constructed in 1969, as an extension to the existing dock and it was then used as a ship repair facility.

The current application is for Material change of use (development permit) and carrying out building work (preliminary approval) for multiple dwellings (311 units), indoor sport and recreation, food and drink outlet, shopping centre, shop, office, caretaker’s accommodation and home based business, and preliminary approval for operational works to fill the portion of dry dock located within the subject site. This application was approved against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) on 17 May 2017.

During the assessment of the application, an Information Request was issued by Council on 2 April 2015, requesting that the applicant responds to the matters raised including, building height, site cover, view corridors, interface to the dry dock, compatibility with the Dockside precinct, setbacks and building separation, façade details, private open space, stormwater, landscaping/deep planting and engineering details The applicant responded to the Information Request on 10 August 2015.

After the applicant responded to the Information Request, public notification took place under the requirements of SPA for 15 business days from 13 August to 4 September 2015. During this period 27 valid submissions were received. As the proposal is an impact-assessable application, any matters raised by submitters were considered as part of the assessment process. Formal submitters are afforded appeal rights within the Planning and Environment Court if they are not satisfied with Council’s decision. It is noted that you were not a submitter to the application.

After submissions were received and assessment was made of the applicant’s responses, Council sent a Further Issues letter to the applicant on 18 November 2015. This letter requested additional work addressing the issues not considered sufficiently responded to within the Information Request response. The applicant responded to this request on 7 February 2017, with a reduction of building height, reduction of building footprint and an increase in setbacks and deep planting. Council assessed the applicant’s response to the Further Issues letter and made a decision to approve the application on 17 May 2017.

Further information detailing Council’s response to concerns raised by submitters can be found on Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and searching the application reference.

If you wish to discuss these matters further, please contact Ms Suvela Tieken, Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.



ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually considered by the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, be noted.


- 90 -

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. There are seven decisions noted here, A through to G. So seven matters considered during the recess, four related to park namings. There were two petitions and two formal namings. One of these petitions received a fair amount of media attention, that was to recognise the contribution of Ed Kuepper and his band ‘The Saints’ at the naming of a park at Oxley and it's well supported.

The other matters are there; a petition requesting an additional grassed area in Wynnum Central or next to the Wynnum Central State School site, shade cloth at a section of the Wynnum Wading Pool and a petition relating to Bulimba Creek at Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains.


Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chairman.

Seriatim – Clauses C and DCouncillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause C, PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS KENNA STREET PARK, CHERMSIDE WEST, TO ‘JOHN GOSS RESERVE’, and Clause D, PETITIONS – REQUESTING ADDITIONAL GRASSED AREA TO BE MADE PARKLANDS AT THE FORMER WYNNUM CENTRAL STATE SCHOOL SITE be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you. I'm going to speak on items A and C. So the first one is interestingly the naming of Ed Kuepper Park which I strongly support and which I'd like to thank a couple of local residents who've been very strongly involved in that and it's a gentleman called Moz and also Jessica Pugh. They've managed to get over 766 signatures from local people which shows that there's very strong support for this park naming.

Ed Kuepper obviously was in the band The Saints and interestingly Bob Geldof had said of The Saints that there are three bands that altered the face of music in the '70s; they were the ‘Sex Pistols’, the ‘Ramones’ and ‘The Saints’. Certainly, ‘The Saints’ are a great Brisbane band. They hailed from Oxley. So Ed's family was originally from Germany and moved to Oxley. He met a couple of other band members, so Chris Bailey at Oxley State High School and then at Corinda State High School, Ivor Hay.

So they went on to form ‘The Saints’ and became very famous in the establishment of the punk rock movement. There might have been a few punk rock movers in this Chamber but I don't think they're here now. He had a house in Lawson Street and was very famous for his music including I'm Stranded, which is an early touchstone of the punk rock movement. I'd like to say that his work was very interesting. I don't know if it was the music I would necessarily listen to but I'm sure others really enjoy it.

I'd like to say that we will do an opening or a launch of the park with Ed later in the year once the signage is sorted out and that he did go on and he had a solo career after his—he had his own band ‘The Laughing Clowns’. He still lives in the area and has for the last 40 years contributed strongly to the Australian music scene. So congratulations to the residents for recognising a great performer from our community and also to Ed Kuepper for the amazing contribution he's made to music both here and around the world.


- 91 -

Second item I'd like to talk about is item C and that's Kenna Street Park and that's going from Kenna Street Park to John Goss Reserve. I do note that John Goss was a Liberal member. He was a Councillor from 1982 to 1989 and then he went onto the Queensland Parliament from 1989 to 2001. He still lives in his electorate. What I suppose is most surprising when you look at all the petitions here, they've all got support by a petition and community support. This petition has no community support and there seems to be no process with the naming of this park other than Councillor Norm WYNDHAM has supported it. So it's good to know that Councillor WYNDHAM has supported the naming of the park and he's looking after his Liberal or LNP mates but I really think that—

Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: I believe that is quite directly imputing motive and I ask that you caution Councillor GRIFFITHS on that.


Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, we don't need your running commentary.

Councillor GRIFFITHS, that is imputing motive that there was just one reason why Councillor WYNDHAM approved it. I don't believe that that would be the case so can you please correct—rephrase your remarks please.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Okay, I'll rephrase my remarks and say that it's of interest that a Liberal—

Councillor KING: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor KING.

Councillor KING: Would the Councillor take a question?

Councillor GRIFFITHS: No.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS? Thank you.


Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you. I find it interesting that a Council park can be renamed in a manner where the only person involved in the renaming is a member of the same political party and that is fact. Look let's just look through the other petitions here, Ed Kuepper Park got 677 signatures, the Buchanan Family Playground got 28 signatures. Of course, we know for item C there are no signatures. The grassed area in item D got 88 signatures—good on your Councillor CUMMING. Tranquil Park again got 21 signatures, that was Councillor MARX. The shade cloth over Wynnum Pool got 741 signatures and even Councillor HUANG managed to get three signatures for save Bulimba Creek.

Unfortunately, Councillor WYNDHAM couldn't demonstrate any support; not one bit of support for the naming of John Goss Reserve. So Madam Chairman, I think what it says here, the secret's out, if you want to name a park after a mate, don't consult, don't ask residents and just slip it through Council.

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


- 92 -


Councillor ADAMS: Again, imputing motive and a very poor reflection on a Councillor in this Chamber.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: But the truth. Let's just—

Chairman: Order. Order. There—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: The horror of it all.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, just a moment please. There has been enough of this tonight. Deal with the issues not with Councillors on the other side of the Chamber and imputing motive against them please.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I just had—

Chairman: That goes for all Councillors.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I have never seen anything come through the Chamber, a park naming, ever come through this Chamber—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, we do not need your running commentary either.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Councillor JOHNSTON, I look forward to the speech you have about this particular issue. I think what's really disappointing is that the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party in this place is using the Chamber—

Councillor KING: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor KING.

Councillor KING: He's actually misleading the Chamber because that's been named John Goss Reserve for over 20 years.

Chairman: Order.


Chairman: Stop.


Chairman: Is there something wrong with everybody's hearing tonight because I have said repeatedly in this Chamber to cease the carry-on. It is not funny, this is a proper place of democratic debate and what has been going on here this afternoon has been far from it. Now start learning the rules again all of you and start abiding by them.

Councillor JOHNSTON, section 51 when I'm speaking, you don't.



- 93 -

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes thanks, Madam Chairman. Look I'll just summarise and say that I think it's very disappointing the way this has been done. It think it's disrespectful for the actual gentleman who the park has been named after because I'm sure he actually does have a lot of support in the community. It just doesn't reflect well on the process that Council has used to name a park without demonstrating community support where every other petition here has had that required support. Thank you, Madam Chairman.



Chairman: Councillor WYNDHAM, you were up first.

Councillor WYDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item C, the naming of John Goss Reserve Park. Call it what you will. The interesting thing is with this and I say this often in the Chamber to the Opposition, look at the history. Remember the history. John Goss Reserve and Park has been named that for some 20 years or approximately some 20 years before I was elected. Before Councillor Collins was elected.

This naming is to, I guess, ratify a little bit of a change where part of the park has been constantly called Whites Road Park by error. Basically people have just called it that because that's what it's been forever and day. We used to name our parks after roads et cetera. This part of the park has just had that formally addressed. As I say—



Councillor JOHNSTON: I'm a little bit confused where this Whites Road—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, it is quite clear in Clause 26 of this item that there is a pre-existing John Goss Reserve sign currently installed on one frontage of the park and this is ensuring that the other frontage has the same name. Councillor WYNDHAM was reflecting on how parks have been basically given a default name relating to the road at which they front. That is as simple as it is. Read the reports.

Councillor WYNDHAM.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. That wasn't what I was going to raise at all.

Chairman: That was your point of order as you were saying you were confused about the Whites Street and that is where Councillor WYNDHAM was reflecting it from.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Whites Street is not mentioned—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —in this whatsoever, Madam Chairman. I'm just clarifying—

Chairman: —Councillor JOHNSTON, you need to listen to what is being said.


- 94 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: —This is not in the report—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I have just given you sufficient information and explanation from the report. If you continue to interject on points of order, you will be creating disorder and you will be formally warned. That is your caution.

Councillor WYNDHAM.

Councillor WYNDHAM: Madam Chairman, just to continue and I'll try and make it short, it's basically a case of look at your history, remember your history, look at what's happened in the past. Things do sometimes have to be changed due to anomalies. Council officers have come to me and asked about the change and I have basically said yes, that's a great idea because it takes a lot of confusion away for many locals.

Now obviously if you live south of the river, you probably don't understand that and you might even be confused. So all I can say is, it's a great idea to have the one park named the one name instead of two names, thank you.

Chairman: Thank you Councillor WYNDHAM.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item C and I'd like to thank Councillor GRIFFITHS for pointing out the issues that he raised in his debate but when I read this matter before us, I thought there perhaps was another explanation and I think it runs along the lines of what Councillor KING and Councillor WYNDHAM is saying that 20 years ago, somebody stuffed up and their mate John Goss had a park named after him but it wasn't ever officially named. Meanwhile Council has spent money putting up signs and yet the park hadn't officially been named John Goss Reserve. So it appears to me that we are correcting an error.

Now, Madam Chairman, that just strikes me as a bit of a concern based on Councillor GRIFFITHS' advice that none of this was the subject of consultation which is required under the Council policy for the naming of parks, tracks and pathways. It says that there must be consultation.

Now far from what Councillor WYNDHAM said, I have actually known John Goss for many, many years. When I worked in the State Government, he was a State member of parliament and I had met him back in 1989/1990. So I do know John Goss quite well. Madam Chairman, I have no problem with the park being named after him because he was a Councillor in this place for a long time and a State Member.

However, where I have a concern is where this Council applies the rules in one way to benefit LNP members and in another way to benefit others. That is where there is a problem. This is the second time that it has happened. When Fairfield Park was renamed Norm Rose Park on the request of an LNP member with no community consultation whatsoever—none. Now it's happened again, so right.

So apparently the park policy needs to be changed and it needs to be updated and if the Council officers up there are listening tonight, clearly you need to reflect on what the LNP are doing which is naming parks after their mates without consultation.



- 95 -

Councillor KING.

Councillor KING: Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on this petition item C and I just want to make it crystal clear for those ignorant people over on the other side—

Chairman: Councillor KING, could you please refer to the people on the other side of the Chamber as—

Councillor KING: —Sorry, Councillor—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of—

Chairman: Councillors, in accordance with the Meetings Local Law—

Councillor KING: I'll withdraw—


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor Johnston.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you.

Chairman: Sorry, I just missed that bit.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well I was going to ask you to ask Councillor KING to withdraw the ignorant comment which you had allowed but she has done it voluntarily.

Councillor KING: She didn't—I did. I did, it is withdrawn.

Chairman: She has done it voluntarily.

Councillor KING: So to educate some of those on the other side of the Council who have spoken about this petition, who obviously have nothing else to do but stick their nose in incorrectly to other people's wards. This is simply—this park was actually named John Goss Reserve over 20 years ago. I've spoken to Mr Goss about the park and I've spent many a time there with my children, Madam Chairman.

This petition was put in many, many, many moons ago and was supported by the local community. Mr Goss was embarrassed by it at the time because he felt uncomfortable at that time about having a park named after him but it was the community's wishes, Madam Chairman, at that time. Madam Chairman, this is simply putting a sign up on the other side of the park, Madam Chairman. The park is named John Goss Reserve and has been to the other side of the Council.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, again I just draw to your attention that this report says the park is currently known as Kenna Street Park. It's not just about putting a sign up, we are renaming a park—

Chairman: No Councillor JOHNSTON, stop. As I have told you previously, you need to read the document. It clearly says 26, it is therefore recommended that the approval be granted to formally name the park currently known as Kenna Street


- 96 -

Park located on Kenna Street, Chermside West, as John Goss Reserve in accordance with the Council procedure.

It is also recommended that a name sign be erected on the Kenna Street frontage of the park. There is a pre-existing John Goss Reserve sign currently installed on the Maundrell Terrace frontage. So the park has multiple street frontages and one of those street frontages has gone through the formal Council park naming process for the land to be named the John Goss Reserve and this is just to ensure that both frontages of the land that forms part of John Goss Reserve has the appropriate signage so that people have got the right location to go to.

Councillor KING.

Councillor KING: Madam Chairman, it is one park. It's known as—I don't know about the other Councillors but—


Chairman: Councillor WYNDHAM!

Councillor KING: There's a park known or sorry named in another park in Councillor WYNDHAM's ward on our boundary, it's called Keong Park but it's known in the area as Turner Park. So, Madam Chairman, that's a community that people around it call it that and the reason why they do is because the Queen of Apostles kids use it every so often and they call it—‘we have turns at that park.’

So, Madam Chairman, this park has always been called, for the last 20 years that I know of, the John Goss Reserve. This is simply putting up a name on the park. It's got many street frontages. It is as simple as that. It's no change. It’s one park named John Goss Reserve. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I refer to items C, D and F. In raising item C, Madam Chairman, my understanding is that a reserve is actually not a park and I've got one in my area where the park is called Bill Lamond Park and we named part of the park after a former Councillor actually, Mr Don Randall, some 25 years ago but the park is officially known as Bill Lamond Park, Madam Chairman.

So I suspect that there might have been a sign up there for the reserve but actually it's not a park. Until you make it a park, it still remains a reserve which is not the same thing as a park. Anyhow that's alright. Madam Chairman, if it's been there for many years, we thought it was something that had been done just without proper consultation for a friend of the LNP and we accept that that's not the case, Madam Chairman. I go onto item D. Item D, Madam Chairman—


Councillor CUMMING: —well I'll accept what Councillor KING has said that it's been—that they've had a sign up for John Goss Reserve so good luck to him. Madam Chairman, in relation to item D, requesting additional grassed area to be made parklands, this is a matter from Wynnum. It's an old petition I guess. Sadly, the Council has made the decision some time ago that this area of land would be a carpark. Local residents thought it would be better as parkland. This area is part of the Wynnum-Manly neighbourhood plan.


- 97 -

There's been a number of five-storey buildings been built around the area and there's provision for eight storeys to be built. The belief in the community which I support is that in time there will be a need for a park in the Wynnum Central precinct. There is currently no park in the area and if young families or families with young children start buying up some of the units as they have in other parts of Brisbane—

Chairman: Councillors WYNDHAM, McKENZIE, JOHNSTON and GRIFFITHS, if you're going to have conversations go outside.

Councillor CUMMING: —right—sorry, yes is that alright? I can continue?

Chairman: Yes, proceed please Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: If there's people with young kids in the area, they will need a big area of parkland. There is a small area of parkland which Council has set aside but it's never been opened since the community centre and the library in Wynnum was opened over a year ago now. It's had a big tree moved into the area and it's still—I think there's still some concerns about the stability of the big tree and also it's quite a small area of parkland.

Anyhow, I've moved on with this matter. I don't agree with the petition response but we're looking forward to Council actually spending the money that is set aside for a car park now and the next question is the debate of how the car park is designed.

Madam Chairman, in relation to item F, this one is a matter where the Wynnum Wading Pool was upgraded some years ago. A filtration system was put in and at the time a new slide was put in. Almost immediately when it was done residents said, ‘well, why haven't we got a shade over the slide?’ The report came back from Council, when it went up to the Heritage Council, they said because it's a heritage-listed pool. It's was a Depression-era construction.

They said, ‘well, no it would go against the heritage status of the pool—the heritage design.’ The heritage look of the pool which prompted a few people to say, ‘talk about the Heritage Council being obviously more interested in the heritage than they were in trying to avoid skin cancer’, but anyhow.

There's been a number of requests over the years from people wanting this to be done and this is the most furthest it's ever come for Council now saying that they will get quotes for—they'll design a shade. They'll get quotes for it and they'll take it up to the Heritage Council and ask them will they approve it. So I welcome that response and we'll be supporting item F. Thank you.



Seriatim – Clause CCouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause C, PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS KENNA STREET PARK, CHERMSIDE WEST, TO ‘JOHN GOSS RESERVE’, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.


Further debate?


- 98 -

Councillor MARX, you rose before?

Okay. Councillor McLACHLAN, summing up.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Well I guess the Labor Party and the Independent Councillor proved one thing here tonight and that is their obsession with process rather than addressing the outcome. So let me address some of the points to dive into that process issue.

There seems to be a fair bit of energy expended about the naming of a park which even though recognised as being known as the John Goss Reserve for 20 odd years or so and to dive into the parks naming policy to the points that have been raised by Councillor GRIFFITHS and Councillor JOHNSTON, the policy for naming of parks says this, ‘The Manager, Asset Services in consultation with the ward Councillor will determine the form and extent of consultation regarding a proposed name.’

Well, if we have a reserve that's been known as the John Goss Reserve, if Google Maps calls it the John Goss Reserve, surely it's within our capacity for Asset Services to say to the local Councillor, ‘hey local Councillor, why don't we give it the formal name because it's not known formally as that park name.’ I think it's a very good process to the extent that I like to focus on outcomes rather than the process which those on the other side get bogged down in.

To the extent that there's a process, the process allows for some collaboration on issues like this and for logic to prevail. Logic is prevailing here because we have an area that's been known and named for John Goss for quite some period of time. Google Maps calls it John Goss. The officers have suggested that that area be known formally now as the John Goss Reserve and so be it, so be it.

The issue that Councillor GRIFFITHS raised—he missed the point that I raised right at the beginning that in terms of park naming, there were two petitions and two formal namings. So the Ed Kuepper Park was a petition. The petition has been received; the recommendation is to support the naming of the Lawson Reserve Park, the Lawson Park as the Ed Kuepper Park. That will come back to us as a formal submission to name it the Ed Kuepper Park.

That was the process that has gone through for the petition relating to the renaming of Peppercorn Street Park to Tranquil Park. So petition received, agreed to, formal naming. That's the process that's been gone through. There's a difference between in this report here two petitions and two formal namings. The process that's been gone through for the formal naming of John Goss Reserve is entirely valid, entirely in keeping with the processes and I frankly, Madam Chairman, can't believe the energy that we've expended here on this issue here tonight.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SUTTON: Just in reflection of the Leader of the Opposition's comments in his speech, we had previously asked for item C and D to be taken seriatim for voting purposes but we were happy for those to be done together. Can we now do them separately please?

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON had already asked for that as well. So that's—


- 99 -

Councillor SUTTON: Sorry, I missed that.

Chairman: That's no problem. It's no problem. I will now put items A, B, E, F and G.

Clauses A, B, E, F and G put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B, E, F and G of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put item C.

Clause C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put item D.

Clause D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause D of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Peter CUMMING and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.



A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME LAWSON STREET PARK, OXLEY, TO ‘ED KUEPPER PARK’CA17/365158

17/2017-181. A petition from residents, requesting that Council rename Lawson Street Park, Oxley, to ‘Ed Kuepper

Park’, in honour of singer/songwriter Ed Kuepper, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 2 May 2017, by Councillor Steve Griffiths, and received.

2. The Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.


4. Ed Kuepper grew up on Lawson Street, Oxley, in the 1960s and 1970s and co-founded the history-making Australian punk band, ‘The Saints’, with two other local musicians. He later formed the band, ‘The Laughing Clowns’.


- 100 -

5. Ed Kuepper has been a successful solo artist since the mid-80s and has been an important and influential member of the Australian music scene for more than 40 years.

6. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will consider supporting renaming Lawson Street Park, Oxley, to ‘Ed Kuepper Park’, in accordance with OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Consultation

7. Councillor Steve Griffiths, Councillor for Moorooka Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

8. Members of the local community are in agreement with the renaming of Lawson Street Park, Oxley, to ‘Ed Kuepper Park’.

9. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 26 June 2017.

10. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER SUPPORTING RENAMING LAWSON STREET PARK, OXLEY, TO ‘ED KUEPPER PARK’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS PROCEDURE.



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council rename Lawson Street Park, Oxley, to ‘Ed Kuepper Park’.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

Council will consider supporting the renaming of Lawson Street Park, Oxley, to ‘Ed Kuepper Park’ in accordance with OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Dean Middleton, Technical Officer Parks, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.


B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PLAYGROUND IN BRADY BUSHLAND PARK, RUNCORN, TO ‘THE BUCHANAN FAMILY PLAYGROUND’161/540/567/158

18/2017-1811. The Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following

information.

12. Council received a petition, which contained 28 signatures, requesting the renaming of the playground in Brady Bushland Park in Belyando Street, Runcorn, to ‘The Buchanan Family Playground’. On


- 101 -

2 May 2017, Council approved a petition submission to officially name the playground in Brady Bushland Park, Belyando Street, Runcorn, as ‘The Buchanan Family Playground’.

13. The Buchanan family have lived in the Runcorn area for more than 30 years and are highly regarded by the local residents for their voluntary work. Frank Buchanan, right up until his passing, created and volunteered in the Brandon Road Bushcare Group along with his wife, Margaret, and his daughters. They also took it upon themselves to clean up this particular park, Brady Bushland Park, on a regular basis.

14. Frank Buchanan’s wife still lives close to this park and would be extremely honoured by this nomination.

15. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted to name the playground within Brady Bushland Park, located in Belyando Street, Runcorn, as ‘The Buchanan Family Playground’, in accordance with Council procedure OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks. It is also recommended that a name sign be erected in this park.

Funding

16. Funding for the name sign is available in the South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2017-18.

Consultation

17. Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

18. The park naming will give recognition to the contribution of the Buchanan family to the local community.

19. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 July 2017.

20. DECISION:

THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME THE PLAYGROUND WITHIN BRADY BUSHLAND PARK, LOCATED IN BELYANDO STREET, RUNCORN, AS ‘THE BUCHANAN FAMILY PLAYGROUND’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A NAME SIGN BE ERECTED IN THE PARK.

NOTED

C PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS KENNA STREET PARK, CHERMSIDE WEST, TO ‘JOHN GOSS RESERVE’161/540/567/157

19/2017-1821. The Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following

information.

22. Mr John Goss was Member for Aspley in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland between 1989 and 2001. During this time he undertook various roles, including Shadow Minister for Housing, Planning and Urban Transport (1992) and Shadow Minister for Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs (2000). Prior to entering the Queensland Government, Mr Goss served as a councillor with the Brisbane City Council from 1982 to 1989.


- 102 -

23. Born and bred in Brisbane, Mr Goss has always been a passionate advocate for South East Queensland and continues to take an active role in the community. He is now retired and still resides in the Aspley electorate.

24. Mr Goss is highly regarded among his peers and the wider community as being a loyal and dedicated local member for the Aspley electorate.

25. In addition to his service as Member for Aspley, Mr Goss served in the following roles:- Deputy Chairman, Water Supply and Sewerage Committee, Brisbane City Council (1988)- Member, Brisbane and Area Water Board (1988 to 1989)- Member, Metropolitan Fire Brigade Board (1988 to 1989)- Deputy Chairman, Transport Committee, Brisbane City Council (1985 to 1988)- Member, Health Committee, Brisbane City Council (1985 to 1988)- Member, Environment Committee, Brisbane City Council (1985 to 1988)- Member, South East Queensland Electricity Board (1985 to 1988)- Member, Prince Charles Hospital Board (1982 to 1988)- Member, Transport Committee, Brisbane City Council (1982 to 1985)- Alderman for Chermside (1982 to 1985).

26. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted to formally name the park currently known as Kenna Street Park, located on Kenna Street, Chermside West, as ‘John Goss Reserve’, in accordance with Council procedure OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks. It is also recommended that a name sign be erected on the Kenna Street frontage of the park. There is a pre-existing ‘John Goss Reserve’ sign currently installed on the Maundrell Terrace frontage.

Funding

27. Funding for the name sign is available in the North Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2017-18.

Consultation

28. Councillor Norm Wyndham, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

29. Mr Goss is highly regarded among his peers and the wider community as being a loyal and dedicated local member for the Aspley electorate, therefore little or no customer impact is expected.

30. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 July 2017.

31. DECISION:

THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO FORMALLY NAME THE PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS KENNA STREET PARK, LOCATED ON KENNA STREET, CHERMSIDE WEST, AS ‘JOHN GOSS RESERVE’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A NAME SIGN BE ERECTED ON THE KENNA STREET FRONTAGE OF THE PARK.

NOTED

D PETITIONS – REQUESTING ADDITIONAL GRASSED AREA TO BE MADE PARKLANDS AT THE FORMER WYNNUM CENTRAL STATE SCHOOL SITECA16/167233 AND CA16/321434

20/2017-1832. Council received two petitions requesting additional grassed area to be made parklands at the former


- 103 -

Wynnum Central State School site. The first petition (CA16/167233) was received during the Election Recess 2016. The second petition (CA16/321434) was presented to the meeting of Council held on 19 April 2016, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.

33. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the following information.

34. The petitions contain 88 signatures in total.

35. The petitioners requested the parkland be added on the northern side of the newly refurbished community centre (Building A, formerly the main office of the school). A children’s playground, picnic shelters, barbeques and an area for markets and performances were also requested to be added to the parkland.

36. Wynnum Central State School was purchased by Brisbane City Council from the Queensland Government in March 2012. After Council acquired the 1.46 hectare site, it was subdivided into five separate lots. The subdivided site includes the development of a commercial precinct including the relocated Wynnum Library, the car parking and the refurbishment of Building A into a community centre.

37. The site is within the Wynnum-Manly neighbourhood plan under the Wynnum Central Business District sub-precinct which identifies that redevelopment of the site can be up to eight stories including community uses, short-term accommodation and multiple dwellings.

38. Building A was refurbished as a community centre and opened to the public in October 2015. The area requested for parkland is currently turfed, however no long-term commitment has been made regarding the land allocation. In order to support the ongoing operation of the community groups that occupy the community centre, the grassed area is intended to be allocated for car parking. Council has previously stated that the current car park situated to the north of the grassed area has been allocated for future development.

39. Council has met its obligations under Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and obtained the appropriate approvals required through a Development Application for Material Change of Use of the site that was approved on 31 August 2014.

40. It is recommended that the information in this submission be noted and the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner.

Consultation

41. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.


43. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.


Petitions Reference: CA16/167233 and CA16/321434

Thank you for your petitions requesting an additional grassed area on the former Wynnum State School site.

The area requested for parkland is currently turfed, however no long-term commitment has been made regarding the land allocation. In order to support the ongoing operation of the community groups that


- 104 -

occupy the community centre, the grassed area is intended to be allocated for car parking. Council has previously stated that the current car park situated to the north of the grassed area has been allocated for future development.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Thomas Buntine, Development Manager, Asset Optimisation, Organisational Services, on (07) 3178 0443.


E PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME PEPPERCORN STREET PARK, SUNNYBANK HILLS, TO ‘TRANQUIL PARK’CA17/183975

21/2017-1844. A petition from residents, requesting that Council rename Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, to

‘Tranquil Park’, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 February 2017, by Councillor Kim Marx, and received.



47. Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, surveyed the local residents of Sunnybank Hills, regarding the renaming of Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills. This park is located between Peppercorn and Tranquil Streets, Sunnybank Hills. Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, is an informal use park that is currently being upgraded with the addition of a new shelter and picnic setting, and the replacement of the swing set.

48. As part of the park upgrades the residents were asked for suggestions for formalising the name of Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, and three alternate names were provided to the community by Councillor Marx.

49. The names were Tranquil Park, Nolans Park (after local residents) and Files Park (after local residents and a former Neighbourhood Watch President). Twenty-three surveys were received with 21 responses requesting the park be officially known as ‘Tranquil Park’, Sunnybank Hills.

50. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will consider supporting the renaming of Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, to ‘Tranquil Park’ in accordance with OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Consultation

51. Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

52. Members of the local community are in agreement with the renaming of Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills to ‘Tranquil Park’.

53. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 17 July 2017.

54. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER SUPPORTING


- 105 -

THE RENAMING OF PEPPERCORN STREET PARK, SUNNYBANK HILLS, TO ‘TRANQUIL PARK’ IN ACCORDANCE WITH OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS PROCEDURE.



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council rename Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, to ‘Tranquil Park’.


Council will consider supporting renaming Peppercorn Street Park, Sunnybank Hills, to ‘Tranquil Park’ in accordance with OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Dean Middleton, Technical Officer Parks, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.


F PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL A SHADE CLOTH ACROSS A SECTION OF THE WYNNUM WADING POOLCA17/299766

22/2017-1855. A petition from residents, requesting that Council install a shade cloth across a section of the Wynnum

Wading Pool, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 7 February 2017, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.



58. The Wynnum Wading Pool Reserve is a Queensland Heritage Place, having been entered on the Queensland Heritage Register in 1998. Approval from the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) will be required for any proposed works at the wading pool.

59. When the wading pool was upgraded in 2008, any proposed shade structures were not approved by the DEHP at the time, as they were to be installed on the actual structure of the wading pool. To cover the small children’s slide area, this shade cover will have to be installed in the actual sea bed of the wading pool. This does not affect the wading pool structure but may detract from its heritage values.

60. A representative from City Architecture and Heritage Team, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, confirmed the above information.

61. To have such a structure certified in the marine environment, it will need to be constructed from robust marine grade materials and the works are expected to be expensive. Council’s Asset Services East Region will obtain a design and cost estimate for the shade structure and then seek DEHP’s approval, prior to listing for funding in a future capital works program. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. The works that get approved have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefitting in relation to the cost.


- 106 -

62. Council does provide sun-smart educational signage at the wading pool to assist its users and increase their awareness of the need for personal sun protection.

63. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council has decided to obtain a design and cost estimate for a shade structure over the children’s slide area at the south end of the Wynnum Wading Pool and then seek Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection approval, prior to listing it for consideration in a future budget.

Consultation

64. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

65. The proposed outcome will allow the Wynnum Wading Pool to be available for public use without a shade over the slide area.

66. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 24 July 2017.

67. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL HAS DECIDED TO OBTAIN A DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATE FOR A SHADE STRUCTURE OVER THE CHILDREN’S SLIDE AREA AT THE SOUTH END OF THE WYNNUM WADING POOL AND THEN SEEK QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE PROTECTION APPROVAL FOR IT, PRIOR TO LISTING IT FOR CONSIDERATION IN A FUTURE BUDGET.



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council install a shade cloth across a section of the Wynnum Wading Pool.


Council has decided to obtain a design and cost estimate for a shade structure over the children’s slide area at the southern end of the Wynnum Wading Pool and then seek Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection approval for it, prior to listing it for consideration in a future budget.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr John Niukkanen, Regional Coordinator Parks, East Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.



- 107 -

G PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL SAVE BULIMBA CREEK AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINSCA17/417369

23/2017-1868. A petition from residents, requesting that Council save Bulimba Creek at 161 and 161A Underwood

Road, Eight Mile Plains, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 16 May 2017, by Councillor Steven Huang and received.

69. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.

70. The petition contains three signatures.

71. A development application was lodged for the property in 2011 for the development of a community facility (mosque) and associated land subdivision. More than 700 submissions were received regarding the development application. The application was refused by Council in May 2014 on the basis that the application didn’t comply with provisions of Brisbane City Plan 2000 regarding biodiversity, hydrology, transport, car parking, access, amenity and development scale.

72. The developer appealed Council’s decision in the Planning and Environment (P&E) Court in June 2014. Council was involved in a lengthy appeal process which concluded on 16 December 2016. The P&E Court determined that Council’s decision should be overturned and a revised version of the mosque was approved.

73. In the judgement handed down, the Judge overseeing the appeal stated that a clear, demonstrable need for the mosque in the local area was identified, however, not at the size and scale originally proposed. The P&E Court also placed strict environmental conditions upon the proposal.

74. The environmental conditions include retention and rehabilitation of ecological values on the site with an area of offset planting on the northern part of the site of approximately 13,823 square metres (32% of the total site), rehabilitation of the waterway corridor, removal of weeds and an environmental covenant placed on the property.

75. The P&E Court’s conditions placed upon the proposal will preserve and restore an ecological corridor linkage with neighbouring habitat areas. Given this ecological corridor will be preserved as part of a future development on the property, it is not considered a priority to purchase the site at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, through the Bushland Acquisition Program.

76. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will not be purchasing the property located at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, through the Bushland Acquisition Program, as the P&E Court approved development outcome on the property will preserve an ecological corridor linking neighbouring habitat areas.

Consultation

77. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for Macgregor Ward, was consulted and supports the recommendation.


79. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL NOT BE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 161 AND 161A UNDERWOOD ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS, THROUGH THE BUSHLAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AS THE COURT APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ON THE PROPERTY WILL PRESERVE AN ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR LINKING NEIGHBOURING HABITAT AREAS.


- 108 -



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council save Bulimba Creek at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains.

Your petition has been investigated and was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee on behalf of Council at its meeting held on 24 July 2017 and I can now respond to you with the following information.

I can advise that the Planning and Environment Court has placed strict environmental conditions upon the development at 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains.

The conditions include, the retention and rehabilitation of ecological values on the site with an area of offset planting on the northern part of the site of approximately 13,823 square metres (32% of the total site), rehabilitation of the waterway corridor, removal of weeds and an environmental covenant placed on the property.

Council will therefore not be purchasing 161 and 161A Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, through the Bushland Acquisition Program, as the Planning and Environment Court approved development outcome on the property will preserve an ecological corridor linking neighbouring habitat areas.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Susan Dymock, Senior Program Officer – Bushland Acquisition, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.


FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council during the Winter Recess 2017, on matters usually coming under the jurisdiction of the Field Services Committee, be noted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. There was only one item and that is a petition in regards to some trees in Bracken Ridge.


Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item A, of course a petition requesting that nine seed bearing pod trees be removed or be replaced from Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge. Madam Chairman, this type of petition request has become very repetitive. These residents in Bracken Ridge have or are having the same issues with their trees that we have seen many times before, that have come to Council.

I'm disappointed for them that the recommendation to retain the trees but for a bit of pruning and ongoing pruning is all the Council will undertake to address


- 109 -

their concerns. It was only February 14 this year that we dealt with another petition in Bluegum Place, Taigum, who have the same issue with some leopard trees. The recommendation for the outcome was very different.

The petitioners in Bracken Ridge weren't offered a one-for-one replacement strategy as were the residents in Bluegum Street which would see a new tree planted in the vicinity of the existing tree and allowed to mature for four years and then when the new tree was of a reasonable size, the removal of the offending trees would occur.

Now, Madam Chairman, Bracken Ridge residents in Hartree Street were treated differently. Madam Chairman, if memory serves me correctly, during a Committee meeting when we dealt with the Bluegum Street tree, I asked if this recommendation was going to be consistent—consistent going forward. It was indicated to me that indeed it would.

Madam Chairman, it really isn't good enough that we have inconsistency in these recommendations and outcomes. So with those words, we will not be supporting this recommendation. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC, do you want to sum up?

Okay. I will now put the report.


Thereupon, Councillors Charles STRUNK and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI

At that time, 6.15pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.


A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REPLACE NINE SEEDPOD BEARING NON-NATIVE TREES IN HARTREE COURT, BRACKEN RIDGECA17/278095

24/2017-18


- 110 -

1. A petition requesting the replacement of nine seedpod bearing non-native trees with non-seedpod bearing native trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 March 2017, by Councillor Amanda Cooper, and received.

2. The Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, supplied the following information.


4. The Arboriculture Officer from Council’s Asset Services North Region inspected the site on 28 February 2017 and found nine kassod trees growing as avenue trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge. The Council officer found the trees to be in good structural condition and displayed no signs of defects or disease to warrant removal under Council’s Tree Removal Guidelines.

5. The Council officer spoke to a resident while onsite and was informed the primary reason for the request to have the trees removed was based on seed drop and related cleansing issues. The Council officer advised the resident that the trees did not meet Council’s Tree Removal Guidelines and the trees formed an avenue in the street providing essential shade and amenity for the community.

6. The kassod tree, Cassia siamea is still listed as a preferred street tree species on Council’s website. The subject trees in question are mature and in are in good health and vigour with minimal property encroachment.

7. With regards to leaf litter, it is widely acknowledged that a variety of trees common in Brisbane drop leaves and seedpods and, as such, this is beyond Council's control. Council’s Street Tree Policy prevents the indiscriminate removal of trees due to their leaf litter. Council must assess requests with a view of the overall needs of Brisbane.

8. By definition the Council-controlled street trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge, do not meet this criteria and should be retained at this time. A maintenance program requiring some pruning to alleviate any encroachment issues on private property and over the road may be needed to bring subject trees into compliance with Council’s tree pruning specifications.

9. The kassod tree is not known to drop copious amounts of seeds and seed drop is seasonal on an annual basis. Due to a dry summer, it has been noted that many species of trees are dropping more than the usual amount of leaves and seeds.

10. Council may consider a succession planting program by planting new trees and gradually removing the kassod trees over a period of years to minimise shade loss. The resident stated he wanted the kassod trees to be removed immediately and was not supportive of this option.

11. The resident claims the tree seeds create a mess by dropping seed pods causing physical and financial problems. The resident believes the seeds block the house gutters and road culverts and create a maintenance issue.

12. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will not support the removal of the nine kassod trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge, as the trees were found to be in good structural condition and displayed no signs of defects or disease to warrant removal under Council’s Tree Removal Guidelines. A maintenance program requiring some pruning to alleviate any encroachment issues on private property and over the road may reduce the amount of seeds being dropped and bring the subject trees into compliance with Council’s tree pruning specifications. This pruning will be scheduled as soon as practicable.

Consultation

13. Councillor Amanda Cooper, Councillor for Bracken Ridge, was consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact


- 111 -

14. Based on discussions with the resident, it is likely they may seek the removal of an individual tree outside their property.

15. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 26 June 2017.

16. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL NOT SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE NINE KASSOD TREES IN HARTREE COURT, BRACKEN RIDGE, AS THE TREES WERE FOUND TO BE IN GOOD STRUCTURAL CONDITION AND DISPLAYED NO SIGNS OF DEFECTS OR DISEASE TO WARRANT REMOVAL UNER COUNCIL’S TREE REMOVAL GUIDELINES. A MAINTENANVE PROGRAM REQUIRING SOME PRUNING TO ALLEVIATE ANY ENCROACHMENT ISSUES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND OVER THE ROAD MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SEEDS BEING DROPPED AND BRING THE SUBJECT TREES INTO COMPLINCE WITH COUNCIL’S TREE PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS. THIS PRUNING WILL BE SCHEDULED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.



Thank you for your petition requesting Council to replace nine seedpod bearing non-native trees with non-seedpod bearing native trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge.


Council does not support the removal of these trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge, as the trees were found to be in good structural condition and displayed no signs of defects or disease to warrant removal under Council’s Tree Removal Guidelines. These trees form an avenue in the street providing essential shade and amenity for the community. A maintenance program requiring some pruning to alleviate any encroachment issues on private property and over the road may reduce the amount of seeds being dropped and bring the subject trees into compliance with Council’s tree pruning specifications. This pruning will be scheduled as soon as practicable.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Graham Bridge, Regional Coordinator Arboriculture, North Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.


PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Deputy Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions?

Councillor HUANG.

Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I have a petition from the residents of The Plains Retirement Village about traffic modification on Underwood Road.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor TOOMEY.


- 112 -

Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Deputy Madam Chairman. I have a petition from the residents of Upper Kedron regarding bus services.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I have a petition for no prayers in Council meetings.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, I have a petition about the Taringa residents parking scheme area. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SHRINNER.

Councillor SHRINNER: Thank you. I have a petition requesting an upgrade for the intersection of Rochedale and Priestdale Roads in Rochedale.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Deputy Chairman. I have one petition for the Deagon Ward requesting Brisbane City Council install and lengthen the yellow lines on Groth Road, Boondall, and also a petition to table on behalf of Councillor CUMMING regarding the Upper and Lower Esplanade calming. He is here now and he can do that himself. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman.

Councillor CUMMING Thank you—

Deputy Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: —Deputy Madam Chairman. My petition relates to a petition which has been given to me today by the Clerks for traffic calming on Upper and Lower Esplanades at Manly.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor WINES, may I have the receipt of the petitions.

25/2017-18It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor TopicCA17/647037 Steven Huang Requesting a 'turn right lane' for traffic heading east and turning

right into 357 Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains(This petition was received and processed during the Winter Recess 2017 (25 July 2017) following receipt of an electronic copy of the petition)

CA17/676564 Steven Toomey Requesting Council raise the issue of additional future public transport services for Upper Kedron with the Queensland Government

CA17/676133 Krista Adams Requesting that Council remove religious prayers and references from all Council business

CA17/673714 Julian Simmonds Requesting that Council revoke the residents parking permit scheme in Taringa


- 113 -

File No. Councillor TopicCA17/676880 Adrian Schrinner Requesting that Council negotiate with Logan City Council to

upgrade the intersection of Rochedale and Priestdale Roads (before the end of the 2018-19 financial year)

CA17/687034 Jared Cassidy Requesting that Council install/lengthen the yellow lines on Groth Road, Boondall, from the corner of Garozzo Street to the first driveway of residences north and south of Garozzo Street

CA17/689702 Peter Cumming Requesting that Council install street calming speed humps along the Upper and Lower Esplanades, Manly

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Deputy Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of the Councillor Conduct Review Panel Order?

Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Madam Chairman, I wish to inform the Chamber that in March this year I made an error by using the word ‘Labor’ in a letter which went out to residents in Yeronga and Yeerongpilly in relation to a road resurfacing project being undertaken on Fairfield Road. Thank you.

Deputy Chairman: Are there any matters of general business?

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. Madam Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak tonight on three items. First, is the Hand in Hand – Fighting Brain Cancer world-record breaking event, the Queensland Music Festival – You're the Voice event on Saturday night and also the Drewvale Family Fun Day. Madam Deputy Chairman, on 21 July, residents of my ward and the local community broke the world record for the longest continuous chain of people clasping wrists. This was a world record event that was to raise awareness and be the official formal launch of Hand in Hand – Fighting Brain Cancer.

For those Councillors in the Chamber tonight, you will recall when Carolyn Oldano came in here with Mikey the Martian and spoke to us all about Hand in Hand – Fighting Brain Cancer, and raising awareness of it. Today it is my great privilege to inform the Chamber that the previous record was 2,950 and the audited figures are still being finalised but we had over 3,200 in our continuous chain.

To inspire all of those world record breakers, we also had on hand the World Welterweight Champion, Jeff Horn. So he was there to support this and he'd only just flown back the day before from the United States. There were many people that supported it but it was great for the young people of our local community and all of the supporters to actually know that there was a World Champion greeting new World Champions on that day.

I would just like to take a quick moment to acknowledge a lot of the supporters, and certainly through the Lord Mayor's Suburban Initiative Fund there were a number of things that I was able to assist in making this event a reality but we also had some major sponsors and supporters. They were TFH Hire, Illuminated Designs, Stretton College where we had the event, Channel 7 News, 96five Family Radio, ID Signs, Runsmart, CCH, Queensland Lamp Oil Supplies,


- 114 -

Brumby's Calamvale, Woolworths, The Titans. 6RAR (Sixth Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment Association) from the Australian Army, they came and were our stewards to make sure everything was done correctly for the Guinness Book of Records, Run 2 Give Foundation, the Brisbane's Women's Awards, LJ Hooker Algester and also Oxmar properties.

So we had so many people throughout the local community that were supporting it. It was a great day and I just say to each and every one, particularly all these students that attended from Stretton College, from Calamvale Community College, from Pallara State School and St Stephen's School, thank you for your efforts. It really does make a big difference.

Madam Deputy Chairman, I'd also like to speak about the Queensland Music Festival – You're the Voice event that was on Saturday night. For anyone who was at South Bank on Saturday night and saw lots of lovely yellow scarves, it was wonderful to see people purchasing for a donation those yellow scarves to help the Allison Baden-Clay Foundation. You're the Voice was a very special event. We had over two and a half thousand choristers that were singing against domestic violence. It was also live streamed on my Facebook page, so if anyone wants to see what it was like, we had Katie Noonan, we had Kate Ceberano, Isaiah Firebrace and the one and the only John Farnham, singing You're the Voice with those two and a half thousand choristers, as well as the many, many people who just happened to stop by at South Bank, impromptu, and joined in the song, Brisbane's collective voice was there on the night, making that voice heard that we do not want to see domestic violence hurting people in our city.

So it was a wonderful event. I do acknowledge Dame Quentin Bryce as Patron of You're the Voice, and Minister Shannon Fentiman who was also there, because the Queensland State Government were also a strong partner, as were Brisbane City Council, in bringing this together with the Queensland Music Festival. Full credit to Katie Noonan for coming up with this concept, because it was just fantastic. It was live streamed on my Facebook page so if anyone wants to go and have a look, it is there.

Madam Deputy Chairman, in respect of the Drewvale Family Fun Day this was on Sunday and it was a concept that came from a resident, Fran Satya and her sister Nat. They wanted to have a family fun day to help raise funds for the Lung Foundation in memory of their mum Lilyan. Lilyan passed away of lung cancer and she was never a smoker.

Today is International Lung Cancer Day and so I think it's very important that I actually talk about this here tonight because lung cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. It claims more lives than breast cancer, colon cancer and prostate cancers combined. It equates to one in five cancer deaths globally.

This is quite personal to me. My father was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013, and the week that we rededicated City Hall, he was about to embark on having half his lung removed. He got through that after having six weeks in hospital with multiple chemo treatments, multiple infections and also emergency surgery post the lung cancer surgery.

In December last year he was rediagnosed with lung cancer and for two months this year has been undergoing radiation. I'm fortunate that I still have my father with me but Fran and Nat, they don’t have their mum. It took her very, very quickly because by the time she was diagnosed it was very advanced.


- 115 -

I would just like to lend my support to the Lung Foundation today on International Lung Cancer Day to raise awareness of the importance of the checklist. There is a checklist that has been emailed to all ward offices today, and I do encourage all Councillors to please share this with your communities, because if we can assist in helping somebody catch lung cancer in the early stages so they can receive treatment, it is really important.

There is a speaker who is coming here next week, the CEO of the Lung Foundation, Heather Allan, and she will speak more on lung awareness month and the importance of having the ‘green lungs’ in our city. So on this very important day I do thank Fran and Nat for doing something in the community to support the Lung Foundation but also honouring their mum on the one-year anniversary of her passing. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you for sharing that personal story, Councillor OWEN.

Further general business?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you Madam Deputy Chair. I rise to speak on one item tonight and that is the visit of the USS Ronald Reagan and the—sorry, I'm still caught up in the emotion of the previous speaker.

At that time, 6.29pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Councillor STRUNK: Okay. So last week I got a call from the Inala Elders and they said that they had a contingent of sailors coming out from the USS Ronald Reagan, would I like to come down and meet them. I said, well definitely. So when I went down I found out that they were a contingent of Freemasons that are on board the ship. There is actually a lodge on ship. I didn't know that this particular type of organisation, the Freemasons, actually have a contingent or a lodge on a lot of ships in the U.S. Navy and possibly the Australian Navy and the English Navy, I'm just not sure.

Anyway, so they came out and the reason they came out was that they have this community outreach program that they, when they're in foreign ports, they contact local Freemasons—in this case the Ann Street Lodge here in the city—and ask if there are worthy groups out there that need their assistance for a little project. Consequently, the gentleman from the Ann Street lodge suggested that the Inala Lions, which have a building called yarning place, needed some assistance, and so they decided to give their good works to this organisation.

So I went along and met 46 of the contingent from that particular lodge, onboard, who were under the leadership of Erwin Jerome Angelese, EJ for short, and we had a really good visit—the elders had a great visit from the Travelers, as they call themselves, the USS Ronald Reagan Travelers. Then of course, they commenced their work around the centre in helping them with landscaping and other things.

So at the end of that, and a lot of fun and frivolity—and of course, they bought a lot of artwork as well from the Inala elders because they had an urban dreaming art showing on the previous week and the art hadn't been taken away. So there's plenty of them are making their way across the Pacific now from the Inala elders.

At the end of the day, or at the end of the afternoon, they said, ‘would anyone like to come out and have a private tour of the ship.’ Of course, everyone put


- 116 -

their hand up, or quite a few of them put their hands up, and two days later we were on board. We arrived at around about 10 o'clock, got on board, because you've got to go through all the security stuff. We got on board and we spent four hours going up and down, in and out of the ship.

We got through to the visual bridge, the electronic bridge. The visual bridge, obviously, you're looking out on the ocean, and the electronic bridge is directly behind. We got onto the flight deck, into the hangars. One of the highlights, of course, was going up and down the elevator which takes the planes up and down from the, you know, the hangar deck below, the flight deck. We got a really great visit to, what were they called, the Chief's Mess on the Ronald Reagan, and it's also a little bit of a museum as well, because they call it the Ronald Reagan Ranch inside the mess and the photographs and all the memorabilia that was actually there, that was given to them by Nancy Reagan, is proudly on display. There was also a little museum not far from the mess as well.

We even got to the brig. They wouldn't let us in the brig, of course, not that there was actually anyone in the brig. But the head of security, the Chief of Security, took us down so we could sort of have a bit of a look at, as if you do anything wrong, this is where we end up putting you.

Listen, as I say, it went on for four—you know, for four hours we were just all over it and we had some fairly elderly people with us. I tell you what, it didn’t stop them going up, down the stairs. Of course, there are no lifts in this except for the plane. So there were some very steep inclines going up and down these stairs and, I tell you what, we had a couple of 80-year olds. I tell you what, they were so charged, they were so stoked to being on that ship, they were going up and down the ladders like people half their age.

So I just wanted to acknowledge the great work that these travellers do on behalf of the Ronald Reagan, and they're obviously supported by their captain, Mitchell P Donnelly, who we weren't able to meet, of course, but I'm sure he's very proud of the work that they do in the communities when they go into port. I'd just like to thank them very much, publicly here today.

We did also present them with a letter of thanks to each individual Freemason with the letter of thanks, as well as a certificate of appreciation as well. It was—this was one of the highlights of my life, actually, to get onboard the ship. I'd never been on a warship before and to pick one that's this massive, you know, the Nimitz-class, it was quite a treat. If you ever get the chance of getting on one of those ships, please take the opportunity. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak about the inaugural Pullen Vale Folk Festival that occurred on Saturday 8 July at John Sprent Reserve at Moggill. So original folk, blues and roots music brought John Sprent Reserve alive on Saturday 8 July. The more than 2,000 locals and visitors enjoyed family friendly entertainment, including food trucks, the pop-up Library and many more kids’ activities.

So, word had got out in the music festival communities that visitors actually travelled from Canberra, Sydney, Kingaroy, Charters Towers, Cairns, all areas of Brisbane, and our local residents. I was delighted that the sun shone on the event and brought families and locals from the community together to share a love of music and celebration, honouring the beauty and significance of each other in an incredibly special place, the setting that we were in.


- 117 -

This year's festival was a real celebration of community, made possible by the support and commitment of so many local people. I'm very grateful to everyone involved and special thanks to the music event coordinator, 8 Ball Aitken, and the calibre of artists who performed on the day.

Huge thanks also go to the Kenmore Rotary Club as the major sponsor, and a cluster of rotary clubs in the Pullenvale Ward for their support. Madam Chairman, my vision for the residents of the ward was to honour the sacredness of the past, acknowledge the present and certainly deepen the community connections into the future.

This festival was intended to bring the local folk together on the common ground of John Sprent Reserve, our ground, to celebrate the beauty and significance of each other and our very special part of Brisbane.

8 Ball Aitken, the festival music event coordinator, said he was overwhelmed with how well the first festival went. In his own words, he said it was all about getting the best local musicians and food, with the whole community involved, to give them a wonderful day out in the winter sunshine.

A third generation Pullenvale resident, Lisa Hodgkinson, said that she thought the festival was a real success and hopes to see it back next year. In her words, he said the quality of the music was what really stood out for me. The John Fegan Band was absolutely brilliant and none of the acts disappointed. My 19 year old son, William, came along and he loved it too. It was right up his alley. The food stalls were lovely with great variety and I thought it was just a wonderful day.

So, Madam Chairman, I want to acknowledge by saying well done to all who contributed in the creation and delivery of the inaugural 2017 Pullen Vale Folk Festival. The anticipation and excitement is already building for 2018. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair, I just rise to speak about two issues very, very quickly. The first one being the Morningside Festival, but the second, which I'll deal with first, is also the fact that it's DonateLife Week, this week. Obviously, I've spoken about this in the Chamber before but just to never let an opportunity go past, it is DonateLife Week. It is a week where everyone in the donate community is encouraging people to think about registering to become an organ donor.

So if you haven't taken that step, if you've been thinking about it for a while but just haven't quite got around to it, this week is the week. We would love to see a whole heap of Queenslanders get involved and sign up to that register. Queensland in fact is the Australian state with the least number of people on that register, and I for one would love to do everything that I can to encourage more of my fellow Brisbanites and Council colleagues to not just think about doing it but say, oh, I really should but actually take that step and register this week.

The second thing that I wanted to do is to congratulate all the members of the Morningside Development Association for putting on another fabulous Morningside Festival on Sunday 30 July, this past Sunday. The Morningside Festival is actually Brisbane southside's oldest, continuously running street festival. This year was our 21st year and it's something that has been continuously run every year, year-on-year—


- 118 -


Councillor SUTTON: —well, also the 21st year. Okay, well, equal to or one of the longest continuously running street festivals.

It has had support from the Brisbane City Council since it commenced. I am very pleased and honoured to have been an active member of the Morningside Development Association for 15 years, longer than I have been in this Council Chamber. It is an event that I absolutely love and I wanted to acknowledge the very hardworking group of volunteers that work for a full seven months in the lead up to this event to pull it all together for the community, and they are our—the president of the Morningside Development Association, Michelle Verna; Sara Brackenridge; our Treasurer, Kate Bailey; our secretary, Joe Beath, representing Balmoral Rotary; Jo Briskey; Di Farmer, the State Member for Bulimba; Jeff Gehrmann, from the Morningside Uniting Church; Judith John from White Lady Funerals Morningside; Martina Lacey and Lucy Watson; and myself as the local Councillor.

We all worked incredibly hard to bring this event together and we're incredibly proud of the outcome and the community outcome that we see at the end of the day. I also want to give a huge, huge shout out to Anthony, James, Adam and Ashley Gillespie. These are four brothers who show up at about half past five in the morning every year and they work and work and work doing all our logistics and bins and rubbish collections, and all of that kind of stuff. They do it year after year for us. They are sterling examples of young men in our community who always show up and lend a hand. I also want to thank them for the very many, many hours that they put into the day as well.

Madam Chair, our president Michelle Verna said it best at the end of the day. She said the smiles of the crowd inspire us to keep doing this festival year after year. We're going to have a short break now and then we're going to get stuck into organising the Morningside Carols in the Park at the end of the year. I just wanted to thank all of those volunteers.

I also wanted to place on record our thanks not just to Brisbane City Council for the sponsorship that they give us every year, the community grant, but also to the Brisbane Airport Corporation, RE/MAX Results Morningside, who are our gold sponsors, and all of our sponsors and local business sponsors that support the festival year-on-year. We're very lucky to have a dedicated group of sponsors who keep on supporting us year after year and I thank them for that.

Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak very briefly about a Council officer, Mr Barry Doyle, who unfortunately has recently passed away. He was with Council—many of you in the Chamber perhaps have not met Barry but certainly he was very well known to me and the LORD MAYOR knew him very well. I understand the DEPUTY MAYOR also spent quite a bit of time with Barry.

He was with Council for 43 years, so a huge service that he provided to the people of Brisbane. He was an absolutely delightful person and certainly absolutely committed to his role in Brisbane City Council. He was a true professional in every sense of the word. He always put Council first. He always thought very long and very hard about his commitment to the people of Brisbane


- 119 -

and I think that he was an absolutely sterling example of what we want to see in our city; people are absolutely selfless in their commitment to Brisbane.

He was also known for having a bit of a mischievous sense of humour. He always had the opportunity to, you know, have a light side, a light-hearted view of the world. So he was very, very popular in the Brisbane Infrastructure team. He is survived by his wife, Jane, and their five children, Cassandra, Rebecca, Chris, Jake and Ben, and he was very, very happy that he got to, in just months before his passing, meet his first grandchild, Aliana Ruby. So that was very much a personal achievement that he took very much to heart.

He was a devoted family man and I really would like to say, on behalf of the whole Chamber, I would like to offer my condolences to his family, to his wife, to all their friends. He is a man that is going to be very sorely missed by this organisation and many of the Council officers have very much expressed their condolences. I think Councillors would also like to share those condolences to the family, and I would like to again say we are absolutely honoured by your contribution to our beautiful city. Thank you.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly, Madam Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks about the Witton Army Barracks Master Plan. It came to my attention in July that Brisbane City Council had a master plan consultation process for the Witton Army Barracks Park. Now, this park is directly opposite my ward on the other side of the river, so it's a stone’s throw away for residents who live in Chelmer and Graceville.

I was not notified by Council that the master plan was being put out for consultation. I was not aware, Madam Chairman, that there would be public consultation. Now, this issue directly impacts on residents in my ward in two ways. One; it will be a local park that residents who live in Chelmer and Graceville can walk to or ride to, and many of them will do that.

Two; the park, when the LORD MAYOR announced the acquisition of the Witton Army Barracks several years ago, one of the two reasons he gave was provision for a future bridge for the Walter Taylor Bridge duplication. Guess what; the bridge goes from the northside of the river to the southside of the river, which is in Tennyson Ward. But, Madam Chairman, no one at Council thought that it would be appropriate to tell me about this master plan, which, you know, attempts, I think, possibly to vaguely reference the idea that there will be a new bridge.

So, Madam Chairman, I did read this somewhere else. I then advised my residents. Now, it appears some residents in Chelmer were—they got the Council flyer two days before the public information session—so two days before a public information session some residents were told. There was no date by which residents could make submissions. We had to ring and ask and find out, and we were told 31 July.

So number one, I am appalled that this is the way that Council has handled this matter. Obviously, the future of a second bridge crossing between Chelmer and Indooroopilly is a highly sensitive, a highly complex and a huge infrastructure challenge for this Council. But for one of those two Councillors not to even be told that that's what council's master planning process was undertaking, I think is just outrageous.


- 120 -

Now, maybe if it was just a park I'd say, well, there's no need to notify Councillor JOHNSTON, even though it impacts on her residents. But the fact that this is the master plan that is allegedly making provision for a future bridge which is in my ward, is something that I think I deserve to know about and I think that my residents deserve to know about. But no, this Council didn't see it that way.

My second concern relates to the content of the master plan, and that is what appears in the master plan to be the provision for the future bridge corridor. Now, that future bridge corridor appears as a dotted white line.


Councillor JOHNSTON: The footings for said bridge appear to be in the middle of the internal road, parking, car park and location of the heritage building. Now, I presume that Council's not actually going to demolish all of those things to allow for the new footings for the bridge, number one. Two; the arrow appears to show the traffic being routed up Railway Avenue, a one way street heading southbound—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —I'm going on the arrow and I hear the Councillor—



Chairman: Order!

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: I'd just draw your attention the fact that certain Councillors in this Chamber are calling out and interrupting Councillor JOHNSTON.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SRI, and I think Councillor SIMMONDS was just trying to clarify something but—


Chairman: Order!


Chairman: Order! Councillor SIMMONDS was obviously trying to be helpful to clarify for Councillor JOHNSTON. However, interjecting is not the appropriate way. Please, if you would like to clarify it, then Councillor SIMMONDS you can have an opportunity further in general business.


Councillor JOHNSTON: —nor is calling me a liar, Madam Chairman, which he did under his breath as well. But, Madam Chairman, I will continue—

Chairman: Oh, Councillor JOHNSTON, just get on with it—



- 121 -

Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: —Do so, do so—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: —now he's poking his tongue out like a two-year-old. Come on. Madam Chairman, it is a matter of public record that the arrow appears to show vehicles being routed up Railway Avenue, which is a one lane southbound street. That street connects to Westminster Street, which bans right-hand turns into Coonan Street, which is the main way out of that precinct.

Now if there is some other plan that I'm not aware of, feel free to get up and say, ‘Councillor JOHNSTON, I'll send you a copy of the plans for the future of the Walter Taylor duplication.’ I would say thank you Councillor SIMMONDS, that would be most useful. But at the moment the only thing I've got to go on is a dotted white line which appears to go up a one-way street, going the wrong way, and feeding traffic back into a highly congested road corridor.

The second point of concern about this is that the Lambert Street precinct is being converted into a slow area, where you're going to have bikes, people and cars all doing whatever they want in a shared precinct. Now, that indicates to me that Council's not about to route 30,000 vehicles a day, which is probably what we could expect, into that precinct. So what I'm saying, Madam Chairman, is that this Administration's ambiguous and vague plans for a future bridge need to be made clear.

That's all I'm asking. It's not in the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan), it's not in your long-term infrastructure plan. There are some weird dotted lines on a map in the past master plan but they don’t appear to be practical, they don't appear to be well thought out, and they do not appear to reflect the importance of how the traffic moves through the precinct.

So I'm asking for transparency in this process, which I don’t think is an unreasonable request, given that the future of that road corridor is of extraordinary significance to people on the southside. I don’t think it unreasonable, Madam Chairman, that the local Councillor and the residents who will be impacted by any future new bridge, are advised about what's going on, and Councillor SIMMONDS is shaking his head. He doesn't think I need to know or my residents need to know. That's excellent. I'm going to make sure that that is recorded and my residents are aware—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —yes, I will. Madam Chairman, let me tell you that the master plan itself also has a few issues. Toilets, public toilets, aren't marked on the master plan. I don’t know if they're going to be in the commercial cafes that inevitably spring up in those buildings but there are no public toilets that were listed on the plans at all.

There are a number of other problems, i.e. the bikeway connection to the Jack Pesch Bridge. It shows a connection with a loop if you're travelling north-south into the park but it shows no connection if you're going south to north and into the park. We would appear to have to go up and go around a dedicated turning lane and enter it from a different direction. It is ridiculous that this plan has clearly been envisaged with only the northside in mind.

Now I want to make it very clear, I don't know that there should be a bridge tomorrow for the duplication of the Walter Taylor Bridge, but I do know that


- 122 -

over the next 20 or 30 years, we need provision, we need transparency and we need a plan for managing traffic that flows through the Oxley Road corridor. It is getting worse and worse every day.

If we are now planning for what happens at the Witton Army Barracks, proper provision needs to be made for the bridge. That means it needs to be identified in the master plan. The footings and the traffic for that bridge need to be identified. If there are two purposes, addressing only one of them in the master plan is not reasonable.

So from my point of view, this Administration needs to come clean, it needs to tell residents how this new bridge is going to work and how it will connect with the road network in Indooroopilly. Indooroopilly residents, I'm sure, would like to know, and I'm sure this is where Councillor SIMMONDS’ reticence comes from.

You did not just take a photo in the Chamber, Madam Chairman, did you?


Councillor JOHNSTON: I think you just did. As you know, that's not appropriate.


Councillor JOHNSTON: I can see that you did, Madam Chairman, and the Council officers also know that you did. That's what she did. All right, Madam Chairman, I'll let it go but I just wouldn't—want to make sure you're not breaching the rules there.

What we need to know, Madam Chairman, is exactly where this road corridor is going to go, where the traffic that will use this road corridor is going to go and the fact that the Councillor SIMMONDS has to come clean with his residents on the northside about how many vehicles will travel through this precinct and where they will go.

Equally important, and I'll flag it now is, my residents who live on the southside who must use Coonan Street after they cross the Walter Taylor Bridge, deserve to be involved in the consultation on the design for the Indooroopilly Moggill Road roundabout. He's shaking his head again. No, we have no say. Well, I can tell you when 30,000 vehicles a day back up at a T-intersection with a poor design, Madam Chairman, it will not reflect well on this Administration—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —interjecting, yes, we know. He loves to interject doesn't he, Madam Chairman. But what I would like to know is why this Council will not properly plan for the future provision of a bridge and a road corridor—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.


Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will speak very briefly. I would just like to acknowledge the Mount Gravatt Show Society and congratulate them on an absolutely spectacular event for the show last weekend. The weather was


- 123 -

spectacular. They had a new format this year where they really did replicate the RNA (Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland). They had the huge animal farm, they had the wood chop, they had the cattle, horses, you name it, it was all there. It was spectacular.

I did just have to do—outdo Councillor SUTTON, though. This is the 102nd year that we've held the Mount Gravatt Show.


Councillor ADAMS: Absolutely fantastic event and I encourage all of you to come along next year, particularly those with children that would like to do it cheaper than the Ekka.


Councillor ADAMS Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Further general business?

No further general business?

I declare meeting closed.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 13 June 2017

Q1. Please provide a list of all bus routes by number that will be impacted by network changes associated with the Brisbane Metro project?

Q2. Please provide a list of all bus routes by number that will terminate on the south side that will no longer proceed to or through the central business district and northside destinations as is currently the case?

Q3. The Brisbane Metro business case summary notes that there will be 125 fewer buses in the central business district; please provide the route number and times of all services that will no longer proceed to or through the central business district as is currently the case?

Q4. Please provide the route number and times of increased bus services proposed as part of the Brisbane Metro project?

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (received on 26 July 2017)

Q1. What is the total amount of all infrastructure charges owing to Council as at 30 June 2017?

Q2. What is the total number of development applications with unpaid infrastructure charges owing to Council as at 30 June 2017?

Q3. What is the total value of infrastructure charges owing to Council that have been in arrears for longer than one year?

Q4. What is the total value of infrastructure charges owing to Council that have been in arrears for longer three years?


Q1. Please provide a list of all intersections in Brisbane that will receive new traffic lights in the 2017-18 Budget year?


- 124 -

Q2. Please provide a list of all intersections in Brisbane that will receive an upgrade to existing traffic lights in the 2017-18 Budget year?

Q3. How many intersections in Brisbane have been assessed as eligible for new traffic lights and are awaiting funding?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (received on 27 July 2017)

Q1. Did the Brisbane City Council apply for any grant funding under the Federal Government’s $50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Programs? If yes, please provide a detailed outline of the project(s) for which funding was requested.

Q2. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the total costs of leasing and outfitting for the new Paddington office for Cr Matic.

Q3. How many new footpaths were approved for construction in the 2016/17 Financial year from Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Funds?

Q4. What was the total cost of construction for the new footpaths funded in the 2016/17 Financial year via the Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Funds?





Q9. Can you please outline the total infrastructure spend for parks in the 15/16 year?

Q10. Can you outline the total infrastructure spend for parks for the 16/17 year to date?

Can you use the following table to detail the park projects delivered through infrastructure funding for the 15/16 year and the 16/17 year to date:

Park Scope of Work Suburb Ward Cost


Q1. How many ping pong tables will be built/installed in Brisbane parks and public spaces in 2017-18?


- 125 -

Q2. What the Council budget allocation and the total value of all ping pong tables to be built/installed in Brisbane parks and public spaces in 2017-18?

Q3. What is the cost of design, construction and installation of one outdoor ping pong table?

Q4. What is the value of funding for ping pong tables being provided by a grant or other funding mechanism to Council in 2017-18 and who is the donor organisation?

Q5. Please provide a list, in the following table, of expenditure for all Suburban Community Festivals being funding in Service 5.1.1.1.Festival and Events in the 2017-18 Council Budget.

Festival Name Festival Funding $ Amount 2017-18

Length of Contract for Festival Funding

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Jonathan Sri (from meeting on 13 June 2017)

Q1. As part of the Metro business case and options analysis, did council explore the feasibility of attaching extensions to Victoria Bridge to create dedicated bike lanes?

A1. Victoria Bridge is constrained by its structural capacity and the addition of extensions to the bridge was therefore not considered. The project team considered existing usage of the bridge by pedestrians and cyclists and projected growth in movements. The conclusion of this analysis resulted in the preferred option currently proposed, which has been developed within the existing width constraints of the bridge.

Q2. Approximately how much would it add to the cost of the Metro Project to include dedicated bike lanes across Victoria Bridge?

A2. The provision of dedicated bike lanes was not feasible and a cost estimate was therefore not prepared. As outlined above, the conclusion of the analysis of pedestrian and cyclist numbers resulted in the preferred option currently proposed, which has been developed within the existing width constraints of the bridge.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.56pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Robert Southwood (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer)Jade Stopar (Council and Committee Officer)Emily Blake (Acting Council and Committee Officer)Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


Documents

· Web view... troops here at the time. It was one of the four big centres of ... arrangements, and they have achieved a good ... Arrangement. All Social