· Web viewYou cannot believe a single word of ... I know the State Government is out for...

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4577 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 27 November 2018at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4577 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,ON TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2018

AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:____________________________________________________________2

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________4

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________14ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE__________________________________________14

A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE H_________________________59B ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD

ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018__________________________________________________________61C 2018-19 BUDGET – SECOND REVIEW_________________________________________________62D MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE B_________________________62E STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF STREET FURNITURE ADVERTISING______________64F ASSET OPTIMISATION – SURPLUS PROPERTY DISPOSAL STAGE 42__________________________71A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2018-19____________________________82

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________83A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CENTENARY BUS SERVICES COMMUNITY RESEARCH____________85

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________86A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HOWARD SMITH WHARVES_______________________________90B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE

VILLAGE RETIREMENT VILLAGE AND SURROUNDING LOCAL RESIDENTS IN YERONGA___________91C PETITION – ABOUT PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES TO FLEETWAY STREET, MORNINGSIDE_______93

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________95A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CHARACTER DESIGN FORUM______________________________97B PETITION – REQUESTING SUE’S KORNER SHOPPING PRECINCT, BOONDALL, BE INCLUDED AS PART

OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19_____________________________98ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________99

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – STUDENT ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP NETWORK___________101FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE____________________________________________________________102

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRES___________________________103LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE_________________________________________104

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2018________________________________105FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______________________________________107

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE INNOVATE 2018_______________________________108B COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (RECEIVABLES, RATES, PAYABLES, PROVISIONS AND

MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018_____________________________________109

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________109

GENERAL BUSINESS:_____________________________________________________________111

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:_________________________________114

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______________________115

[4577 (Ordinary) Meeting – 27 November 2018]



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

ON TUESDAY ??AT 2PM




THE 4577 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,ON TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2018

AT 2PM

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) Steven HUANG (MacGregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) (Deputy Chairman of Council)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)Kara COOK (Morningside)Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)

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.

Chairman: I remind all Councillors of your obligations to declare material personal interests and conflicts of interest, where relevant, and the requirement of such to remove yourself from the Council Chamber for debate and voting, where applicable.

Councillors, are there any apologies?

There being no apologies, Confirmation of Minutes please.

MINUTES:373/2018-19

The Minutes of the 4576 meeting of Council held on 20 November 2018, 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.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, point of order.


Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt, just to clarify, so is it the draft version of the Minutes that—there’s two versions of the Minutes in that folder, so it would be the draft version that we’re passing, is that correct?

Chairman: No—yes, Councillor SRI, they are draft until they’re passed by Council.

Councillor SRI: Yes. Sorry, so is it draft version 2 or just draft?

Chairman: There were amended Minutes, and it was draft version 2, it’s my understanding. There was an email that’s gone out, yes.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:Mr Ian Reid – Concerns about the application for a proposed development at 18-20 Pockley Street, Morningside, and any protection Brisbane’s Future Blueprint may offer

Chairman: I would now like to call on Mr Ian Reid who will address the Chamber on concerns about the application for a proposed development at 18-20 Pockley Street, Morningside and any protection Brisbane’s Future Blueprint may offer.

Please proceed, Mr Reid. You have five minutes.

Mr Ian Reid: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about a proposed development at a site in Pockley Street, Morningside. I’d like to thank the LORD MAYOR for writing to us recently on 16 November about this application and to thank Councillor COOK for her continued assistance and hard work for residents in relation to this and other applications.

I’ll be submitting a detailed submission objecting to the application soon, but the reason I’m speaking about it today is to raise two issues that I think are worthy of consideration by the Council at a higher level. The application is for a material change of use to build units in a Low density residential zone on a site that appears to be over 3,000 square metres. The relevant section of the planning scheme is one that’s intended to be removed under Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, under the principle of protecting Brisbane’s backyard.

I understand from the LORD MAYOR’s letter that Council is now undergoing a process to implement the changes to the planning scheme necessary to give effect to the principle. But, in the meantime, it seems we’re not getting the protection yet. I read in November’s Living in Brisbane newsletter that Brisbane’s Future Blueprint is continuing to protect Brisbane’s backyards. Unless I’m missing something, it doesn’t appear to be protecting anything yet. So the application, and others like it, is now contrary to Council’s stated intention for the future planning for Brisbane. We ask Council to consider an interim stay on these types of applications while the legislative process is being finalised.

We think that, even based on the current scheme without the blueprint, this application should be rejected. That’s because we think, on a proper reading of the scheme, the site is not a well-located site for the purposes of overall outcome 4(c) of the Low density residential code. We think it’s particularly important that what is a well-located site is assessed very carefully in this period before the Blueprint takes full effect. It seems there’s often just a focus by applicants on whether the site is over 3,000 square metres and is it close to regular public transport and neighbourhood centres, but we think the assessment requires much more than this.

The scheme doesn’t define the term ‘well-located site’. Given this, it seems to us, particularly following the guidance from the Court of Appeal in the recent Bell decision, that what constitutes a well-located site needs to be assessed against the planning scheme as a whole. Looking at this site in the context of the scheme as a whole, we submit it is not a well-located site. I am happy to provide


- 2 -

a detailed written outline of the reasons for this. I’ll only raise a couple of examples now.

One of the reasons a site in a low density area might be well located for units might be to achieve a planning or local need for more housing density in the area. But here, the other side of Pockley Street, is the beginning of the Low-medium density residential zone in this area. Since that Low-medium density residential zone was confirmed in the scheme in 2014, there’s been and continues to be extensive development of units through this area, including on the other side of Pockley Street.

That is, there’s no demonstrated planning need, local need, community need or any other need for a development of units to occur in the low density zone in this area. To the extent there’s any such need, it’s already being satisfied right across the road and nearby. We think this weighs heavily against the site being a well-located site for the purposes of the scheme as a whole.

The site itself also has problems. It’s located right in the centre of a block bounded by four streets. It’s effectively a battle-axe block right in the middle. If the site were, for example, located on a corner block, it may only impact two or three neighbours. But here, due to its location, the site directly adversely impacts at least 12 neighbours who directly border it, and further impacts on more who overlook at it due to the topography. Again, we submit this weighs heavily against it being a well-located site.

The analysis is important: if the site cannot be demonstrated to be a well-located site, it seems to us that, regardless of the size, the main basis for possibly approving units there is gone, and the application should be rejected. Therefore, particularly in this period before the blueprint takes full effect, we ask Council to carefully consider for this application, and others like, it what it takes for a site to be a well-located site and, where a site is not sufficiently well located to overcome the presumption against this type of development in the low density residential zone that those applications be rejected. Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Reid.

I’d now ask Councillor BOURKE to respond, please.

Response by Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the City Planning Committee

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Mr Reid, for coming in today and speaking to Council. As you’ve outlined, the proposal that is before us is for 16 townhouses over two existing blocks totalling about 3,000 square metres, and as you rightly pointed out, one side of Pockley Street is low-medium density residential, but the side that this particular development is on is low density residential.

The Council officers, as I’m sure you’re aware, issued an information request back on 24 October that outlined a number of concerns with the application. These were the building bulk; the design and scale; insufficient side and rear setbacks; a lack of deep planting; poorly designed communal and private open spaces; and excessive site cover. As well as highlighting those points, the Council officers also asked for additional information on access and parking; garage design; proposed earthwork plans; and acoustic treatment. So the Council officers have done quite a rigorous assessment of this particular application, as they do with all applications.

The applicant, as I hope you’re aware, has a period of time where they can come back to us. We did a three-month window where they’re able to come back to us in response to that information request. I’ve been made aware that the applicant came back yesterday with their submission back to that information request, and that information has been loaded up onto PD Online this morning and, as part of that, the applicant has also notified Council that they propose to go to advertisement tomorrow.


- 3 -

I had a look at the plans that we’ve been provided as part of that information request, so the response back. My personal view of them is there’s very little change between the original plans that were loaded when I was looking at them this morning and the new plans that have gone up. Obviously, the Council officers will now be looking at all of the information that’s been provided by the applicant on this particular development as part of that information request.

They will go to public advertisement. They have a 15-business day period, and you’ve already indicated that you will be making a submission, and I would encourage all residents who—and I’d encourage you to contact your friends in the area and ask them to make a submission if they also feel concerned about this particular application. It is impact assessable, and those submissions will be taken into account as part of the Council officers’ assessment of it.

To your points around Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, this is something that this Administration has been pushing to change when it comes to townhouses. Today in the Council meeting we will be actually debating the amendment to change the provisions around low density residential when it comes to allowing townhouses to be built. It was first brought to this place 83 days ago and sent to the State and the State Government, unfortunately, has not responded to that initial request. So we are getting on with the job of seeking to implement this ban on townhouses across the city in low density residential. Until, obviously, that takes full effect we still have to manage these applications as they come through and assess them on their merits.

As I said, the Council officers have identified a number of concerns with this particular application and the response that we’ve received back will have to now be assessed, and it will go to advertisement, as outlined, with their statutory period that they have as part of the State planning laws. Thank you, again, Mr Reid for coming in and addressing Council today.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Reid.

QUESTION TIME:

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

Councillor RICHARDS.

Question 1

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Can you give us an update on the zipline project, and any misinformation that is being aired in relation to this project?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor RICHARDS for the question. Firstly, I just want to state that the zipline was an election commitment that I took to the 2016 Brisbane City Council election, and it was out there, Madam Chairman, in relation to people to make an assessment of at that time. But, obviously, since then we have been getting on with the detail of calling for tenders, awarding a tender and now through the application process.

So, Madam Chairman, the zipline consists of two ziplines: one which would go through the trees and one above the tree line. It also includes a 300-metre long suspension bridge across J.C. Slaughter Falls, and that of a lookout area which will be free to the public. There were other aspects to the offering of the tender, but they are the principal outcomes in terms of its built form.

So, Madam Chairman, importantly, what we have now is a development application which will be open for the public to make comment upon it. That opened yesterday, and there is a period now through to Friday 14 December when people have an opportunity to make comment in regard to it. Running concurrently with that is the Land Management Plan. We are seeking feedback


- 4 -

from people regarding that. That’s a broader Mt Coot-tha Land Management Plan. That will run from Monday 26 November through to the end of December.

Madam Chairman, I do want to make some comments in regard to opportunities that people have to learn more about the facts surrounding the zipline, as opposed to misinformation that is out there in regard to the project. To that extent, there are four public sessions, Madam Chairman, that are being set up for people to find out more in relation to the zipline. The first of those is in the Queen Street Mall at the George Street end, and that will be on 28 November from 2pm to 4pm.

There will also be an opportunity at J.C. Slaughter Falls, in the picnic area there at Mt Coot-tha, on 4 December from 8am to 10am. There will be an opportunity at the South Bank Piazza, and that will be on 8 December from 12 noon through to 2pm, and in the Queen Street Mall in George Street on 12 December, and that will be again from 12 noon till 2pm, in the lunchtime period there, to accommodate city workers around that time period.

Madam Chairman, there has been, as I mentioned at the start, some significant misinformation that is out there, and I have to say that the Member for Maiwar has been instrumental in delivering a fair bit of this misinformation. I refer to State Member Michael Berkman. Madam Chairman, the reality is there has been a lot of misinformation out there about the amount of land that needs to be cleared as one of the key components of that misinformation. I want to make it very clear here today that this proposal has never, ever, involved widespread clearing of land on Mt Coot-tha, nor will it, nor should it—nor should it.

Madam Chairman, there is even some information from, I think, SARA (State Assessment and Referral Agency), which was suggesting that there would be this need for some 60-metre wide construction clearing around the various pieces of infrastructure associated with the zipline. That is not proposed, and it will not be proposed, Madam Chairman. There is no need for significant firebreaks of that sort. It is preposterous to suggest that it is needed.

We will be, and have been, very prudent in relation to the requirements in association with this zipline proposal. I have to say, from the dealings that I have had with Zipline Australia on those occasions, few that they have been, when I have met them, I have to say that their attitude is one which is to preserve the environment at every possibly opportunity. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Sparrow coffee shop in Ann Street was a thriving small business in Brisbane. After two years in operation they had steadily built their trade to a point where they were looking to expand into a second shop and employ more workers. However, when Council started works to redevelop Anzac Square, with the associated road and footpath closures, profits plummeted. They described their ensuing treatment by Council as appalling, and say they have never been so disappointed with a public institution.

Now, with the footpath still closed as the bungled project drags on, Sparrow will cease trading on 21 December and staff will lose their jobs days before Christmas. How can this LNP Council describe itself as a champion of small business when it forces small businesses like Sparrow to close?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. I can only say that it is with deep regret that I hear that news of the Sparrow coffee shop closing down. Madam Chairman, this Council, together with Councils that have gone before it, have undertaken the very best that we can in terms of the projects that need to be undertaken. I might just remind all Councillors that the Anzac Square project is a project undertaken by this Council, by the State Government, and have on that board at every meeting the RSL of Queensland


- 5 -

who have been involved each step of the way and who have been aware each step of the way in regards to it.

In fact, the committee on that, I will go through in a moment, but I do express regret with regards to the circumstances that Sparrow coffee shop find themselves in. There are many reasons why businesses face decline but, in this particular case, and I think it is a reality, that where we are building infrastructure too, there are times when businesses, in the short term, do suffer a loss during that period.

But it has never been the approach from any council to do anything differently than what this Council has done. Madam Chairman, with regard to the undertaking of that work in Anzac Square, it has been overseen by Nigel Chamier; by Retired Major General Peter Arnison; by Mr Andrew King; by Captain Andrew Craig; by Malcolm Middleton, the State Government Architect; by Andrea Kenafake; and by Filly Morgan, the Deputy Director-General, Corporate and Government Services, Premier and Cabinet.

So there are many entities that are involved in this project. There is more work to be done there. This stage of that work will be completed over the next couple of weeks, but then there is further work to be undertaken which will lead through to around Anzac Day. So, that is work external. It will not involve the closing off of any area related to the businesses in the underground section there to which Councillor CUMMING refers.

So, Madam Chairman, it is always a regret to hear of businesses that have struggled and that are closing but, again, I just reiterate that the approach that we have taken is no different to that of former administrations of either political colour. We do our best to be in and out of these situations as quickly as possible. There were certain circumstances—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —thank you, Councillor—There were certain circumstances which pertained to that site which related to some of the heritage-based materials that were required, as part of the heritage nature of Anzac Square, being caught up while making its way to Australia in natural disasters that had occurred overseas. That was one of the fundamental delays. There were other delays associated with significant rainfalls in the month of October.

So, Madam Chairman, it is with a great deal of regret that the Sparrow coffee shop have struggled during this time, and of the news that Councillor CUMMING provides today.


Councillor KING.

Question 3

Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. DEPUTY MAYOR, last week Council proposed a number of improvements to bus services in the Centenary suburbs based on community feedback. Can you please update the Chamber on the State Government’s response to these improvements?

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor KING, and certainly I’m happy to update the Chamber on this project. Some Councillors may be aware that back in September 2016 we released our 10-point plan to improve public transport, and one of those points on the 10-point plan was to progressively review the bus network to make improvements on a region by region basis.

The very first region we identified was the Centenary suburbs. We’ve been working ever since September 2016 to try and get this review up. We’ve been met with nothing but resistance from the State Government, sadly, and so in frustration, wanting to see some improvements made to this very first area of many other areas that could be done across the city, we went ahead and did the community consultation ourselves. We had a great response from the community. There were almost 1,000 people that were actively involved in the


- 6 -

consultation, and they came up with really good suggestions on how bus services in the area could be improved.

We took a different approach to previous TransLink reviews, which were to essentially provide a proposal upfront and then seek people’s view on that proposal. We did that in reverse this time. We asked people what they want to see, what improvements did they want to see, and they came back with some really good suggestions.

One of the most important things, though, is that a strong majority of people were happy with bus services in the Centenary suburbs. If you ask the general population, more than 80% of people were happy with the current level of service in Centenary. If you ask bus users themselves, it was around 60% or, to be precise, 59% were happy with the level of service. So there’s room for improvement there, that’s clear, but any suggestion that there needs to be broad-scale change has been rejected by the community. The community wants to see some targeted improvements.

So, based on that feedback, that’s exactly what we have pitched to TransLink. We’ve announced six targeted initiatives. One of those six includes two new PPT services, or Personalised Public Transport services, which will be fully Council funded. We will launch a 12-month trial from around the middle of next year, and that will be linking people in in the area that don’t currently have good public transport and, particularly, linking them in with some of the local train stations as well.

But there were five other proposals that we put forward to TransLink, including additional early morning trips on the city express routes, 453 and 454, and this was based on feedback from the community; to merge three existing precinct and two peak rocket services together; to promote the recent addition of the extra services we’ve put on with the upgrade of the Inner City Bypass; also a pitch for more middle of the day services; and, finally, higher frequency to train stations.

So these five proposals we’ve put forward and we’re awaiting TransLink’s formal response. Madam Chairman, these are five reasonable suggestions. They are things that we believe can be done at relatively low cost, and that’s why I was really disappointed to see on Channel 7 News last week the Minister for Transport say that our proposal was petty politics—petty politics. What does petty mean: insignificant, trivial. These are improvements for the people in the Centenary suburbs that have been calling out for better bus services. They’re not going to cost the world. They are anything but petty.

I think the people of Centenary suburbs, and also the local State Member for the Centenary area, Mount Ommaney, Jessica Pugh, deserve better from the Minister for Transport. We’d like to see the government take these proposals seriously. They are reasonable proposals. They have been based on community feedback. They’re not our proposals. They’re based on what the community wants. So when the Minister calls them petty, he is effectively calling the community’s views petty which, I think, is not a good outcome for anyone.

We’d like to work cooperatively with the State Government to roll out these improvements. We are ready and willing to do that, and we’ve already indicated that we’re prepared to put Council investment into those Personalised Public Transport services. Madam Chairman, I certainly hope that going forward that the TransLink response, when we officially get it, will be certainly more positive than that initial response, so we can work together for a positive outcome for the Centenary suburbs.


Councillor SRI.

Question 4

Councillor SRI: Thanks Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Brisbane City Council’s City Plan has a rule against more than five unrelated people living in a single dwelling. This rule means that if a family of four want to rent out their


- 7 -

spare room to a married couple, that would be illegal. This rule means that if three married couples want to buy a house together and live in it together, that would be illegal. This rule means that if a family of five wants to take in a homeless person off the street that would be illegal.

My question to you is: do you think this rule is acceptable, or should we consider amending it to be relevant to the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in a house, rather than a fixed number for a house of any size?


Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

Councillor SIMMONDS, stop yelling out across the Chamber.


LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor SRI for the question. This is an area that I do know a little bit about because, Councillor SRI, a little bit of research would show that I instigated changes, as Deputy Mayor, to rooming accommodation in this city. I did so—which was an amendment to the City Plan—to reduce the number, as it was at the time, from six to five. It came about because we had, in this city, a number of unscrupulous landlords who were taking advantage of many young people in our city.

There are now a number of very famous court cases where this Administration took those landlords to court and won because of what was an irresponsible, inappropriate, dangerous and disrespectful way for the neighbourhood in terms of their operations. The proposal that Councillor SRI puts forward in terms of his question would not have solved any of those issues, Madam Chairman, to limit it to the number of bathrooms or the number of toilets or, indeed, the number of bedrooms. That was no obstacle to the matters that we took to court. I have to say to you, Councillor SRI, there’s only one reason that we implemented these changes, and that is because they were community driven. They were community driven because of, particularly, the number of students and, in lots of cases, international students—


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: The examples I was referring to were about owner occupiers and not student renters. It’s simply a question of whether it’s for use of a—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SRI—

Councillor SRI: —that a family of four can’t rent it out—

Chairman: —the LORD MAYOR is providing—

Councillor SRI, you know that when I speak, you need to immediately sit down and cease speaking.

The LORD MAYOR is providing context in regards to the actual decisions that have been made in the past that relate to why the number is set at five, which was part of your question.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, it’s just important that people understand. So in one particular case, there were 38 people we found being crammed into a house. There were other cases that we took to court which were 19 overseas students being crammed into a house, another case of 13; there were others. Madam Chairman, there were fines, I think in one case of $100,000 or more, associated with these outcomes but, importantly, there were at the time leading up to this a significant number of meetings at the community level, and even today I know that Councillor HUANG, Councillor MARX, probably yourself, Madam Chairman, but certainly we don’t get it, I think, anywhere near as much now, but I tell you what, it was an out of control situation.


- 8 -

So action needed to occur, and it did occur. It became the subject of a Four Corners program that I appeared on at the time when these were introduced. It was about the city’s reputation, because it was just out of control. So, Councillor SRI, in answering your question as to why, that is exactly why. That accommodation code became effective on 25 September 2009. I’ve got files back there this high in relation to correspondence from residents, Madam Chairman, that—



Councillor SRI: Just on relevance. My question was not why; it was whether the LORD MAYOR thought it was reasonable in terms of how this law applied to homeowners.

Chairman: Thank you, and the LORD MAYOR is providing context. I will allow him to proceed.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, it’s not this Administration’s intention to change this and to open the floodgates once again. The rule was made for a reason. It was made after good thought was given to it, and it was made to protect the reputation of this city. Since we made those changes, Madam Chairman, we’ve seen all sorts of other initiatives introduced, of which I have been criticised—purpose-built student accommodation is one example. We now have an industry out there that is thriving with 12% growth last year, creating more than 22,000 full time jobs in this city for our citizens off the back of that. That was at risk because our reputation as a city was at risk because of these unscrupulous landlords, Madam Chairman. So we fixed it, and it’s certainly not my intention while LORD MAYOR of this city to change it.


Councillor MURPHY.

Question 5

Councillor MURPHY: Yes, my question is to the Chair of the City Planning Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Recently a Labor State MP was quoted as saying that aged care and retirement living developments have, quote unquote: ‘bipartisan support’. Can you update the Chamber on how this Administration is trying to deal with the challenge of aged care and retirement living in our city, and the level of ‘bipartisan support’ received for proposals to date?

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MURPHY for the question. As all Councillors would know, given the Committee presentation that was seen in this place just a few weeks ago, the State Government has declared two new priority development areas (PDAs) in the city: one at Yeronga and one at Oxley.

Of course, as I said at the time, there was no fanfare to the declaration of these two PDAs; they were, sort of, just done in the dead of night, squirreled away, put through and declared in the official declaration part. But obviously both sites, Oxley and Yeronga, as I spoke about at the time, are zoned for educational purposes, both being either a former TAFE site or a former high school.

You would think, given what they are zoned for, that that may be their future use. But no, no, Madam Chairman, both sites are now slated for predominately residential development, the highest and best use—highest and best use, and obviously selling off State Government assets. They are both owned by the State Government, Madam Chairman. It would be an asset sale to be selling State Government land like this.

But, in the particular case of the Oxley Secondary College, it may surprise the Council Chamber that, as part of that PDA, and as part of the development, the developer, who is going to be picked by the State Government, through EDQ (Economic Development Queensland), will be able to build a retirement village


- 9 -

or aged care facility on the site. Can anyone have a guess how high said aged care or retirement village may be able to be built? Will it be two storeys? No.


Councillor BOURKE: No, because all the homes around there are two storeys. Will it be three storeys? No. Will it be four storeys? No. Will it be six storeys? Yes. Six storeys, Madam Chairman, is how high the aged care facility at Oxley is slated for, Madam Chairman.

Of course, this site has ecological overlays, landslip overlays, waterway corridors, substantial flooding, but the State Government thinks that you should have a six-storey aged care facility. Councillor MURPHY, you are right: the local State Member did come out in the local paper last week and say that there was widespread community and bipartisan support for more aged care accommodation in the community, and bipartisan support.

I guess, Madam Chairman, we will see how good the bipartisan support for six-storey aged care is today when the aged care amendment package comes through this place, because I bet my bottom dollar on the fact that the Australian Labor Party in this place won’t be voting for the aged care amendment package, given their track record when it comes to aged care in this city.

Of course, we know that the Labor Party has no policy other than objecting to aged care developments in this city. They’ve put their heads in the sand. They’ve buried their heads when it comes to trying to tackle the issue of finding appropriate accommodation when it comes to aged care facilities and retirement facilities in this city. We know the challenge; we’ve done the report. We’ve explored how many beds we need and how many beds we need to be bringing onto the market to make sure that we can keep up with the retirement that is going to be happening, and the transition from the baby boomers into retirement.

But the Labor Party has seemed to completely ignore this. They aren’t interested in tackling this issue. They aren’t interested in supporting those that are looking to retire and having appropriate modern world-class facilities for them to retire into. They aren’t interested in it at all, Madam Chairman, and again today I bet you that they are going to vote against the aged care package which is designed to help facilitate that retirement.

I’m not basing that on some grandiose ideological, sort of, thought bubble, Madam Chairman, because they’ve got a track record. They’ve got a track record of voting against aged care developments in this city, because it doesn’t suit their political narrative. What drives the Australian Labor Party in this place is pure politics. It’s not outcomes for the residents of Brisbane; it is pure politics.

I know that Councillor SIMMONDS will like this one, Madam Chairman: the aged care facility at Taigum that came to the City Planning Committee and then came to Council was for 140 beds, it was an impact application on emerging community land. It was fully compliant on car parking numbers; setbacks exceeded the acceptable outcomes in City Plan. It was three storeys in height, where the neighbourhood plan allowed five storeys for multi-unit apartments. What did the Australian Labor Party do on that development? They voted against it.

I mean come on, Madam Chairman, if you can’t support an aged care facility that’s two storeys lower than what you could develop on the site, that has all the setbacks, that meets all of the car parking requirements, what can the Australian Labor Party support when it comes to aged care? Apparently at a State level there’s bipartisan support, but it doesn’t extend; the message hasn’t been sent from George Street down to the Labor team here in Council. They haven’t got the memo that says aged care, you know, that’s a key demographic, you might want to keep them on side—

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, your time—

Councillor BOURKE: No, Madam Chairman, they haven’t got that memo.


- 10 -

Chairman: —Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired.

Further questions?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Question 6

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, my question is to the Infrastructure Chairperson. Councillor COOPER, it’s been six months since you announced in the budget estimates sessions that there would be a review of the Venner Road and Ipswich Road, Annerley, intersection that is so problematic. What recommendations have been made to improve this intersection as part of the review some six months on?

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much Madam Chair, and I just hesitate to correct the Councillor but there is no such thing as budget estimates in this place. We are actually a Council, not a State Government who go through an estimates process.

I believe you were in the Council budget information sessions when I said that there was an Ipswich Road corridor study that was being undertaken as part of the budget for the 2018-19 financial year. It’s basically an option assessment report, so it’s currently underway and it will be completed this financial year, as I said at that budget information session. I think it was about question 6; I think it was asked by Councillor GRIFFITHS, and I do believe you were in attendance at that time.

I’m just mentally trying to recall that, because that’s what I believe is correct. It was definitely a question that was posed to me as part of the information session, not the estimates which you incorrectly ascribed it to being, and I said it was a body of work that was being undertaken, and it is currently underway. As the local Councillor, certainly, you will be informed when that work is completed.

So it’s basically, as all of these sorts of bodies of work are, when we undertake a corridor study, it’s a long term strategy for the corridor; it’s not one specific intersection. It is the whole entire corridor within that bounded area. So we’ll be looking at specific road and intersection upgrades that may need to be considered to support the efficient function of the corridor subject, of course, to budget and citywide priorities.

I believe that you’ve been provided with an update in September and an update in October. Let’s consider this, perhaps, your November update as to the progress on this particular project. I dispute your comments; your comments are incorrect.


Councillor WINES.

Question 7

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor MATIC. This year’s senior’s Christmas parties have already proven to be a popular event. Can you update the Chamber on this year’s ticket sales and how the proceeds from the tickets sold are helping Brisbane residents?

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor WINES for the question and the opportunity to update the Chamber on this magnificent event. Obviously it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas and, as all Councillors would know, the Lord Mayor’s Christmas parties at City Hall are incredibly popular, and I’d like to thank all Councillors for participating and sharing the details with their local community organisations.

I can advise the Chamber, Madam Chairman, that as of last Monday all of the tickets were sold out, which is a great outcome for this event and for all of those residents that so eagerly look forward to it. That, of course, equates to 9,600 tickets, Madam Chairman. The concert events will be running from


- 11 -

Monday 3 December through to Friday 7 December, and there will be two sessions, both in the morning and at lunchtime.

As part as the ongoing benefit that comes from this concert event, not only the joy of Christmas, the opportunity to share, the entertainment that is provided, there’s also, Madam Chairman, an important program that involves the Seniors Celebration Donation program which will help more than 570 seniors groups around the city kick off their end of year festivities by offering them more than $120,000 of funding.

The LORD MAYOR said that the 2018 program will assist these 572 senior citizen organisations to cover the costs of activities, such as social outings and Christmas parties. This program provides donations from $125 to $264 from this total pool to assist senior citizens’ clubs and groups to organise and deliver activities for people aged 50 years and over that are not funded by other sources which, Madam Chairman, all of us as Councillors in this Chamber know that these sums of money go a long way to providing these social activities for our groups.

The donations also recognise the valuable contribution seniors make to Brisbane and its community life, and give our seniors a festive boost leading up to Christmas. A more liveable city is about what this Administration focuses on. This is just another example, Madam Chairman, of this Administration offering more to see and do for all ages to enjoy across our city. With most senior celebrations awarded grants which help more than the 50 members per group gathering to celebrate this season, these donations were awarded to seniors groups across the city.

As the LORD MAYOR has previously said in regards to this, it’s just such a wonderful way for Brisbane seniors to celebrate together, to make new friends and connect with others in their local community. This program builds on the strength of Council’s senior strategy towards a seniors friendly city. As part of that overall Seniors’ Strategy, brought previously to this Chamber, it was about engagement, it was about inclusion, it continues to be about those things, Madam Chairman, valuing our seniors as an important part of our community, making sure that, at this time of the year, we bring people together rather than for a lot of people in their later years living in an isolated way, which is what none of us want to see in our wonderful city.

That, Madam Chairman, is just a great example of why this Administration is getting on with delivering these great outcomes for Brisbane as a New World City, and looking to continue to build that sense of community. Council is committed to enhancing lifestyle and leisure opportunities for residents, and our Seniors Celebration Donation program offers seniors the opportunity to celebrate and spread the joy during the festive season.

For all of those going, and to the Councillors who do participate and attend, it’s such a great time for all to be involved in this program. The feedback that I get within my ward office, and undoubtedly all Councillors get, is the great sense of enjoyment that so many people get. It’s great to see that this program continues to grow year on year. We’ve seen, from 2015 to 2018, a successive increase in those pre-sales and also the number of groups eagerly wanting to become part of this program, registering with our ward offices and seeing literally from the first day through to, you know, within a 10-day period, these ticket sales almost selling out completely.

That clearly shows that we are getting the mix right in regards to the way they are presented, the setup, the decoration, the entertainment, all of those things factored together to provide this great inclusive event for our city. I really want to acknowledge and thank the officers for their commitment and hard work towards delivering this program. It continues to grow strength on strength. The feedback that we get from residents is fantastic, and we continue to deliver this great program at this time of the year. But also with the launch of the Christmas tree on Friday, Madam Chairman, it will continue to roll out even more for the people to see and do around this great Christmas period. Thank you.


- 12 -


Councillor CUMMING.

Question 8

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. I refer to this Administration’s 12 month delay to the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade. In the interest of transparency, does the contract between Council and the contractor Lendlease contain provisions for ratepayer-funded contingencies and, if so, what is the total figure for which ratepayers are liable?


LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. It is the case that last week I announced that there would be delays to some components of the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade project. Madam Chairman, in relation to the contract itself, we have said always this is a $650 million project and, Madam Chairman, that is the extent of it. So, it is not about changes beyond that figure.

The delays are ones that Lendlease accept, the contractor accepts, as being an issue that has come about because of design issues in relation to what I call, if you like, the retaining wall that has been built to accommodate the two-metre wide pedestrian pathway, three-metre wide two-direction bikeway, as well as the additional lane in each direction, from that area around Bretts Wharf, Racecourse Road, through to the area around Breakfast Creek Hotel.

So, Madam Chairman, to recap, for the sake of transparency, the area around Harbour Road heading east towards the Gateway Arterial, to Eagle Farm, that will be open in the middle of next year. Before that, and before Christmas, we’ll be opening up the pedestrian walkway. It’s a 1.2 kilometre stretch which is provided with lighting; it will be provided with the five viewing platforms. Also, when we do re-open that section from Harbour Road outbound, they will be reverting back to 60 kilometres per hour in that section.

So what we’re talking about is the section from essentially Racecourse Road, or Harbour Road, through to, as I say, around the area of Breakfast Creek. Now, there’s two sections, in particular, along that corridor—

Councillor CUMMING: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR was asked: does the contract between Council and the contractor contain provisions for contingencies, and he hasn’t answered that question.

Chairman: And he does have five minutes to answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thought I had covered that question, and I’ve given, for transparency’s sake, some more detail to the Chamber that I made public last week. So, Madam Chairman, as I said, this is a $650 million project, and nothing changes in relation to that.

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.

LORD MAYOR: The contract—

Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: The LORD MAYOR hasn’t detailed what the figure in the contract is for the contingencies. He said he’s answered the question, but the question was clear about the dollar figure for the contingencies.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY.

The LORD MAYOR still has a couple of minutes.


- 13 -

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, that contract came to this Chamber. All of that information is publicly available. It’s been with them now for what, two years, whenever we approved that contract through this place. So I don’t know, really, why they bother asking me questions that they’ve already had the information about, and that has already been voted upon, Madam Chairman, in this Chamber. So, Madam Chairman, that’s why I’ve answered it in the way that I did because I just made the assumption that they voted on it, they’ve had all the information—


Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: The LORD MAYOR is required to answer the question under the Meetings Local Law, Madam Chair. He was asked what the dollar figure for the contingency is. I’d ask you to direct him to actually answer that question.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. I think the LORD MAYOR has been clear in stating that the figures have been detailed in the public documents that have come to this Chamber.

LORD MAYOR, do you have anything to add in the last minute or so you have left?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I would just simply refer the Councillors opposite to that publicly available information. When that contract came here, every Councillor in this place had that information available to them. If they don’t have that information, they are certainly able to call for the file and gather that information again. But you’ll have it all; you’ll have it all in your papers from that time when the Council Chamber approved the contract. So I don’t intend to go back and do your own homework for you when the information has already been given to you.

What I thought I might be able to do today, Madam Chairman, which they don’t seem to be interested in, is give a bit of value add in terms of the actual project itself and where things are up to in relation to that. So, Madam Chairman, they’ve got the information; they can dig it out.

Chairman: That ends Question Time.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

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 of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 November 2018, be adopted.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Seriatim for debate and voting - Clauses B and CCouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018; and Clause C, 2018-19 BUDGET – SECOND REVIEW, be taken seriatim, en bloc, for debating and voting purposes.

Chairman: Thank you.

LORD MAYOR.


- 14 -

LORD MAYOR: Just to be clear, then, Madam Chairman, you just want me to deal with items A, D, E and F?

Chairman: Items A, D, E and F—Alpha, Delta, Echo and Foxtrot—A, D, E and F. Then we’ll do items B and C together.

LORD MAYOR: Got it. Thank you very much. So, Madam Chairman, before coming to the report itself I’d just like to comment briefly on a few other matters. Firstly, last week, Madam Chairman, we had the opportunity to acknowledge the apprentices of this Council in a presentation of awards where we acknowledge those highly performing apprentices within the group. We have apprentices that cover a range of skill areas: in the construction sector, in automotive and in horticulture. Twenty-six new apprentices started this financial year, Madam Chairman—I’m sorry, we’ll start that again.

There were 26 new apprentices in the 2017-18 financial year, and there are 35 apprentices employed this year. That makes a total of 89 apprentices that this Council has. We have one of the highest retention rates of any organisation in Australia. So a completion rate of 65%, and that’s against the national average of 47.3%. So it’s a strong result. It shows that our apprentices do value the training and the mentorship that they receive at this Council. I thank those Councillors that were in attendance to acknowledge and celebrate those awards with our apprentices.

Madam Chairman, also just to acknowledge I had the opportunity, together with Councillor CUMMING, the Leader of the Opposition, to visit and open a new facility called Myhorizon down at Wynnum. This is an opportunity for people with disabilities, primarily mental disabilities but also physical disabilities. It was a former bowls club down there which has now been converted to the Myhorizon Wynnum Lifestyle Centre. I just congratulate the team down there on what they have achieved. They have utilised some of the funds that we have made available through the access and inclusion program to deck that out, and they’ve got around 60 people now with a disability of some form that they have as clients. That will service that area for a long, long time to come.

This morning I had the opportunity to open the Wounded Heroes: Horses 4 Heroes program. This is a program which is out at Wacol. It is on a former leased area which has become available which has now been afforded to the Wounded Heroes organisation. This is an organisation that picks up the pieces for many of our former servicemen and servicewomen that may not have a physical wound but have an emotional and mental wound. This program is very much about their mental health, about re-establishing relationships, about doing those sorts of things that help them recover and learn a few new skills along the way. But it is largely just that making connection in a peaceful surrounding.

So I just want to particularly pay homage to Jim Shapcott, the founder of the organisation, and to Martin Shaw, the current CEO, who’s taken up the baton from Jim who is suffering ill health. They are a battling organisation, but they now have a major step forward with this. I thank Councillor BOURKE, also, who is acknowledged for his contribution in assisting. The Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust has assisted this organisation also to the tune of some $77,000 over several years now, Madam Chairman, to assist in those situations.

Madam Chairman, the Cabinet went out to Chermside Bowls Club—no, it didn’t, it went to the Chermside Library last Wednesday night, was it, Thursday—Thursday night, so, Madam Chairman, we thank all of those residents who attended. I thank Councillors, local Councillors, who were there and their engagement as well. That would be, I think, our final Civic Cabinet meeting in the suburbs this year.

Finally, I just want to mention the Police Memorial dedication that occurred on the weekend. I just want to acknowledge the tenacity of Commissioner Ian Stewart on establishing a memorial for the families of those who have fallen as police officers in over 150 years that the Queensland Police Service has been operating. Each fallen police officer has been commemorated by way of a panel


- 15 -

within the memorial that has been established. So, together with the Premier and others, I was able to be there to acknowledge that dedication and memorial.

Madam Chairman, let’s go to the items, the first item, a very important one, is the amendment to the City Plan 2014, Package H. This is the next step to deliver the action item contained within the Blueprint to stop townhouses and apartments being built in areas for single homes. So, as Councillor BOURKE said earlier, it’s now been 83 days since we wrote to the Minister asking for an early State interest check on the proposal. This has not been forthcoming to date, but we’re not going to slow down. We want to make sure that we continue to press on with these changes.

So, what this package does is to remove all provisions currently within the City Plan that allows for multiple dwellings to be built in low density residential areas. This includes the ability to build on sites of more than 3,000 square metres in the Low density residential zone which, of course, has been in place now for decades—at least 20 years, probably longer. I think it is longer, in fact, probably 30 years, in fact. It also includes changes to neighbourhood plans which have special precincts allowing for multiple dwellings to be built.

Following the endorsement of Council today, it will be sent to the State Government for the first State interest review and then back to Council so it can go to public consultation. Madam Chairman, what we need with this is a permanent fix, not a temporary fix, and this will give a permanent outcome to this provision that has been in place now, as I said, for decades. So, Madam Chairman, what we want to do is to keep moving this forward. This is in line with the provisions of the State planning laws. It is part of the process. We need to get the State interest check undertaken so that again we can then get out to public consultation around this change and move it forward.

The next item is item E, no, D. I don’t seem to have a item D. I’ve not been able to find item D, sorry, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: It’s the major amendment to the Brisbane City Plan, Package B.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, this is Package B. Again, this particular package came to a meeting of Council on 16 June 2016. We resolved to amend the City Plan through amendments intended to support the provision of aged care accommodation. Again, this is what Councillor BOURKE was referring to earlier. This is an important step in that process. It’s about making sure that we can meet the supply that is needed, what I call the underlying demand that exists for aged care and retirement places.

I have often quoted in this place the numbers which were the fact that this marketplace is supplying about 1,000 beds a year, when we know the underlying demand is for around 3,600 beds. So it’s also about making the provisions so that it will enable a spread of location of those aged care and retirement provisions. The market is simply not doing that at the moment. So, Madam Chairman, since these changes were proposed, we’ve seen a much better spread of opportunity.

So the point of this amendment package is to encourage our older citizens to age in place, in areas that they’re familiar with, where they have their shopping facilities, their medical facilities, their professional services and, most importantly, their friends in the local area. So, Madam Chairman, it is with great pleasure that this comes here today for the next step in that particular package.

I would also then like to move to the next item, which is item E. This is the provision of street furniture advertising.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

374/2018-19The LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.


- 16 -


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, this item is the Stores Board submission for the provision of street furniture advertising. Council operates approximately 6,200 actively serviced bus stops throughout Brisbane. That excludes 300 district school stops. Of these bus stops, 830 bus shelters are considered a premium illuminated asset, and 1,280 are Council owned non-illuminated bus shelters, all of which contain advertising under the street furniture contract.

The current contract with Adshel started on 1 March 1999, and it expires on 28 February next year. It provides Council with 830 fully maintained and cleaned premium bus shelters, the revenue stream from illuminated, non-illuminated and digital advertising on these bus shelters. Other benefits at no charge include an advertising allocation.

Madam Chairman, advertising space on premium bus shelters is typically sought by national or international brands, including government organisations, but also mainly larger commercial organisations, whereas advertising on Council owned shelters and seats is typically sought by local businesses. This Stores Board submission is for the provision of a new street furniture contract. I must remind Councillors that the specifics of the revenue model and offer are commercial in confidence. This information is in bold, underlined and highlighted yellow in your Council documents.

The evaluation panel considered different award scenarios for this contract, where one tenderer could be awarded with Category A advertising, and another tenderer awarded with Category B advertising. Under this scenario, it resulted in less revenue to Council over the long term. As such, the submission recommends entering into one licence agreement with Adshel for 10 years, with an option to extend for two years. The previous contract, which was approved around 20 years ago, would have been during the Soorley Administration period, and under the new agreement, the advertising footprint remains the same across the 830 bus shelters.

New exclusivity zones are being introduced to protect the revenue generated and returned to Council. This exclusivity is for advertising on premium bus shelters and Council owned non-illuminated shelters of a specific format and size. The format size is between 1.4 and 2.6 square metres. This exclusivity zone is within a 10-kilometre radius around Brisbane’s GPO (General Post Office). Exclusivity extends to Council controlled contiguous footpaths adjacent to arterial roads with daily vehicular traffic movements of above 20,000 cars within the Brisbane Local Government area. Beyond this zone, a 250-metre radius around existing premium street furniture shelters will fall within exclusivity.

Premium bus shelters will continue to be cleaned and maintained to a high standard by Adshel with an expanded zone of five metres either side of the shelter. Council will continue to maintain its waste services at all shelters, which includes emptying and cleaning of rubbish bins. So, Madam Chairman, that’s the basis of the contract. This contract, obviously, will provide significant assistance to Council in terms of our broader responsibilities. We have got, over the coming four-year period, a commitment of $131 million in disability compliance work. This is in terms of improving our bus stops, in terms of the various CityCat terminals, in making sure that we meet all of our obligations by 2022. So, Madam Chairman, I am happy to move that one.

There’s the final one, which is item F, which is property sales. This submission before us today is to seek approval to apply an exemption to dispose of five properties of land by private sale other than auction or tender. One of the five properties before us today proposed for sale is to an adjoining landowner. Three of them are being sold to various State Government agencies, and one is being sold to a community organisation.

The first property in Windsor is proposed to be sold to the adjoining landowner as the adjoining landowner already holds an easement over the site. There is no market potential for the site to be sold to the public given that constraint. In


- 17 -

regard to the Nathan properties, Council has been approached by the State Government to acquire the property for a park ‘n’ ride. Regarding the fourth property in Inala, the Department of Housing and Public Works has approached Council identifying their need for the site. Finally, in Bracken Ridge, Council was approached by the Catholic parish there to acquire the site, issuing a formal letter of offer. So, Madam Chairman, that concludes my commentary around it, and I’m happy to move the report.

Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR.

Further debate?

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Seriatim for voting - Clauses A and D, and seriatim en bloc for voting – Clauses E and F Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause A, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE H; and Clause D, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE B; be taken seriatim for voting purposes; and that Clause E, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF STREET FURNITURE ADVERTISING; and Clause F, ASSET OPTIMISATION – SURPLUS PROPERTY DISPOSAL STAGE 42; be taken seriatim, en bloc, for voting purposes.

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, in relation to item D, Councillor BOURKE got it right in that we have got concerns about these provisions. I want to make it clear that we don’t support these changes. We still see them as an attempt to give a selected section of the development industry in Brisbane, the multi-storey retirement village sector, a great boost and quite possibly an enormous boost to their profitability.

To our knowledge, there’s been no professional study commissioned by the Brisbane City Council which proves that there is a demand for the retirement villages and nursing home beds that are stated to be necessary under this proposal. As I understand it, a chat to the Property Council, which Council has had, that doesn’t qualify as a professional study.

We still see retirement villages as a lifestyle choice for part of the aged population of our community, and also obviously there’s been some concerns about how the retirement village industry has operated. I know the State, as I understand it, have from time to time—and I think they’re looking at it again—looking at increasing the regulations on that section of the industry.

We’re convinced that the overwhelming number of developments that will occur if these proposals do get introduced, will be retirement villages, because that’s where the big money is. It’s not in nursing homes, Madam Chair, and there’s a lot more work to running a nursing home than a retirement village, and one suspects a lot less profit; therefore that’s what will happen if these proposals are introduced.

I’ve got to say, the Administration has backed down on some of their original proposals. The Opposition in this place and some residents of Brisbane, a lot of them from my ward, have pointed out that under the previous proposals, if there was community facilities zoned land on one side of the street of more than 0.7 of a hectare in area, and there was low density residential on the other side of the road, the community use land could be redeveloped for up to seven-storey development on that section of the land, seven storeys on one side of the land, and people living in a low density residential area, single storey, two storey, most of them a maximum of 8.5, an absolute maximum of 9.5 metres in height, with a seven-storey building across the road.

The Administration have been forced to back down on that matter, and we take credit for that, but we also thank those people who sent in submissions as part of the response as well. As I said, a lot of them were from my area because they were faced with that. The people in Oceana Terrace and Grace Street and Armytage Street in Lota were faced with having a seven-storey building just across the road from where they lived. They weren’t happy with that, and I think


- 18 -

they were an example of what could have happened across Brisbane if it hadn’t been for the back down from the Administration.

I’ve got to say this Administration, they’re getting a bit of a habit of backing down. I think that they float these outrageous proposals—another example was the sport and recreation land proposal—and then when they’re faced with a strong campaign by the community and by the Opposition, they back down. They don’t actually believe in anything; they just believe in getting away with whatever they can, and they are forced to back down, forced to change and to amend what they’re proposing, and then they turn on their tails and run away from the debate, Madam Chair. So, the Administration are quite pathetic in that regard, Madam Chairman.

But, Madam Chairman, people shouldn’t assume that there’s not going to be a seven-storey building across the road. If you happen to live in low-medium density on one side of the street, and there may be undeveloped low-medium density, although medium density I think the height is about 10.5 metres, you still can get seven storeys on the other side of the road. That’s the four-storey additional height on the other side of the road on the large chunk of community facilities land will still apply. So be wary, a lot of people around Brisbane, because you still face that as a possibility.

Madam Chairman, the other thing we object to generally is the fact that, for example, if someone wanted to build a retirement village in Wynnum Manly, there’s neighbourhood plan area, there’s five-storey land allowed in some streets, five storeys allowed in some streets, eight storeys in others. Under this plan you will still be able to build seven storeys instead of the five, and 10 storeys instead of the eight storeys. So there’s a two storey allowance if you choose to develop this type of housing rather than normal units, Madam Chairman. I’ve got concerns about that, Madam Chairman.

For example, in areas like Wynnum Manly, views are a premium, and people pay a lot of money for the chance to have a view. To give a right to one section of the development industry to go two storeys higher obviously could wipe out your views. I’ve got concerns about that, and that would be an issue in a lot of areas of Brisbane—lots of hills in Brisbane, lots of nice views, and you really risk having a large retirement complex, a residential complex, built in front of you and your views wiped out, Madam Chair.

The other concern we have is the proposal to make everything code assessable. We think that’s not good enough, Madam Chairman. We think that residents of Brisbane with such major projects being built nearby deserve to have the highest level of say in relation to the proposals. We think impact assessable is an appropriate level of assessment which means, of course, that the developer would be required to put a sign up on the site, would be required to advertise in a newspaper, and the submitters would have appeal rights, Madam Chairman. So that’s another reason why we object to these proposals.

The other thing is, of course—and we’ve got some doubts about—is the commercial aspect that is proposed as part of these changes as well. Where, if you’ve got a multi-storey retirement village, you’re going to be able to have shops; offices; food and drink outlets; childcare centres; and various other commercial enterprises, up to 10% of the site area, or 800 square metres, whatever is smaller, will be allowed. We can see that will generate a lot of extra traffic in the vicinity of these retirement villages which, again, will affect adversely the amenity of residents living nearby.

Of course, there’s some suggestions, they say: ‘oh no, it will only be for the people living on site’. Well, that’s not what the response from Council says to objectors who raise that issue. The whole thrust of what’s proposed is that they’ll be built, the commercial enterprise will be built so the community around the area can use them, because they just won’t be viable unless they get a lot of community use, which means a lot of cars from around the area driving in to use the facilities, which I said includes clubs and food and drink outlets, for example. So that’s another reason for us to object to these proposals, Madam Chair.


- 19 -

In relation to item E, the street furniture, we’ve got some concerns about this matter as well. Particularly, there’s a provision for messaging to the community to be provided by the—


Councillor CUMMING: Messaging to the community to be provided by Adshel, Madam Chairman. Now, we’ve got concerns about that. Given the absolute flood of papers and advertising generally, and brochures, glossy brochures that have been put out across the city over the last 12 months, I think it’s 9.5 million—9.5 million items have gone into letterboxes across the city—

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Councillor CUMMING: —with the LORD MAYOR’s face on it.

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor CUMMING.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Relevance?

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, this is specifically in relation to the major amendment packages, the Stores Board and Asset Optimisations, so please back to the report.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I’m saying what abuse of ratepayers’ funds has taken place by this Administration, and messaging to the community could be likewise used by this Administration. It will be the next add-on to TV advertising and radio advertising, and the big screen in King George Square. It will be messaging to the community with the LORD MAYOR’s face all over it. They’ll be hoping that Adshel have got everything up and running will before the next Council election so they can get a few shots of the LORD MAYOR announcing various things in the lead up to the next election, Madam Chairman.

There should be strict guidelines like the rules which apply at Commonwealth and State levels to dictate how this advertising is to be done. That would stop what’s happening in Brisbane, which is just a disgrace—

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired.

375/2018-19Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of the Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Kara COOK.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. So, we don’t support the provision of street furniture advertising because of the potential abuse from this Administration.

In relation to item F, the surplus property disposal, we’ve got concerns about this type of matter generally because of what happened in the past, Madam Chair, with the Boon Tan incident where he offered $3.3 million, which this Council was prepared to accept for a block of land, and then later on when it was put out to the market, it attracted a sale price of $5.25 million—$2 million extra that ratepayers nearly missed out on, Madam Chair. So we’ve got concerns in any sort of disposal of property without going out to the full market, particularly where commercial people are involved.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in support of item A, the major amendment to the Brisbane City Plan, Package H. I just wanted to begin by saying how much I support these proposals put forward today through the E&C, and to thank the LORD MAYOR and Councillor BOURKE for putting them forward. Brisbane’s Future Blueprint is about making the planning scheme more predictable and these changes, in my view, do make the planning scheme more predictable.


- 20 -

In particular, when you look at item A, the principle to stop townhouses and apartments being built in areas for single homes. The principle that defines that is that where there is zoning for standalone dwellings, that is where standalone dwellings are found, but where there is zoning for townhouses and for units, it is those places where you find townhouses and units—a more predictable and delineated division of where different property types can be found in this city. I think that is going to be to the benefit of the residents of Brisbane and also to the benefit of this Council through the Council officers’ schemes.

I would also look at—can I also refer to item 4, which is the provision that distinctly discusses the removal of the right to be able to build townhouses on well-located sites in excess of 3,000 square metres. I think the decision to remove this from the scheme is a good and necessary one that will make, again, our planning scheme more predictable for the residents of Brisbane. I also want to recognise section 5, that the proposed changes to the scheme ‘remove existing specific provisions and clarify multiply dwelling outcomes are not supported in Low density residential zones’. That is, multiple dwelling outcomes are not supported in Low density residential zones.

For those who haven’t read the attachments, you can find the supporting documents for section 4, part 6, ‘omit: the development other than the dwelling house, including dual occupancy or multiple dwelling, is not allowed in a suburban setting unless on a well located site over 3,000 square metres’. That is the previous setting. The new setting is that development maintains density character in which multiple dwellings are not accommodated—and no allowance for large lots to be built for townhouses. I am very grateful for that change.

All other changes can be found through that same document. In item 63, the Mitchelton Centre neighbourhood plan, multiple dwellings are not accommodated in the Low density residential zone. In item 64, the Mitchelton neighbourhood plan, two documents; it’s clear that—I feel I need to clarify that Mitchelton Centre and Mitchelton are two separate neighbourhood plans. In Mitchelton, multiple dwellings are not accommodated in Low density residential zoning.

Can I also refer to section 39, which is the Enoggera district neighbourhood plan, which also removes multiple dwellings and puts in place that multiple dwellings are not allowed or accommodated in the Low density residential zone. I just want to show my gratitude to this Council for considering these changes. I think they are necessary to make this planning scheme more predictable, to clearly allow and direct where the sorts of density goes, where we think it should go, where it is in line with community expectations. Around train stations for some four or five decades we’ve permitted the construction of townhouses and units, and that will remain unchanged. But where the zoning is for standalone single dwellings, those areas are now protected by this Council.



Seriatim - Clause ACouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause A, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE H, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you so much. I rise to speak on items A, D, E and F, and I will briefly dispose of item E. I do not support this Administration’s new contract for advertising on public assets. They have destroyed the city over their term. It is a blight on our city, what these people have done with billboards, with advertising. It’s a free-for-all to the benefit of their mates in the outdoor advertising industry who are big donors to the LNP, and I—

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Councillor JOHNSTON: I just find it to be—


- 21 -

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor ADAMS: I ask Councillor JOHNSTON to withdraw. That is imputing motive. It’s actually defaming people. She needs to be careful.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I do remind you there is no parliamentary privilege in this Chamber. Would you care to withdraw?

Councillor JOHNSTON: No.

Chairman: Please continue. I have reminded you of your obligation.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. It is a matter of record that the outdoor advertising industry are major donors to the LNP. That is, without question, a matter of fact. They don’t like it when it’s raised, but that is a great concern. I do not support the contract. It locks this city in for over a decade. It is wrong. They cannot be trusted when it comes to advertising and I absolutely do not support item E.

Item A, with respect to the low density changes to City Plan, there’s nothing wrong with what is being proposed in item A per se. The problem is item A is minuscule in its efforts to protect backyards. Low density areas only in a few specific wards are at risk because there are very large blocks. The problem that we have is that the rhetoric of this LORD MAYOR, who stands up and says he will protect backyards—it is not just low density areas where backyards are being lost.

The bigger problem is the character residential areas where units are being tacked on to the back of pre-1946 houses, and backyards are being lost, and Council is allowing subdivision of low density blocks to allow secondary dwellings to be built in the backyards, and in low to medium density areas, allowing backyards to be carved up for six or eight units. It is absolutely wrong what is happening.

So there is nothing wrong with item A, but it is not solving the problem, and the LORD MAYOR’s rhetoric is not matching community expectation, and it is not matching the problems that we are experiencing because of the pro-development stance of this Administration when it delivered its diabolical City Plan 2014 into this Chamber. I did not support it in 2014. We had a week long debate about it here, and all of the things that were of concern to me and other Councillors, Labor Councillors who were here at the time, have come to fruition.

Now, these guys are desperately backpedalling to try and fix things, which is like trying to put a Band-Aid on open heart surgery—it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. So, you are failing. You said you’re going to do something that sounded great but, in practice, you are not delivering on that promise, and that is what is so disappointing.

I’d also like to make some comments on the major amendment to City Plan 2014, Package B, the retirement issues. I am gobsmacked by Councillor BOURKE’s comments in this place today, and generally the LNP Administration’s views about retirement villages here. I mean, today we’ve heard Councillor BOURKE, sort of, suggesting that Labor don’t support it, but then he was criticising Labor for doing it in certain areas. I know, for example, that Councillor BOURKE in his ward at Jamboree, which I inherited from him, in an area where we had low density retirement at Hopetoun, under his watch we now have six-storey multiple high rise buildings, and that’s at Corinda.

I don’t even know if he objected. I doubt he objected. When I inherited it, the commercial developers put in a new development application to increase it again. It is horrific, horrific, what this Administration has allowed to happen in our suburbs where we have seen six-storey multiple unit dwellings by commercial retirement village operators being built in character residential areas, in Corinda, in Chelmer, and in Annerley. It is so wrong, it’s not funny.

You cannot believe a single word of what this LORD MAYOR says. I’ve asked him previously to tell us where this figure comes from. Is this the figure about the need for retirement villages? Is this the figure by the industry? I think it will be. I agree with Councillor CUMMING; there has been no independent


- 22 -

assessment of this. We don’t know that the demand is out there, and look at the damage that this LORD MAYOR has done by messing around with demand-related property planning issues in this city with the massive oversupply of units that we are currently experiencing because he up-zoned the city through City Plan 2014.

Number one, this LORD MAYOR does not have the skill and expertise to do this. Number two, he has not done his research. He is simply repeating what the property industry has told him. Now, in my ward alone there are four major projects of four, five and six storeys, 900 units of retirement living that have been built in Tennyson Ward in the past year. It is phenomenal.

Am I seeing the infrastructure necessary to support elderly people who are being moved in, in their thousands? There’s 900 units; there’s probably 1,500 people that have moved into areas like Yeronga, Chelmer, Corinda, and Annerley is waiting to be built. Is this Administration planning to support the needs of the elderly people that it is shoving into these areas that are often distant to shops, distant to public transport, distant to services that they rely on, and are they doing anything to make sure that the planning needs of those elderly communities are being met? No, they are not.

This Administration has failed, failed fundamentally, to make sure that we are planning properly for the future of the elderly people in our community. I absolutely do not support this, and the LORD MAYOR should be fully aware after what happened in Chelmer about what this kind of planning decision does to communities. The decision to allow four-storey multi-unit dwellings in a character residential area in Chelmer was outrageous—outrageous. LORD MAYOR, you should be wondering what’s happening to the Liberal vote. This is why.

Our communities want to see certainty, I agree, in planning, but not the kind of up-zoning of areas as of right that you are allowing under this City Plan amendment. This is bad policy; it is bad planning. It will lead to poor outcomes in communities when the necessary services and infrastructure that elderly people need are not being provided for. There is no way this should be code assessable, no way.

This means that, under your changes to City Plan, they are going to happen without any public notification being required, without any appeal rights being allowed. It is wrong, absolutely wrong. Now, we do need to plan better for retirement and nursing home living, there is no question about that. This is not the right solution.

Councillor Matthew BOURKE is a hypocrite based on his own experience in Jamboree Ward that he allowed, and to stand up and criticise the State Member in Oxley at the Oxley Secondary College, when he was the local Councillor for the best part of a decade, and for three years there was an LNP State Government, and did he do anything to protect that land? No, he didn’t. Did he fight to get it handed over to Council? No, he didn’t. When I inherited it, that’s what I did.

Now, I know that the community does not want high rise on that site, but they are not unhappy with many of the solutions that have been proposed there, including handing over land to Council, including a new community centre and, oh, large low density low density lots. The only thing that is wrong with that site is the fact that it is proposed for six-storey retirement. I’ve made it clear to Council and the State Government that that aspect of this proposal is wrong. I’ve also made it very clear around Yeronga that that one is wrong as well. You cannot jam units in, particularly for elderly people, without the necessary services and support that they need around them. This Administration has absolutely got this wrong.

Finally, on a day when Councillor BOURKE and this Liberal Administration stand up and criticise the State Government for selling assets, here they are selling off hundreds and hundreds—or thousands of square metres of Council land—


- 23 -

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Further debate?

Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item A and item E. Firstly, Madam Chairman, on item A this is, of course, our next step in the process to remove provisions which allow townhouses on Low density residential zoned sites exceeding 3,000 square metres in size. This is, certainly in my ward and I know many other wards across the city, one of the most highly anticipated outcomes of the Plan your Brisbane process.

We remember at the start of Plan your Brisbane we engaged and took feedback from over 100,000 Brisbane residents. We had over 270,000 individual interactions, many of which were through our game. As a result, we won The Urban Developer Excellence in Community Engagement award, which those opposite always forget. I will read what the judges said: ‘The judges recognise Plan your Brisbane as a truly innovative campaign that demonstrates the power of community engagement.’

Madam Chairman, this illustrates that we are a Council that listens to the community. Plan your Brisbane was all about having a genuine conversation between Council and the community. There were no sacred cows. Everything was on the table, and we were very happy to hear—very happy to hear—feedback from the community which has been unpopular with the development industry here in Brisbane. There’s many things that they don’t like about Plan your Brisbane, that they don’t like about Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, but we are happy to do those things because we take our approach to community consultation seriously, Madam Chairman.

We, on this side, are always happy to compare our award-winning community engagement processes with the shambolic and dishonest processes run by the Labor Party, as evidenced by the Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, which has been an absolute disgrace, Madam Chairman. That’s how Labor do community consultation. They arrive at the answer and they work their way back from there. We win industry awards for our consultation; they win CCC (Crime and Corruption Commission) investigations, Madam Chairman. So I will always be happy to back us on community consultation over the Labor Party.

Now, Madam Chairman, out of Plan your Brisbane, we generated Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, the eight principles and 40 actions which are guiding the greatest era of city planning reform in this city’s history. Under protect the Brisbane backyard principle, we’re taking a number of actions. We are ensuring that development fits in with the surrounding community—


Councillor MURPHY: —through the audit of emerging community land. We are preserving the space between homes by working with the State—


Councillor MURPHY: —to amend the QDC (Queensland Development Code) to enforce minimum setbacks and, of course, Madam Chairman, this item today which is to stop townhouses and apartments being built in areas designated for single homes.

I have said previously, Madam Chair, that this 3,000 square metre rule was always very little understood by the general public. It was exploited by developers to accumulate land parcels to get 3,000 square metre lots and to jam in townhouses where they weren’t wanted. It unfairly overrode neighbourhood plans which should give the community certainty about when and where development should occur. I believe the residents of Brisbane support us in taking this step here today.

The only question is: do the Queensland Labor Party and does the State Government, because so far we’ve heard a deafening silence from those who matter in the State Government. We still don’t know whether they will support this local law change. It’s been 82 days and counting now, and we have heard


- 24 -

boo from them. We have had noisy protests from Councillor CASSIDY who has indicated that he thinks this is a great political issue to campaign on. He is out there campaigning on an LDR (low density residential) site in Mt Gravatt East, and he thinks he’ll be able to whip up some fear and scare people. But we know nothing on whether he will support Council’s law change with the State Government.

Let’s be clear. Once item A passes through Council today, it is entirely up to the State Government to give us approval to proceed with the local law change. They are the only ones who can fire the gun allowing us to proceed to public consultation. Without them, the residents of the City of Brisbane will continue to wait; they will continue to see uncertainty about what can and cannot happen in LDR land across this city. I reiterate: we have heard nothing from them in over 80 days.

We’ve actually only heard from one member of the State Government, which has been Corrine McMillan, who said this in last week’s South East Advertiser, she said: ‘These changes would do nothing more than add a further level of scrutiny to Council’s deliberations on certain developments. Council is able to engage in public consultation regarding controversial developments at any time if it so chooses. To claim their hands are tied because of State Government inaction is, to say the least, disingenuous.’

Madam Chairman, this is a change to a code. This is nothing to do with consultation; it’s nothing to do with deliberations; it’s nothing to do with additional scrutiny. I genuinely think she has just got some bad media advice, because the reality is this code change could go through tomorrow if the State Government says so. Across the city, we will stop LDR sites from being converted into townhouses. We can end this tomorrow if we have State Government support to do so.

So, Madam Chairman, this is a very simple change. We are removing the 3,000 square metre rule that Labor introduced. Today, it becomes their responsibility to get this change underway, and I certainly will be letting my residents know every day that they drag their feet on this issue and hold this change up, because the residents of Brisbane want to see this happen. I encourage all other Councillors here to do the same.

Madam Chairman, just very briefly on item E, which is the outdoor advertising issue. Councillor CUMMING went to the same old chestnut that he always goes to on this, and he said the LORD MAYOR’s face is going to be everywhere. Well, Madam Chairman, as soon as Councillor CUMMING stops asking the ratepayers to pay for his website, his Facebook advertising, his newsletters, his pull-up banners and his card magnets, then, Madam Chairman, I won’t think he is an absolute hypocrite on this matter, because he has always had his hand out for advertising in the same way as all the other Labor Councillors do.

Communications with the public is part and parcel of being a Councillor; it is part and parcel of being in public office, Madam Chairman. In the same way that I support him to do that, I support this Council’s right to be able to engage with advertisers in this city on the same basis that they engage with the private sector. So, Madam Chairman, I commend both items and I encourage all Councillors to support them today.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the two major amendments to City Plan, item A and item D. We’ve just heard from a couple of Administration Councillors. Councillor WINES said that these properties are now protected, but we know in reality they are not. We know, by the LORD MAYOR’s own admission, that this could take 12 months. Now, Councillor MURPHY just said this could happen today or tomorrow, but the LORD MAYOR previously said that this would be a 12-month long process. So they haven’t got their talking points down pat, Madam Chair, yet.


- 25 -

But we offered this Administration, weeks and weeks ago, an option to ensure that these properties are protected. They rejected that weeks ago. They rejected that just last week as well, on a specific property that is under threat from development, Madam Chair. We know now that this LORD MAYOR’s thrown down the gauntlet to the development industry and said: you have 12 months. You’ve now got 12 months to develop as much of this land as you possibly can. He said earlier—

Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Madam Chairman, that is imputing motive, and I ask that Councillor CASSIDY withdraw that.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, I do remind you that there is no parliamentary privilege in this place, and will you care to withdraw?

Councillor CASSIDY: At your request, Madam Chair, I will withdraw that.


Councillor CASSIDY: But what I will say is that through this LORD MAYOR’s actions in rejecting a TLPI (Temporary Local Planning Instrument), rejecting emergency planning protections over low density residential lots to be developed into units and townhouses, developers in Brisbane now know that they have the next 12 months to lodge DAs, development applications, in this city that this Council cannot reject based on the amendments that we are seeking to progress.

So the option was on the table; it’s still on the table. This Administration today could take action to enact a temporary local planning instrument over low density residential land to ensure that no units and townhouses are developed on those properties. The LORD MAYOR said he doesn’t want to go down the temporary road in the next 12 months. He just said that in his opening statement, Madam Chair. He didn’t mind a TLPI when Council missed the development opportunities that were there for Reddacliff Place. We are progressing protections for that, and in the interim we did a TLPI on that, Madam Chair.

While we progressed amendments to City Plan to protect the bomb shelter in Milton, Madam Chair, we progressed a TLPI over that site. There is nothing to stop this Council from immediately acting to protect that low density residential land, Madam Chair, but the LORD MAYOR’s rhetoric does not match his actions on this issue, Madam Chair. He has sat back and taken the easy road.

The Administration Councillors, and Councillor BOURKE has said this earlier today, the LORD MAYOR has said this and so has Councillor WINES and Councillor MURPHY as well, that they have written to the State Government and they have not received a reply, except for the fact they obviously haven’t checked their email inboxes, because that reply was sent back to Council yesterday, Madam Chair.


Councillor CASSIDY: Isn’t that convenient. Through you, Madam Chair, I would suggest that Councillor BOURKE checks his inbox, because that reply—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor CASSIDY: —Whoops!—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: I’m happy to pass that on to Councillor BOURKE, Madam Chair, that that reply has come to Council.



- 26 -

Chairman: Order!

Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Order! When the Chamber is silent, we will continue.

Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Will Councillor CASSIDY take a question?

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, will you take a question?

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, sure, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Through the Chair, please.

Councillor MURPHY: Councillor CASSIDY—Madam Chair, will Councillor CASSIDY reveal his source in the State Labor Government which provided him with that documentation before it arrived to Council?

Councillor CASSIDY: No, Madam Chair.




Chairman: Councillor KING!

Councillor CASSIDY, please continue.

Councillor CASSIDY: So the State Government’s response, Madam Chair, including a cover letter and the SARA referrals and all the issues that have will be raised by the State Government was sent to Councillor BOURKE yesterday, Madam Chair. So this Administration received the State Government response, this Council received the response from the State Government before I did, Madam Chair. It’s just that they obviously haven’t checked their inbox, Madam Chair. How can you trust anything this Administration says?

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor CASSIDY.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Would Councillor CASSIDY take a question?

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY?

Councillor CASSIDY: No, Madam Chair, I’m not going to take a question from the LORD MAYOR.


Chairman: Order!

Councillor CASSIDY: This isn’t Question Time, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Order!

Please continue, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. So this Administration had the opportunity from day one, when the LORD MAYOR went out there on his $3 million advertising spree advertising the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint process. He had the opportunity from day one to properly protect these properties. Now, we said to this Administration that you are potentially playing with fire here by progressing an amendment without properly protecting these properties in the interim. If you’re really serious about protecting them, then you should enact a temporary protection that protects them in the interim, Madam Chair. But again, time and time again, they refuse to do that.

Now, on the aged care amendment, the Leader of the Opposition has gone through a number of the issues that Labor Councillors have, and I do want to congratulate the community on speaking loud and clear, going through the summary of submissions on this issue. Anyway, the clear themes in there were that people didn’t like the incredibly high extra height in those areas adjoining


- 27 -

Low density residential land, the four storeys above. They didn’t like the fact that these developments would now be code assessable instead of impact assessable. There were also submissions around the real requirement for aged care and retirement living within this city.

Now, the Administration has been dragged kicking and screaming to not include sport and rec land in these amendments, and now reduce the available extra height at a code assessable application for some of these sites. But what we know is that all of these applications will be code assessable, and the response to submissions says, and Councillor BOURKE often says, well, people can still make a submission if they want. Good luck if they know anything’s happening, Madam Chair, because there is no requirement for developers to advertise that these developments will be going on right across the road from them, or right next to them. So we have a problem with that.

We also have a problem with the infrastructure charge discounts that this Administration is pursuing because here what we have is a socialisation of the losses and the losses are the infrastructure that we won’t be getting as a result of these developments. We know that there’s going to be a $1 billion deficit in the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan) infrastructure that is required over the eight-year horizon of that plan, yet we’re handing money over to developers and we’re privatising the gains of this development to them.

So what we know is that hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of community infrastructure, whether it’s footpaths, whether it’s upgraded roads or whether it’s local parks, won’t be delivered in line with these developments that otherwise should have been. So we have a fundamental problem with that approach.

We know that there has been no independent study of the requirement and the needs for aged care and retirement living. Most of these developments we know will be profit driven retirement villages. They won’t be aged care nursing homes, because they are, of course, allocated and funded by the Federal Government. A developer can’t just come along and develop an aged care site if they want to willy-nilly. They have to apply to the Federal Government, get the licences for the beds, and then seek a development, whereas a retirement living arrangement that will be subsidised by the ratepayers of Brisbane can just about pop up anywhere, Madam Chair.

So this whole process has been flawed from the start. This Administration went out with a predetermined outcome that they wanted. They were forced to back down on a number of those, but they haven’t listened to the community around having a real and meaningful say in terms of these applications being impact assessable. People don’t want to see the opportunity for increased community infrastructure thrown down the drain, Madam Chair.


Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to enter the debate on item A and item D. I’m going to deal with item A first, which is the amendment to the City Plan, Package H, to stop townhouses being built in low density residential. I just want to deal with the furphy upfront about a temporary local planning instrument that the Labor Party keeps peddling. Madam Chairman, a TLPI would not pass the mustard in terms of the State’s approval because it would not meet the test. This is how the politics come from the Labor Party as opposed to the real outcomes that are delivered for residents by this Administration.

It would not pass the cultural, economic, environmental or social test that is the key test that you have to justify and demonstrate for a temporary local planning instrument. So, to the points that Councillor CASSIDY raised—Reddacliff Place, a significant place protecting heritage view lines through the CBD, meets the test of cultural, Madam Chairman. The other ones that he mentioned, a heritage listed bomb shelter meets the test of needing to be protected by a TLPI.

Putting a ban on townhouses across the whole of the city on Low density residential on the advice from the Council officers, it would not meet the test


- 28 -

under the State Government planning laws for a TLPI to be approved by the State. So, the Labor Party can keep running down that rabbit warren, they can keep running down that rabbit warren, Madam Chairman, but we’re getting on with the job of providing this real change and implementing the amendment that needs to be done.

To the other point that was raised, that we need to deal with upfront—this isn’t about a select number of blocks across the city. There is 64% of the residential zoned land in this city that is low density residential land. There are a number of those blocks that are currently greater than 3,000 square metres, but you can amalgamate blocks, Madam Chairman. So, this Administration is taking the strong stance to say that we don’t want to see townhouses on any of that land. So rather than just blocking out the existing 3,000 square metre lots, we are going through the amendment process, through this package we have before us today, to actually deliver on our commitment through Brisbane’s Future Blueprint.

We first passed this amendment some 83 days ago, and it went to the State Government for their first initial State interest check. We haven’t heard from them—and I take Councillor CASSIDY’s lovely little political stunt there: ‘oh, you know, you got your letter yesterday’. Well, Madam Chairman, would we have gotten our letter yesterday if the papers saying this was coming to Council today hadn’t gone out last Thursday?


Councillor BOURKE: No, we wouldn’t have, Madam Chairman.


Councillor BOURKE: No, we wouldn’t have gotten it.

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor BOURKE take a question about his email inbox?

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE—

Councillor BOURKE: I’ve got a lot to cover here in these two amendments, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: No, thank you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor BOURKE: They’re important amendments for the City of Brisbane.


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Please don’t call out.

Councillor STRUNK!

When the Chamber is silent, we will continue.

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I was just saying, so would we have gotten it? No, we probably wouldn’t have. I don’t think we would have, Madam Chairman, because the track record of the Australian Labor Party, when it comes to replying to these sort of things, isn’t too good, because I’ll mention that when I get to the aged care package.

So, having not got that, we’ve taken the decision to bring this through for tick-off by Council today so it can now go to the State for their formal first interest check. Now, they have 60 days. That’s their KPI, 60 business days, Madam Chairman, and I know that all Councillors on this side of the Chamber will be counting the days down and keeping them to account to get this back through to Council as quickly as possible, because the residents of Brisbane have spoken loud and clear that they want to see townhouses stopped on low density residential land across this city, and this Administration is getting on with the job of—


- 29 -



Councillor SRI: I just want to clarify, given that the response from the State Government hasn’t been provided for us to vote on this motion today, is the motion before us still competent?

Chairman: Yes, it is, Councillor SRI. This is a Committee report so, yes, it can proceed.

Councillor SRI: Then through you, Madam Chair, can I just ask that that email response from the State Government be tabled so that we can at least see it before we vote?

Chairman: Councillor SRI, that email response was referred to initially by Councillor CASSIDY who has seen it, apparently.


Chairman: Order!


Chairman: Order!

There has been—Councillor CASSIDY declined to respond to who had actually forwarded that to him, so I will allow Councillor BOURKE just to continue.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. As I was saying, this is an important amendment. This is a direct result of our engagement with the residents of Brisbane on how we would like—how they would like to see our city grow going forward. It’s the result of their feedback and their input, Madam Chairman, and their contribution to the debate around our city. Today, Madam Chairman, we on this side of the Chamber, are going to be taking the next step. We’ll be voting for it. The challenge and the gauntlet that’s been thrown down and laid before the Labor Party is whether or not they’re going to support this and back what the residents of Brisbane want to see when it comes to tackling townhouses in low density residential across the city.

Madam Chairman, turning to item D, which is the major amendment package for Brisbane City Plan, this one is around the aged care provisions. Councillor CASSIDY, again, and Councillor CUMMING both said: ‘well, where’s the background? Why are you doing this?’ Well, the South East Queensland Regional Plan, outlined by the State Government, it’s their planning document, Madam Chairman, clearly says under the housing diversity, element 4, it says: ‘Plan and support innovative solutions in housing to cater for a diverse range of community needs, including an ageing population.’

Well, we know, Madam Chairman, that the State Government has set population targets for us here in Brisbane. We know that we have to continue to deliver on those. But they also talk about the need to provide a diversity of housing and provide for an ageing population. Going on in their own document, the State Government population projections talk about some 697,000 people being aged over 65 by 2041. Well, where are they going to be? Where are they going to live, Madam Chairman?

If the Australian Labor Party had their way, they would be pushed out to the peripheries of the city, pushed outside the boundaries of the city, far away from their families, far away from their friends, far away from the communities and the services that they’ve grown up and lived in. That’s what the Australian Labor Party wants to resolve the residents of Brisbane who have turned 65 and want to move into retirement. We don’t have that view. We’ve had a very clear strong position, going back as far as 2009 when we did our Taskforce into Retirement and Aged Care, that we want to see ageing in place. We want to provide modern facilities that accommodate our ageing population and provide for them in communities where they are living now, with the services, with their friends and with their families.

For the last nine years, the Australian Labor Party has not supported that. Again, today, they won’t support it, Madam Chairman. I don’t know why. I don’t know why they can’t bring themselves to supporting those older and retiring members


- 30 -

of our communities, Madam Chairman, because I know, personally, that my mother is looking to move out of her big four bedroom, two bathroom, house that she lives in by herself, and she doesn’t want to have to go into another house. She wants to look for opportunities in a smaller facility, but she doesn’t want to move out of her local community.

How are we going to provide for that ageing demographic? Well, if the Labor Party had their way, as I said, they would be pushed out of the city and out to the peripheries, Madam Chairman, whereas we have gone out with a range of projects here that provide for opportunities. We’ve listened to the community. We put this package out for consultation. There were 98 submissions, Madam Chairman. Nearly half of those were about one particular development application—one particular development application, and the rest had feedback as well about the more broad provisions inside the package that we put forward. We’ve listened to the community.

You’ve always got to wonder with the Labor Party, they go: ‘oh, you’ve done back-flips’. But then they criticise you for not doing consultation. So, when you do consultation and you change your position because you’ve consulted and you’ve listened to the residents of Brisbane, as this Administration does, Madam Chairman, that’s a good thing, the Labor Party try to turn it into a political plaything, which is what they do on most issues. But this Administration has listened, as we do with all of the projects that we do, Madam Chairman, to what the community feedback is, and then we respond.

We’ve done that today with these packages before us when it comes to aged care, because what we’ve done is we’ve listened to the concerns of residents around the height in low density residential and character residential, Madam Chairman, and low-medium density residential, where residents clearly said: we don’t want additional height where you’re building an aged care facility in those zones. So we’ve restricted it to two storeys. We’ve listened to them, Madam Chairman, where it’s adjoining those sites as well, and we’ve restricted the heights.

We’ve got strict setbacks on the height. So, as you go back from the boundary, even if you are able to go to the maximum height of four or six storeys, you are able to step back as you go back. So, whether it’s 10 metres back to go up another storey, 20 metres back to go up another storey, so you don’t get a six-storey development hard up against the boundary of a site like you might get in an EDQ site, like you might get in an EDQ site.

At the moment, I know the State Government is out for consultation for their Bowen Hills EDQ site which is being updated, where you can literally build a 30-storey building on one side of the road down in Spring Hill, and on the other side will be character or heritage listed buildings under the proposal that they’re out for consultation for at the moment.


Councillor BOURKE: They won’t be impact assessable. I take Councillor COOPER’s interjection. They will be code assessable, that’s if you know about the DA (Development Application), Madam Chairman, because it’s in an EDQ priority development area.

So, the talk is cheap from the Australian Labor Party. The track record and the need for these facilities is well demonstrated and well known out there in the community, Madam Chairman. These types of facilities provide a high level of care, they provide housing options and housing diversity which we don’t necessarily have in our city, Madam Chairman. My ward, in particular, the majority of it built in the 1960s, is a single style of housing.

This provides opportunities for residents to stay in their communities. It provides them to stay with their loved ones, with their friends, with the services, with their local community groups which form part of why they’re able to enjoy their local community. These amendment packages that we have before us today will go a long way to continuing to foster that sense of community and place in our city, and provide opportunities for these types of developments so that they


- 31 -

can cater for our growing ageing population. I commend both items to the Chamber.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT:376/2018-19

At that time, 4.04pm, 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 4.08pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on items A, D and primarily E. Can I start by saying that I probably won’t be supporting item A in its current form because I consider it to be a tokenistic, ill-adapted, one-size-fits-all reaction that is a poor substitute for evidence-based planning that matches density with public infrastructure and services. I think this is a Band-Aid response to residents’ frustrations about over development and inadequate supply of infrastructure and services across the city, and I don’t believe the Administration has properly thought through the ramifications of this proposed change.

I should be clear in emphasising that I’m not at all supportive of the kinds of townhouse developments we’ve seen proliferate in Brisbane in recent years. But I’m also conscious that actually there are some parts of the city, some low density parts of the city, that do need to densify. While we need stronger protections against excessive development in some low density areas, we also need to take a more sustainable approach to planning to allow densification of other low density areas based on, and accompanied by, the provision of adequate transport and infrastructure and services.

I am concerned that this, sort of, one-size-fits-all approach is actually heading in the wrong direction. I don’t actually think the Administration has really carefully thought through the ramifications of its actions. In fact, I would suggest that what a lot of residents are concerned about is not necessarily densification itself but the style of housing which is being delivered, the lack of appropriate services and infrastructure.

When townhouses are whacked out into suburbia without any public transport infrastructure, of course that’s going to cause traffic congestion, of course that’s going to create a whole bunch of concerns in the local area. But when medium density or low-medium density developments are accompanied by adequate infrastructure and services, we can actually get really good outcomes that make it more economical and efficient to provide necessary services and infrastructure in some of those areas. I think this is a really short-sighted response.

I’m particularly concerned, of course, by the fact that this amendment doesn’t address the continuing shortfall of infrastructure and services across the city where infrastructure charges collected from developers are nowhere near high enough to cover the costs of infrastructure to cater for our growing population. I don’t see this Administration doing anything to ensure that developers do contribute their fair share.

Unfortunately, I think this is actually an act of window dressing, and that the Council is seeking to create the appearance of having done something about unsustainable overdevelopment without actually getting to the core of the issue. Rather than these ad hoc changes, what we need is substantial root and branch reform to our entire planning system and to the Brisbane City Plan. These changes simply don’t go far enough in that respect.


- 32 -

Similarly, with item D, again I’m concerned that the Council’s approach in this respect is entirely at odds with what the city really needs. The style of the developments that this Administration is encouraging are a long way from what we should be aspiring to as a city. I think, through you, Madam Chair, most of the Councillors in this place know that. They know that this style of retirement living is not the best way forward.

They know that the companies that profit from these kinds of developments don’t actually care that much about the people who end up living there. They don’t give a crap about the residents; they just care about their money. I think it’s lazy and disingenuous of this Council to pretend that they’re somehow fulfilling a community service when actually they’re just helping developers to line their pockets.

It’s worth maybe embarking on a brief reminder of what we mean by the term ‘ageing in place’. Sure, some people want to downsize and need to be supported to do that, but for Councillor BOURKE to suggest that failing to make this amendment will suddenly result in elderly people being forced to the outer burbs and the city fringes seems illogical to me. I’m particularly frustrated by the way that this ageing in place rhetoric has been manipulated and deployed to distract from the primary focus which should, where possible, be to support residents to remain in their existing home.

So, this Council actually makes it quite difficult for residents to get development approval to adapt their homes with wheelchair ramps and other features to support people to remain in their home, even when they have impaired mobility.


Councillor SRI: This Council has made it—

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS! Councillor SIMMONDS!

Councillor SRI, please continue.

Councillor SRI: This Council has continually failed to support improved services to encourage people to remain where they are and to support a co-housing model that allows larger homes to be shared and adapted in a way that supports people to remain living there, perhaps in partnership with people of other demographics. I don’t want to see a city where our elderly are warehoused in high rise shoe boxes. I don’t think that’s the way forward.

I think if this Council really stopped and thought about what it was doing, it would recognise that we’re heading down the wrong road in this respect. I certainly don’t support item D.

Turning finally to item E, this one makes me angry, because essentially what this Council is doing is locking us into a decision that will negatively affect the people of Brisbane for years to come. It’s worth starting with the fact that the people sitting at a bus stop don’t get a choice about whether they’re exposed to advertising. Unlike other forms of advertising, if you are talking about advertising in a magazine or on TV or perhaps even online, there’s an element of consent where residents and users can at least opt out and choose not to expose themselves to that advertising.

But by placing advertising at bus shelters you’re saying, if you want to catch the bus, too bad, you're just going to have to stare at ads while you wait. I think that is a gross imposition on people’s freedom. You’re denying them the freedom to travel through this city without being exposed to corporate brainwashing.

The length of the contract proposed in this item is particularly concerning to me. Half of the Councillors in this place will probably be retired by the time the contract expires. There’s a few who won’t, I’ll admit that. I guess, fundamentally, my concern is that it’s not worth the money. It’s a crap deal, and I realise the figures are commercial in confidence, and I think it’s disappointing that the people of Brisbane won’t know how much this Council is selling out for.


- 33 -

We’re selling out our city. We’re selling it off to the highest bidder and we’re not even telling residents how much we’re selling it for. I think that kind of secrecy is deeply problematic, because it means residents can’t make an informed decision about whether the Council is getting value for money. The secrecy denies residents an informed say, and what we should actually be doing is saying to residents: this is how much we’re proposing to sell out for. This is what we’re getting in exchange. What do you reckon?

But I’d venture to suggest that not one of the Councillors who are going to vote in favour of this motion today have actually talked to residents about whether they like bus stop advertising, whether they support it, whether they want to be bombarded with advertising every time they go to catch a bus. I’m not surprised when I hear that disgruntled residents are vandalising advertising on bus shelters across the city. In fact, I wish it happened more often.


Councillor SRI: I want to read a short quote by a graffiti artist named Banksy. It’s attributed to a few writers, but I think it’s quite relevant in this conversation. He writes that: ‘People are taking the piss out of you every day. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They’re on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen, and they bully you with it. They are the advertisers, and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. (Comments removed at the request of the CEO in accordance with the AP068 Production of Council Minutes Policy approved by Council on 8 August 2012) that. Any advert in a public space—’

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I realise that you are providing a quote—

Councillor SRI: Just quoting, that’s fine.

Chairman: —but I remind you that this is a place, as I have said before—


Chairman: —that this is a place of decorum.

Councillor SIMMONDS, I don’t need your commentary in the background either, thank you.

Profanity is not welcome in this Chamber, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: I’m going to pause there for a moment. I’ll come back to that quote, but to suggest that reading this quote out is a joke and that what this Administration is doing is not a joke is an insult to the people of Brisbane. I’m disgusted by the suggestion that this is appropriate course of action—


Councillor SRI: —for this Administration.

Chairman: Just a moment. Councillor SIMMONDS!

Warning – Councillor Julian SIMMONDSThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor SIMMONDS that unless he desisted from interjecting he would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor SIMMONDS was warned that, if he were suspended from the service of the Council, he would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Obviously some Councillors in this place don’t like to hear hard truths, but the truth is that the majority of Brisbane residents do not


- 34 -

support this kind of advertising on our bus shelters. This Council doesn’t even have the gall to tell them that we’re doing it. You won’t even publish the figures telling people how much you’re selling out for. It’s worth remembering that advertising revenue on these kinds of billboards is predicted to drop in the future due to the disruption of digital technologies.

I would suggest to you that this agreement before us doesn’t even represent value for money, because the tenderer is overestimating the amount of value that will come back to Council in the long term. You’re engaging in a profit sharing agreement when profits from this form of advertising are likely to drop in the future. I think this is a joke, and I think the Council is right—I’m furious with the Council about this. I can’t believe you guys are seriously considering selling out our city in this way.


Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I rise to speak on item D, City Plan major amendment debate. I want to specifically talk about a couple of neighbourhood plans that were in my ward that were expressed in the document. With respect to the Doolandella neighbourhood plan, which has not really been followed in any substantive way over the years, really, in respect to the densification of the area—it has been a failure, really, for residents who were part of that consultation for the last neighbourhood plan who didn’t expect multi-storey dwellings to permeate right throughout their suburb of Doolandella, to the extent now where most developments in Doolandella are a townhouse type of development.

There are a few houses being built, which is really good. The Penfolds Development Company are doing a really good job in this space. If we have a look at the changes proposed today, this will do little about changing what the future looks like—will end up being in the Doolandella area, just townhouses, basically, with a few houses sprinkled in between.

On a positive note, though, the proposed changes have identified four additional future parks in the Doolandella area, which is a good thing. However, one of the proposed future parks is already an established one called Sophie Place, which has playground equipment, concrete pathways, and sun safe sails which are currently being installed.

In regards before a State neighbourhood plan, I will focus on specifically the business district centre precinct which captures the Forest Lake Shopping Centre and the Jetty Walk Village. This precinct zoning is medium density, apart from the two blocks on the esplanade. The changes to City Plan 2014 remove the low-medium density and make it into a medium density for this precinct, which has huge implications for the people living in Jetty Walk.

This change came as a major surprise to the majority of homeowners who bought into the village with the expectation that there wouldn’t be multi-storey dwellings in their village, and they had no idea what potentially could be built in the future. Currently, there is a petition being run by local residents in the village which will be petitioning Council to change the zoning from medium density to low residential in the Jetty Walk area, which reflects the majority of owners’ expectations in this area.

Madam Chair, as a long term resident of Forest Lake and now the local Councillor I was, quite frankly, gobsmacked when it became clear to me that the residential area of the District business centre precinct was listed as medium density. For the first time when my community became aware is when a developer lodged an application for an eight-storey high-rise on one of the only two blocks in the village which are listed as low residential.

Council said no, which was terrific, and currently there is an appeal running in the Planning and Environment Court. Hopefully, we’ll get a reasonable, good outcome there but, you know, the courts are the courts. Okay, Madam Chair, it didn’t make any sense to me as to why the current and previous City Plans and


- 35 -

neighbourhood plans allowed this to happen, and to be the case in the Jetty Walk area.

Forest Lake was a master plan development, and the Jetty Walk Village blocks were built with single dwellings. Not one of the 135 residential blocks that was built on was used for multi-unit developments. You only have to look at other shopping centre commercial precincts near Forest Lake, and one of the most favoured from Forest Lake residents for shopping is Mt Ommaney which does not have this zoning issue in residential areas around the shopping centre.

So, Madam Chair, I know we’re not supporting item D. There were some good aspects in regards to the parks in the Doolandella area, but on the whole, I won’t be voting for item D. Thank you.


DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak to items A, D and E. Firstly, I wanted to address Councillor CASSIDY’s contribution today to this debate. As we would expect, Councillor CASSIDY wanted to lob in a little bit of a political, I guess, point-scoring opportunity, and what he did was scored a massive own goal against the Labor Party, both here in this Chamber and at the State Government level.

What he has done is reveal behind the curtains as to what happens between the Labor State Government and the Labor Opposition here when it comes to serious town planning issues. Rather than playing it with a straight bat, we see all types of political games going on. A situation where the State Government could not be bothered responding directly to the LORD MAYOR or to the Chairman, Councillor BOURKE, but the Opposition gets a direct copy.


DEPUTY MAYOR: This may be funny to the Opposition, but this is a really serious issue. I’d like to know what conversations Councillor CASSIDY has had with the State Government. Who has he been talking to up there? Has he had conversations with Minister Dick? Has he had conversations with one of Minister Dick’s advisors about this? Who has he been talking with? What has been said? The public deserves to know how these guys operate and the games that they play.

They have the gall to stand up here, week after week, and criticise the Administration on the issue of townhouses, yet play political games with serious legislation. We’re doing our best here to make sure this is introduced so that we can get on and ensure that townhouses aren’t permitted in low density areas. We’re doing the right thing. We’re doing what we said we would do, yet all we see from Labor is game-playing. They are secretly behind the scenes trying to undermine the Administration for purely political reasons.

If the State Government has something to say, they can go to the LORD MAYOR. They can go to Councillor BOURKE as the Chair. Going directly to the Opposition before they go to the Administration is a slap in the face to this Council.


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: The DEPUTY MAYOR is misleading the Chamber. The Administration was provided this response yesterday, and I only saw a copy of that today, Madam Chair. So I think the DEPUTY MAYOR—




Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS!

Order!


- 36 -

I appreciate your clarification, thank you, Councillor CASSIDY.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: The story continues to change, Madam Chairman. The back pedalling is going on. The LORD MAYOR and Councillor BOURKE—


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.


DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: The LORD MAYOR and Councillor BOURKE have both contacted the Minister directly, and it would be nice to receive a direct response. As far as I’m aware, this has not happened.


DEPUTY MAYOR: It’s exactly what I’m talking about, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Just a moment, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a question?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

No, he’s declined.

DEPUTY MAYOR, please continue.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Madam Chairman, if Councillor CASSIDY wants to help out and is truly interested in protecting Brisbane backyards, then he’ll get on board and support what this Administration is doing, not play political games behind the scenes, not try to undermine for cheap political reasons, and the State Government should be ashamed of themselves if they have indeed gone to the Opposition before coming to this Administration. That is really unusual.

This is a serious bit of legislation which the people of Brisbane care about and which they want to see enacted quickly. For me, it smells particularly fishy that we have been waiting how many days—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —82, 83 days, and then suddenly this comes to the Council Chamber and the State Government produces a response literally at the eleventh hour, from what we’ve heard.

So did Councillor CASSIDY go to them and say: oh look, mate, you guys are looking really bad here. You haven’t responded to the Administration. You’d better get your act together.


Chairman: Point of order against you, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Councillor SCHRINNER has repeatedly referred to a response from the State Government which is directly relevant to the report we are voting on, and I would ask that that email be tabled so that all Councillors can see it and understand what—

Chairman: And Councillor—


Chairman: Order! I do not need people sitting in this Chamber providing a response.


- 37 -

Councillor SRI, as DEPUTY MAYOR has said, he hasn’t seen that particular document. It has been referred to by multiple members in this place after Councillor CASSIDY raised it. So it hasn’t materialised. Therefore it can’t be tabled at this point.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and that is indeed correct, because the Administration walked into this meeting with none of us having seen any letter from the State Government. That is a fact. But apparently Councillor CASSIDY has seen that letter and, to me, that says it all.

Madam Chairman, I wanted to talk about item E as well, the bus shelter advertising contract. There have been some interesting claims made today about this contract. Let’s be very clear: what we’re bringing through today doesn’t involve any additional bus shelters having advertising. It is simply making use of the existing bus shelters that already have advertising. So there will be no additional roll out of bus shelter advertising beyond what is already there at the moment, Madam Chairman.

What is more important is that the term of this contract is almost half of the term of the contract that the Labor Party signed up to when they were in Administration. They signed up in 1999 to a 20-year advertising contract—20 years. So, hearing Councillor SRI and his comments about the length of the contract, and I think Councillor JOHNSTON may have mentioned something about that as well, all I can say is this is a 10-year contract with an option for a two-year extension. So we’re talking, going into this, of a contract that is half the length with the potential to be a 12-year contract, at the longest.

So we are signing up to a shorter contract. We are restricting the advertising to what’s there at the moment and this will provide funding for Council going forward that will help do many things in our community. Now, Councillors can rail against advertising all they like, but this helps to fund infrastructure. It helps to fund bus stop upgrades, ferry terminal upgrades.


DEPUTY MAYOR: It helps to fund things that people—


Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a question about how much funding the advertising will provide?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, will you take a question?

No, he’s declined, Councillor SRI.


DEPUTY MAYOR: It’s interesting, because Councillor SRI—

Chairman: Just a moment please. Councillor JOHNSTON, I will give you the same warning as I have given other Councillors in this place. Cease yelling out across the Chamber, thank you.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Councillor SRI tries to imply that there’s been somehow a restriction of information here, yet he has access to all of the figures, and so does Councillor JOHNSTON and so does every other Councillor in this Chamber. Now, we have given every Councillor the figures, and they can see them very clearly, and they can use those figures in deciding how they vote today. That’s the appropriate way to do things.



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a question about whether that figure can be made public?


- 38 -

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, you know that when you get up on a point of order, if you want to ask a question you ask if the person will take it; you don’t stand there and blurt out the question.

DEPUTY MAYOR, will you take a question?

No, he’s declined, Councillor SRI.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: But, Councillor SRI, what I can tell you, and I can tell every member of the Brisbane public who has an interest in this matter, is that the return from this contract that we’re signing today and voting on today is significantly higher than the contract, the 20-year contract, that Labor signed us up for. It is a better deal for the ratepayers, and will help to fund the things that we need to do going forward to improve the public transport system, to provide better bus stops across the city, more accessible bus stops, better ferry terminals across the city.

Going forward, we expect to spend, just in the next four years alone, over $130 million on improving bus stops and ferry terminals. That’s just in the next four years. So, Madam Chairman, this funding that we’re voting on today, this revenue that will be coming to Council, if approved, will help to support that investment that we’re making. So this money will go straight back into the infrastructure, particularly the public transport infrastructure, that the people of Brisbane rightly use.

Now, Councillor SRI railed against advertising. He claimed that people should vandalise—he’d like to see people vandalising bus stops. That is absolutely disgraceful.



Councillor SRI: Claim to be partially misrepresented.


Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Councillor SRI said he would be happy to see people vandalising advertising on bus stops. Now, that is vandalising bus stops, whichever way you want to say it, and that is not something that an elected Councillor in this place should be encouraging people to do or supporting, Madam Chairman. That is a crime. That is an offence. That is not something that adds to a safe and harmonious society. This is something which tears society apart and divides people. Councillor SRI should be ashamed of himself for recommending that course of action.

But he also says that people have the right to sit at a bus stop without having advertising forced upon them. Now, I don’t see him expressing any concerns when the Greens run a campaign. I don’t see him raising any concerns when the Greens advertise—



Councillor SRI: I’m concerned Councillor SCHRINNER is misleading the Chamber, because I regularly make complaints—

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI, I don’t uphold your point of order.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I think what Councillor SRI was saying was that, if you’re a business you shouldn’t be allowed to advertise but, you know, political organisations like the Greens should be exempt from any of that. He should have the right to brainwash anyone with his Green agenda, but apparently a business shouldn’t be allowed to advertise.

Madam Chairman, we’ve heard some extraordinary things said today, but this contract is a good deal for the ratepayers of Brisbane. It will see us, as I said,


- 39 -

with extra funding to help fund improvements in transport infrastructure like bus stops and ferry terminals, and that is a really important thing going forward. This Council has had a strong agenda of accessibility, not only for public transport but for so many other aspects of what we do as well, and we’ve been investing heavily in that. This will allow us to continue to invest in that important infrastructure to make sure that that transport infrastructure is accessible for all, and help more people get on to public transport.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, your misrepresentation, please.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, Madam Chair, the DEPUTY MAYOR suggested that I had received or seen a copy of the letter before the Administration. That is untrue, and I never ever said that in my remarks. My understanding is that, at lunchtime yesterday, the Administration received the email, and I saw a copy of that letter today. If they want to check on that, I know the LORD MAYOR is happy to spy on people using metadata, they can hack in my emails, Madam Chair, if they want and check that out.



Point of order.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I ask Councillor CASSIDY to withdraw that comment about metadata.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, will you withdraw that comment referencing the LORD MAYOR, please?

Councillor CASSIDY: Would you like me to withdraw, Madam Chair?

Chairman: I’m asking you to withdraw, thank you, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: At your request, I’ll withdraw, Madam Chair.


Councillor SRI, your misrepresentation, please.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Councillor SCHRINNER erroneously suggested that I was encouraging residents to vandalise bus stop shelters. It’s in fact quite easy to vandalise advertising attached to those bus stop shelters without damaging the shelters themselves.

Chairman: Further debate on the report?

Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise briefly to support item E regarding advertising in bus shelters, something that I know a little bit about, having been Finance and Economic Chairman and also Chairman for Public and Active Transport. Can I suggest at the outset to the Chamber that the biggest sell-outs in the Chamber are, in fact, Councillor SRI and the Australian Greens for not supporting this particular item. Councillor SRI, with all of his hypocrisy, and the Greens, with all their hypocrisy, out on show, would have you believe that he doesn’t support outdoor advertising when, as Councillor SCHRINNER quite rightly pointed out, his mug is on it, or when the Greens logo is on it, oh well, then, no problem, it’s just part of the democratic process. He would say that he’s against—



Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor SIMMONDS: Councillor SRI would say that he’s against visual pollution for Brisbane residents, but then sells out Brisbane residents when he supports graffiti artists to put graffiti all over the city and cost this—


- 40 -


Councillor SIMMONDS: —city millions of dollars, millions and millions of dollars every year to clean up.

Chairman: Just a moment, please, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor JOHNSTON, your point of order.

Councillor JOHNSTON: That statement by Councillor SIMMONDS about Councillor SRI is imputing motive, and it should be withdrawn.

Chairman: Councillor SRI has made a statement that he supported that type of—


Chairman: Not while I’m speaking, thank you.

Councillor SRI, you’ve just made a statement to say that you would support that type of activity. I don’t think that Councillor SIMMONDS has stretched that too far.

Councillor SIMMONDS.


Chairman: Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: I’m offended by your characterisation of the debate. I would ask you to withdraw that comment. I did not encourage residents to spread graffiti across this city and I think your conflating two different issues.

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, I did not make a comment. I am making a ruling on the circumstances. There is a difference.


Chairman: Councillor SRI, you have continuously asked points of order. You were heard in relative silence, and you have continued to disrupt every other speaker since you have spoken. Now, I don’t uphold your point of order.

Councillor SIMMONDS, please measure your comments appropriately.



Councillor SRI: I’d just like to again ask that Councillor SIMMONDS withdraw that allegation.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, would you care to withdraw?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, I only indicated that he supported graffiti artists, which he obviously does. He read out Banksy’s quote. It’s pretty straightforward, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: I asked you would you care to withdraw—yes or no, please?

Councillor SIMMONDS: At your request, I will, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: So, Madam Chairman, I can understand why Councillor SRI would be upset at me saying that he sells out Brisbane residents, but it is only the claim that he has levelled at this side of the Chamber, and it must be defended. Councillor SRI has said that he won’t support this item because he wants freedom for Brisbane residents, yet he sells them out when he denies them the opportunity, when he wants to be in every little part of their lives, like the Greens like to do, to tell everybody what they can do, what they can look at, what they can see, what products that they can buy, Madam Chairman. Councillor SRI and the Australian Greens want to be in every part of your life. They’re not about freedom.

Councillor SRI says that he wants to look after the downtrodden. He’s concerned about Brisbane residents who are struggling and so are we, yet he


- 41 -

sells them out. When we bring an item to this Chamber that allows us to offset future rates increases—


Councillor SIMMONDS: —to be able to provide infrastructure—

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS.


Councillor JOHNSTON: A broad statement claiming another Councillor is selling out residents is clearly imputing motive. If you are imputing motive, it has to be—


Chairman: Councillor—Councillor—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —it has to be enforced fairly.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I don’t uphold your point of order because, if you had heard all of Councillor SRI’s speech—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I have just said, if you were listening to Councillor SRI’s speech, that there were reflections in that vein. There are many people who’d interpret each other’s comments in this place, and this is a robust political Chamber—


Chairman: Order!


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! There is no need to scream across this Chamber, and I remind you of section 51 that, when I am speaking, you are required to cease speaking and not interject.

Councillor SIMMONDS, can you please come back to the item in relation to the street furniture advertising, please.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Most certainly, Madam Chairman, because I was making the point that this item, item E, allows us to offset rate increases in their revenue. It allows us to ensure that we can deliver more infrastructure. This is something that Councillor SRI has previously supported in terms of keeping rates as low as possible, in terms of delivering infrastructure, but when it comes to item E in this Chamber, which gives us the ability to offset rates rises and increase infrastructure delivery, then Councillor SRI, quite evidently, sells them out by not supporting this item. It’s hypocritical, it’s contradictory, and it should be called out.

The same way that this item in front of us, item E, allows us to reach the community in a way that we would otherwise cost ratepayers a lot of money, or we simply wouldn’t be able to do. For example, I’m sure most of the Councillors in the Chamber would know that the very successful and very important Getting Ready for Summer Storm campaign, Getting Ready for Bushfires campaign, is done on the back of this contra-advertising, that is part of this contract.

So, while Councillor SRI would stand up in this Chamber and pretend to say that this Administration needs to talk more with residents and do more consultation, he would then sell them out by not supporting this item, Madam Chairman. Again, the hypocrisy is evident. Councillor SRI likes to quote to us his own slam poetry or the poetry of graffiti artists and, yes, when one of their Greens candidates raps about raping women, well it's all just part of his life journey. You know, it just goes to show—

Chairman: To the item please, Councillors SIMMONDS.


- 42 -

Councillor SIMMONDS: —the hypocrisy of the Australian Greens, Madam Chairman. Councillor SRI knows what I'm talking about. At the Victorian election that's just come to pass, that they failed to—they, once again, supported a candidate who had been rapping about raping women. It was appalling. This just goes to show—

Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Councillor SIMMONDS: —the Australian Greens really are.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS—Councillor SIMMONDS, section 51 applies to you as well.

Councillor STRUNK, your point of order.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, could you just bring him back to the debate that we're supposed to be having.

Chairman: I have asked him to come back and I will ask him again. To the report thank you, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor JOHNSTON, can you please cease calling out across the Chamber as well.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Certainly will, Madam Chairman. I didn't want to stray too far. I'm simply making the point that we've heard boo from Councillor SRI on that particular issue when he could have condemned his fellow Greens candidates, but failed to. It's the type of hypocrisy that we see in this Chamber from Councillor SRI each and every week and we see it again on display for item E because, as we've said, this is an item that allows us to keep rates low.

It allows us to stop reaching into the ratepayers' pocket when we need to deliver more infrastructure as we are always trying to do. It allows us to communicate with residents in a way that, again, allows us to do more of and costs less of the ratepayers' money, for I would have thought that all Councillors in this Chamber would have been supportive of that. Madam Chairman, I encourage all Councillors in this Chamber to support the item.


Sorry a misrepresentation, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks Madam Chairman. In Councillor SIMMONDS' somewhat rambling and incoherent speech he suggested that I was hypocritical in opposing advertising on bus shelters. I just want to state again for the record, very clearly, that I don't support the Greens or any political party using paid for-profit billboard advertising. I do support yard signs and forms of advertising that don't buy into the commodification of the public realm as a source of profit.

Chairman: Further debate on the report?

LORD MAYOR, right of reply please.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, what we need is a permanent fix not a temporary fix when it comes to the provision of the protection of backyards in low density residential areas. In other words, single dwelling areas of the city. It is that that we have asked the State to provide now through this recommendation today at State-interest check about.

It is our view though, Madam Chairman, that we do need to move forward with this and move forward quickly. So I am comforted, if Councillor CASSIDY's information is correct, that a response has come. Madam Chairman, it's a bit of an eleventh-hour thing.

This went out to all Councillors, of course, last Thursday and that may well have acted as a prompt for the State to get cracking. We, and our intent, are very clear—we want to get cracking on this as quickly as possible. It's why we have not played it. It's why we have brought this back to the Chamber today.

Madam Chairman, if Councillor CASSIDY was to do something good for the city rather than simply use this as a political issue, then he could, perhaps, continue to encourage his State colleagues to move on this as quickly as


- 43 -

possible. When it passes today, as I believe it will, the State then have an opportunity to take it the next step forward, Madam Chairman, and provide any clear State interests that they may have in relation to this.

The thing I find interesting about this backyard debate in areas of Low density residential, Madam Chairman, is that it has been around, and people have been able to undertake unit and townhouse developments on land of greater than 3,000 square metres in areas of single unit dwelling.

Yet, you know, although that's been around for decades, it's only after we introduced the Brisbane's Future Blueprint that the Labor party now said: okay, well what can we do to take it now a step further? Madam Chairman, they didn't announce any policy around that before we had our 40 action items out of the Plan your Brisbane exercise, that communication piece with Brisbane people, out of the action plan which was the Brisbane's Future Blueprint.

So it is today, we demonstrate, as an Administration, a clear plan, a clear way forward, not for some half-baked, political, temporary fix. Madam Chairman, we are about a permanent fix of this issue in this city. So Councillor Matthew BOURKE has outlined today the very reasons why a temporary planning instrument would not work.

There are very clear guidelines around that. Many of those instances and there's been precious few temporary planning instruments that have been put through this place—they have been site specific. They have been for purposes which relate to those four criteria outlined by Councillor BOURKE today.

So, Madam Chairman, what we don't know, though, is how Councillor CASSIDY became involved in this at all. How he come to become the obtainer of information, it would seem, and it will be interesting—it will be interesting in due course and the fullness of time to find out why after 83 days he has managed to get a hold of a response and it will be interesting to see from whom.

My understanding is normally with these things the response would come from a director-general of a department. So I don't know whether this response, and this is why I was sort of really wanting to ask the question today, Madam Chairman, firstly when he wouldn't respond to who sent him the advice. The second question I was going to ask was: how did he know that the advice that he received was after an advice that we've apparently received? So Madam Chairman, I guess with the fullness of time, we will sort that issue out.

Today, Madam Chairman, this is about proceeding quickly with the protection of the backyard. It will be interesting to see what the State's position is in relation to this. I do want to assure the State of one thing, they have said to us, as a local authority, that we have to demonstrate how we will produce 188,000 new dwellings over the next 20 years. I assure the State Government, the Minister, the Premier and everyone else, that we can still achieve that with these provisions.

Madam Chairman, we have demonstrated that our view is that the greater population growth should be around the inner city areas along transport corridors and around regional business centres. Nothing of these provisions will change our capacity to accommodate that future growth requirement that the State provides in the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

I want to make some comments, though, in regard to the issue of aged care and retirement living. Madam Chairman, the ALP and Councillor CUMMING and his Labor team here have just never been a believer in the incentives that I have provided. There is, Madam Chairman, now ample evidence that the incentives that we as an administration have provided have proven very, very worthwhile for this city.

I remind the Opposition that there was not one four or five star hotel built in this city for 10 years prior to me becoming LORD MAYOR and establishing an incentive for new hotels. In the last three years, we've opened what? Eighteen new four and five star hotels. Over 2,000 people employed full-time jobs in


- 44 -

those hotels and, what's more, we now have an occupancy rate which is five per cent higher than the national average.

We've seen tourism growth in this city from some seven million two years ago to 8.4 million today. Madam Chairman, this is creating more opportunities for our retailers to grow jobs in our city around those incentives. No, no don't worry about the job growth, that's not part of Labor's mantra, Madam Chairman.

Then we had the issue of accommodation. We talked about that earlier in Question Time and, Madam Chairman, the student accommodation provision, again, provided purpose-built student accommodation taking pressure off residential areas where there were too many students being crammed into homes, too many changes and changes to amenity in local suburbs. We made those provisions available for a proper and good purpose in this city.

As I've said, we've seen substantial growth—12% growth in international students in the last year. Now an industry providing over 22,000 jobs for Brisbane people. So, Madam Chairman, one thing I know for sure, and there is plenty of evidence to back it, is that we need to do something about aged care and retirement living in this city.

The fact of the matter is that against other forms of development, aged care and retirement facilities could not compete within those inner city areas. They were being forced to the outer part of this city and beyond and that's not fair, Madam Chairman, to our ageing residents. It is not appropriate and, Madam Chairman, it is to make sure that we have a spread of those facilities. I assure you, Councillor CUMMING, that we were not seeing a spread of those facilities.

They are happening now because of the changes that we've made, the proposals that we've had before us, Madam Chairman, and the incentives. Changes in regulation, some financial incentives and we've now seen a spread of them. It's the right thing to do. Not only were we not getting the numbers, they were, Madam Chairman, older people were being forced away from where they lived substantial distances and that was not an appropriate outcome for our city.

So I stand by each and every incentive that we have undertaken. It has been for good purpose and it has achieved good outcomes for this city. We do not do them willy-nilly, it has to be a clear-cut need, Madam Chairman.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks Councillor, you've been very, very good in your contribution to Brisbane. So, Madam Chairman, in each of those areas, we have made a substantial—seen a substantial benefit. We've seen economic growth and activity out of each and every one of them. So therefore, I very much endorse that today.

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 of the Establishment and Coordination Committee 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 of the Establishment and Coordination Committee 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.


- 45 -

The voting was as follows:

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, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Chairman: I will now put items E and F.

Clauses E and F put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses E and F of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee 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: 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: 2 - Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.

Chairman: We will now move on to items B and C.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, item B is the quarterly financial reports before us today. We continue to show that this Administration continues to be responsible in terms of the management of this city's finances. Through this period, Council's net worth has increased by $20.5 billion. That's the total from $20.5 billion to $20.7 billion, in terms of our net asset worth.

Madam Chairman, significant projects in this period have been the $90 million roads resurfacing. That program continues to be rolled out. Telegraph Road Corridor Stage 2—it's only about a week away now, I think, or two from completion. The progression of Brisbane Metro in negotiation with the State, Bus Stop Accessibility program, Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1, and, Madam Chairman, our $100 million commitment to key bikeways. That's just some of, obviously, a range of activities during the course of this year.

So as part of the corporate plan that went through this Chamber earlier this year, we are seeing an improved position with QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities) which means that Council will receive some additional revenue from that source. Council has also seen an increase in our spend on ferry terminals, more than $900,000, and this was due to the recently opened New Farm Park ferry


- 46 -

terminal. Council has recently been upgrading the ferry terminal to future proof it for additional growth.

Madam Chairman, the other item which was item C, this is the second budget review. Council reviews the budget, obviously, each quarter so, Madam Chairman, in this budget review we are able to realise savings which can be allocated to fund other capital projects across Brisbane. It is because of these savings that we are able to keep debt down and manage the budget responsibly.

At that time, 5.13pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Ryan MURPHY, assumed the Chair.

LORD MAYOR: So, Mr Acting Chairman, or Mr Deputy Chairman, Progress Road Stage 4 has seen a saving of $2 million as well as securing additional funding from the Federal Government of more than $5 million. So that has helped return a positive outcome in terms of that project. Telegraph Road has also realised savings of $8 million which has been reallocated to fund other capital projects such as Green Camp Road, Waterworks Road and the Wolston Creek Bridge upgrade.

So, Mr Deputy Chairman, as we head into the storm season, we've transferred $120,000 of capital to source a mobile sandbagging machine and conveyor. This is just to add to the existing resources that we have to make sure that we have the capacity when needed for sandbags to be made available for residents in those times of significant storm surge. It might be king tides coupled with major storm events so that will certainly assist along the way. So thank you very much, Mr Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. In relation to item B, I've got a number of questions and comments, Mr Deputy Chair. I'll take it page by page to help my good friend Councillor ADAMS. On page 4—that was a joke, sorry—on page 4, one of the ratios net debt to total income, look it's still well within the target range but it's jumped up from 44.48% to 53.46% which, according to my calculations, is a 20% jump in 12 months so I'd like an explanation of that.

The working capital has dropped from 2.72% to 2.4% in the same time which is about 11%, so an explanation of that would be handy. Page 8, Queensland Urban Utilities Tax, just an explanation of that. Page 10 is the—I call it the rephasing page—it's the plain English interpretation of rephrasing; project being delayed—project behind in delivery already.

So we've got a list of them here, the variance of $17.1 million due to rephasing expenditure in Kingsford Smith Drive Upgrade. Well we knew about that. Underneath that, rephase expenditure in the Howard Smith Wharves. Brisbane Metro has a variation of $12.9 million due to rephase expenditure in the Brisbane Metro project.

Next paragraph down, rephasing expenditure in the Constructing Key Bikeways Links. Finally, further down again, rephase expenditure in Anzac Square Restoration. Of course, that was a pathetic effort from the Council of not getting Anzac Square ready for Remembrance Day which was very poor.

Madam Chairman, the figures on rates and utility charges show that Council is still gathering in the rates at a rate well in excess of the inflation rate and that shows that there's a 4.32% increase in rates as at September 2018 compared to September 2017. Madam Chair—sorry, Mr Deputy Chair, Other Financial Liabilities on page 12 has leapt up from $79.591 million to $145.590 million, an 82% increase. An explanation of that would be appreciated.

Page 14, fees and charges and TransLink Authority at $133.391 million to $166.402 million, an increase of 24.9%. I know Councillor SCHRINNER likes to have a go at the State Government and TransLink and everything, but I tell you what, they're a very big contributor to Council revenue TransLink. They


- 47 -

pour lots of cold hard cash into the Council coffers every year and I think Councillor SCHRINNER should be more grateful for what they contribute.

The contributions—


Councillor CUMMING: Well that's what, yes. That's the approach you need to take, Councillor SCHRINNER, instead of being rude and demanding things and setting up chances for running up additional costs without agreement of the State Government. No wonder you can't get any agreement from them. Contributions has gone from $37.987 million—so this is a concern—Contributions, $37.987 million down to $23.629 million, a 37.7% drop in 12 months.

Dividends Received from $124 million down to $105 million, 15.3% drop. I go now, jump over you'll be glad to know, to page 22. Now just some of the wording on the reference here to Kingsford Smith Drive: ‘the majority of works across the project are progressing well and remain on program’. Well, you know, we've announced it's a 12-month delay so, so much for that, ‘The project has encountered some geotechnical difficulties in the vicinity of Crescent Road, Hamilton, that is likely to impact the date of practical completion. Investigations in this area are ongoing.’ In other words, it hasn't been clearly defined what the problem is or the extent of the problem—that's how anyone would read that.

So this 12 months extension, I suspect, is a bit of a guesstimate of how long it's going to take to get the project finished. There is no known impact on the scope of deliverables for the project. There's no known impact on the scope of deliverables. Well 12 months late, that's one thing that's known but perhaps, you know, they don't really know beyond that what's going to happen. So if it was a clause in a legal document it would be scrubbed out for being so vague as to be uncertain, Madam Chair.

I noticed there's a traffic management project in Wakerley that's being scrapped altogether and I suppose that's because people don't want it, Mr Deputy Chair. The other—I now turn to page 23 and there's some references there to revenue. These are projects that Council is doing and getting funding from other bodies. It's got: ‘lower than anticipated revenue in the Inner City Bypass project’.

I'm a bit concerned there because Council is doing the contract as I understand it and Transurban is reimbursing Council. Well lower than anticipated revenue is what? Transurban not happy with the job being done? Do they think they're being overcharged? Perhaps Councillor SCHRINNER could explain that one.

At that time, 5.24pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Councillor CUMMING: Then in relation to the paragraph under that, Rephase Expenditure on Kingsford Smith Drive Upgrade, we've already done that and Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1. So that's another one of rephasing, Madam Chairman, rephasing here, there and everywhere.

Rephase revenue in the Green Camp Road project, again, a matter that the Councillor for Doboy and Chandler could comment on, and you just wonder there what is the delay in getting the money out of the Federal Government that they promised? That's the only revenue source we're talking about. What's happening there Madam Chair?

Reference to the zipline on page 26 and they say that: ‘additional technical sub-consultant responses and communications required due to scope changes and final negotiations’—final negotiations of the zipline. Who are you negotiating with Councillor McLACHLAN? What are these final negotiations? There's another one here, it's a very interesting one, it's at the bottom of page 26, it's got: Waste Stream Management Reduction and said: green waste—Council has failed to deliver its target on green waste. It was 20,000 tonnes of green waste and they've achieved 16,200, well under the target. Then the comment is—the explanation is: ‘the extremely dry weather condition was a major factor in not achieving the target’. Well it has been dry and I can accept that's correct but


- 48 -

when Councillor SCHRINNER was on the radio being asked why Anzac Square hadn't been finished, he said too much wet weather, too much wet weather. Can he make up his mind? So for green waste you can blame dry weather and for Anzac Square you're blaming wet weather. Can you get your act together? Go on, get your act together.


Councillor CUMMING: I don't expect you to stick up for Councillor SCHRINNER, Councillor ADAMS. I think you just let that one go. The Rephase Expenditure at Anzac Square Restoration, page 28, another reference to that. Capital Expenses—now I thought capital expenses was if you're spending capital, if you've got a certain budget for capital, you'd be spending it.

You wouldn't somehow work up negative capital expenditure but that's what appears to be shown on page 32, the Capital Expenses for Future Brisbane Planning for a Growing City. To date, Council has spent minus $248,000 for the year so I don't know. How do you reverse spend capital, can you explain that to me?

So 9.5%—so they're a quarter of the way through the year so that's 25%—you might think somewhere around 25% of the capital might have been expended but it's actually minus 9.5% and Enhancing Brisbane's Liveability minus 2.3%. So a minus capital spend, that's most intriguing. I'm sure Councillor ADAMS will have an explanation for that.

Brisbane City Cemeteries, a substantial drop in revenue so I don't know whether competitors are taking more of the Council's market, what's the situation there.


Councillor CUMMING: Less people dying, Councillor ADAMS said. That's a possibility—that's a possibility. Why would it be so much difference from one year to the next? I don't think so. Page 45 higher than—this is the Queensland Urban Utilities Tax again: ‘higher than anticipated’ giving an $8 million boost on page 45. I'm coming to the end here. Just the performance targets for bus and ferry patronage, just wondered what the targets are because they've got—it's under the heading, under Transport for Brisbane, it's got the performance targets for bus patronage and ferry patronage. It hasn't got what the target is, it's just got the actual figure, so I'm just interested to know how the actual compares to the target.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired.

Councillor CUMMING: I was so close to being finished.

377/2018-19Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of the Councillor Kara COOK, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you. I'll only take another minute. Likewise, with the City Parking performance targets the actual figures are there, so I'd just like to know what the targets are for the year. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor ALLAN.

Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today to speak on item B, the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending 28 September 2018. As you are aware, this report comes to the Chamber quarterly, the last being on 4 September 2018. Madam Chairman, this report continues to evidence this Administration's reputation for strong financial management.

Just turning to the report, I'll just focus on some of the specifics, Councillor CUMMING did touch upon the ratios, all of which were exceeding our targets and that's consistent with the position 12 months ago. So, certainly, our ratios are further evidence of effective financial management and the strong focus we


- 49 -

have on managing the finances of this city. The debt to total income ratio is a very strong indication of our ability to borrow and our working capital ratio evidences our ability to meet our debts and liabilities as they fall due.

The debt to total income ratio, and some of the changes that have occurred in the last 12 months, are really a reflection of an organisation that's got a heavy capital expenditure program to build the infrastructure this city needs. Moving on to page 8, which is the overview of the financial statements, and in particular the revenue position in aggregate the variances on revenue are favourable and are primarily of a timing nature, so that's very encouraging. On the expenses side, a similar situation, where the aggregate variances are favourable and primarily timing in nature.

Page 10, which is our capital expenditure, obviously we have a very significant program and I think Councillor CUMMING might be living in a bit of a project management and financial utopia if he thinks that project management goes to plan all the time. There are obviously delays with projects, there can be projects that are delivered a little bit more quickly, and then obviously the payments and capital expenditure that goes with those projects will vary.

So the fact that there are variances is not unusual. We have a very significant capital program, something north of $1 billion, and the variances in this particular instance are not significant in the context of that overall program.

So, as I note, most of the variances are timing in nature. The capital payments will come as and when the contractors and other parties call for those payments.

Moving on to page 11 which is our statement of comprehensive income. Certainly there are increases in revenue and expenditure over the last 12 months. These increases are relatively modest in nature and certainly within the realm of what we would expect over a 12-month period.

Moving on to page 15, the Council summary of operations. Certainly this is evidencing, once again, in aggregate and at a program level, that the Council is performing extremely well. Revenues are in excess of budget, expenses are below and, certainly, we're tracking where we would hope to be.

I won't go into section 2 in any great detail. This is the individual program level results; however, once again we have a significant number of favourable variances, once again primarily timing in nature, and in some cases we've obviously got reallocations and rephasing on projects, but that would be expected within this type of a heavy capital budget.

Moving on finally to page 22, and Councillor CUMMING made the point regarding Kingsford Smith Drive about the 12-month extension on some elements of that project and questioned why it wasn't reflected in this report. Well I'd point to the corner there where it says for the period ending September 2018. This particular report wasn't constructed or put together for last week. It reflects the position at September 2018.

So, in conclusion, this report is further evidence of this Administration's strong financial management. It does reflect, obviously, the vagaries of project management and the ensuing payments, and I commend the report to the Chamber.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise briefly to speak on items B and C.

Yet again the financial mismanagement of this LNP Administration is laid bare before the city. Oh look at Councillor COOPER. She's a prime offender. Making hand gestures, but she's a prime offender for failing to be able to deliver on commitments. Case in point is the LNP's signature road project, the Kingsford Smith Drive, which has been completely stuffed up under her watch.

Now this Administration has simply failed to manage the projects effectively, they've failed to manage the budget effectively, and their signature election


- 50 -

projects, as this budget review shows us, are falling behind schedule; failing to be completed; the contracts have been stuffed up; millions of dollars behind for the Metro. There's problems with the Village Precinct Projects. I mean, that's $600,000 that they thought they would have spent by now that they haven't spent.

Councillor BOURKE is much too busy, off with his private directorships in other companies, and he's not making sure that his department is out there actually delivering on the Village Precinct Projects. Now he pork-barrelled some of them. There was no consultation with Councillors about where they should be. They just announced one for Councillor WINES. There was no planning; there was no thought; there was no long list. Annerley had been waiting for well over a decade—15 years or more. Not even considered.

So this Administration is letting the people of Brisbane down. I know we come in here, quarter after quarter, but it is because this Administration fails. They have failed on their major projects in this second budget review and they've failed on the everyday stuff as well. The drainage, tree trimming is like half a million dollars behind.

So how on earth is it when we've all got tree trimming issues all over this city that we're behind or under spending? We'll get up and we'll hear the usual sort of excuses—oh it's only a snapshot in time—but it's not a snapshot anymore. It's a whole album and you could turn it into a PowerPoint presentation and play it as a movie, it's been that long. It's quarter after quarter after quarter after quarter.

If it was a one-off here and there you'd go: yes, okay, well I can see something's put them off schedule—but this is just a repetitive quarterly problem that this Administration has. They lack the ability to properly plan the projects, they lack the ability to properly manage and deliver them, and then they can't even organise to make sure that they're funded in accordance with the budget schedule that's been outlined before the city.

Honestly this Administration is so hopeless it's not funny.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the items before us, primarily item B.

Now there were some comments from Councillor CUMMING. He referred to how we were doing all this outrageous rephasing. It's so outrageous because it basically is about delivering. So projects do—timings change because of works that need to be undertaken and so we then have to manage the dollars accordingly.

So it is basically not saying that things aren't happening; it's saying they're happening in a different order than the order that we had anticipated. For those grown-ups in the Chamber, that does happen from time to time, and I think, in particular, this Administration's been very clear with Kingsford Smith Drive that there have been issues. At this particular point in time was September, when we had certainly reflected what was going on and it's only been very recently that we have got a final outcome as to the additional works that will be required.

The LORD MAYOR is on the public record in saying quite clearly that there will be a delay. Not the comments that have been made by Councillor CUMMING. We have said that there'll be additional works required because of the geotechnical issues in this particular location.

So the investigation work has been undertaken, there is further design work that has been completed and is still being finalised, but we have apologised that there will be a delay to the completion of that project. We anticipate completion to be in the second half of 2020 but, of course, if there's any possibility of bringing that time—that completion date—earlier then we will be absolutely very keen to see the contractor undertaking that result.


- 51 -

So it's not a guestimate, as rather flippantly referred to by Councillor CUMMING, it is about us reflecting at that time what the situation was. That situation now is understood by us and we are on the public record making a clear statement to the community as to what will be occurring.

With respect to ICB (Inner City Bypass)—and it's pretty disappointing that something, I think, we debated this exact issue at the last budget review Councillor ADAMS—she's nodding at me—about the ICB. So we actually had a proposal. This project was delivered by Transurban Queensland. It was proposed to have an additional HCV (Heavy Commercial Vehicle), so an additional requirement to finance this—the delivery of this project was proposed by Transurban Queensland. We actually sought approval from the State Government in September 2017 to apply that HCV charge and we did not get approval for that until February 2018.

So we were seeking that from them. We also did make some changes as to the application, so we set up, first time I believe, certainly in Queensland, to have time of day tolling to allow freight traffic to actually have the lesser charge during the off-peak hours. That is why the revenue actually has changed; because we made changed arrangements with the application of the HCV.

With respect to some other projects that, I think, were raised by Councillor CUMMING, he said that we've got lower revenue than expected on Wynnum Road. He said there was rephasing on Green Camp Road. Well Wynnum Road really relates to the actual works that are being undertaken and certainly we have had some challenges with getting approvals for land that had to be acquired for that project. So that was a delay to commencement of work and that has meant that there were some rephasings that needed to occur.

With respect to Green Camp Road, this is an interesting one. We're seeing funding from the Federal Government, and we thank them very much for their contribution towards this project, but as this Chamber is well aware, if there is Federal Government funding that is allocated to councils, councils can't receipt it directly. It actually has to go through the State Government.

So the State Government receives that money and then disburses it to Council, and, in this situation, it was the State Government who had basically not receipted that money through to Council. So their delay in processing that allocation of money is partly what you are seeing as a part of this particular budget review.

It's disappointing that that has occurred but there is nothing Council can do other than to urge all other parties to actually process things in a timely fashion. So the commentary of Councillor CUMMING has been, as usual, proven to be without any kind of merit, and the commentary by the other Councillor is not even worthy of response. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I'm just wanting to enter the debate on item C, specifically the change of service in the second budget review and specifically, again, in regards to Field Services, which is on the last page of the document.

It's really by way of a question, rather than a comment, and maybe the Chair of Field Services and/or our Finance Chair can maybe answer this question when they enter the debate or in response.

So the first item listed is under Operating and in it's in regards to some expenses of $482,000 and then there's an acknowledgement further across in the budget with the numeral 1 in parentheses. I don't know what that means or what that expresses actually, but the actual text reads in this particular item: ‘increase in expense due to higher volumes of low margin product impacting cost and imputed tax adjustment’.

I sort of know what all those words are individually but you put them together in that sentence and it's really not all that clear to me what that means. So if during


- 52 -

the response they could maybe cover that one and just let me know what means I'd gratefully accept that. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I might just take this opportunity in relation to item B to just quickly offer an apology, a personal apology, to Councillor SIMMONDS. Earlier today I described one of his comments as rambling and incoherent and I wanted to place on the record that I don't think I should have done that. I try not to make personal comments targeting other Councillors and I want to apologise for that because I don't think we should be stooping to that level.

In relation to item B, I have my standard concerns about the way this Council budgets and prioritises infrastructure spending and the concerns I raised about the budget earlier this year remain. We seem to be spending far too much on road widening projects and large infrastructure projects, we're cutting more car traffic and we are underspending on crucial areas including the provision of public parks and community facilities and public transport, as well as obviously pedestrian pathways, bikeways, et cetera.

So I certainly won't be supporting this item and I think we should be thinking much more deeply about how we can reprioritise our spending in this city to ensure that we shift people away from dependence on private motor vehicles, and provide greater support for public transport, active transport, parks, community facilities and other services.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item B and C and see if I can get through the many questions I've been given in the Chambers, and beforehand from Councillor CUMMING too, with regards to these two items.

We are here quarter after quarter and we are here quarter after quarter discussing actually the quarter before us. We are in November so it is very—I know it's very difficult to get our head around it, but this is the September quarter and where we are—where we were in September as the case may be.

So what we do see though between the annual operating plan and the second budget review—and I'll go between the two of them because they relate and it probably covers off everything that everyone was talking about—that a large portion of the variances that we've got here are due to the timing, as Councillor ALLAN said as well. A lot of that is on the timing of the project, how much has been spent, not spent and if there's be reallocations in that project as well.

Obviously a snapshot of time—and I don't quite think that Councillor JOHNSTON got my voice quite right—for September is only three months after the budget has come down, and for many projects if that's new it does take a while to make sure you can do costings and plannings and know what you're doing with that. The variance we see here is around those—the spend that has been done or hasn't been done or maybe delayed until later in the year, et cetera, as well.

What we have seen in this quarter is Riverview Terrace and Rossiter Parade, Hamilton, completed under budget so we could reallocate to Rawson Street, Wooloowin. Savings achieved at Chermside West Village Precinct project, which means additional money for funding at Gaythorne.

Telegraph Road—Councillor COOPER; $8 million saving on Telegraph Road, thank you very much, has gone towards Green Camp Road, Waterworks Road and Wolston Creek Bridge as well.

We are absolutely dedicated and committed in this Administration to delivering more for less and we are achieving this already not halfway through the budget cycle, as we see in these reports here today. Our cash from our operational


- 53 -

activities and key financial ratios are good. Our cash has increased and our ratios indicate our effective financial management.

What we also see though in our second budget review was that we brought forward almost $1 million to undertake the Darra BMX project. $2.3 million towards the construction of two high-quality BMX tracks was promised in 2016 at Bracken Ridge and Darra. Bracken Ridge opened in September and I understand has been smashed with the people that are there using it. We are looking forward to finalising the Darra BMX track in mid-2019.

We have brought forward $600,000 for the procurement of permanent projectors at William Jolly Bridge. We're also looking at another number of savings in our roads projects. Meadowlands Road and Belmont Road intersection has been ahead of schedule so guess what it shows in the budget? Reallocations and variances in timings. We don't hear about the ahead variances do we, from those opposite. All we hear are the ones that may be behind or have been reallocated as well. So those projects coming ahead have allowed us to fund Hamilton Road as well.

To some of the questions that were before us today. I have to go back and take a comment about the green waste and the dry weather. September—let's think back to September. We were just coming out of winter. It was pretty dry. It was actually dry in September and, yes, it was wet that held it up because in October, I think we had 100 millimetres more than the average October rainfall last October.

So it was very wet in October but, yes, Councillor CUMMING it was very dry in September and that—I know he's gone home. Sorry, I won't say—I take that back. He’s just not in the Chamber—but dry weather, dry weather in September meant people didn't have the clippings to put into their green waste as well.

A little bit of education around what Councillor CUMMING called a negative spend in Brisbane's Future Blueprint. Now when it's got brackets around it, it's an underspend. Not a negative spend, an underspend. Now we all get our budgets from Council every month and we all see what we have spent month on month and sometimes you've spent less than one-twelfth of your allocation, so in brackets you get an underspend. Not a negative spend, an underspend.

So that's what I just wanted to explain. What happened, there was not a negative spend. It was an underspend for the first quarter for the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, of which has been allocated the money, as you can see there, but for that quarter they hadn't spent a quarter of their money. Simple financial explanations.

For a Councillor who has been in this place for 24 years I will just answer the questions that he sent to me on email today. The first question—please explain—from the Councillor who's been here for 24 years—in plain English what is meant by a reallocation between capital and expense.

So I will explain that. Thank you Councillor CUMMING for the question in writing. When we set a budget for projects we do not confirm how much of that project will be capitalised in assets in Council; how much of it may be on operational or maintenance nature.

So many of our projects include both aspects—capital and expense—and when we get to a budget review—the snapshot in time where we are at that project once all the detailed costings are completed and work has commenced—there are reallocations of the money that may have been in capital that is now being spent on operations, or which was going to be in operations but is needed for actual capital assets as well. So that is what reallocation between capital and expense is.

There was a question that he mentioned in his speech as well about the higher than anticipated QUU tax. Council receives monthly tax from QUU based on results. The actuals are currently higher than what is in the budget book at that point of time for that quarter.


- 54 -

Lastly, he asked about performance targets as opposed to actual figures for King George Square and Wickham Terrace car parks. Per the annual operational plan and the budget for city parking, targets are the average number of vehicles per bay per day in King George Square and Wickham Terrace and there is no actual number target set. It is done in hindsight with that so I am unable to advise you the comparison for the 2016-17 actuals on that.


Chairman: Point of order Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt.

Would Councillor ADAMS take a question?

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: If I can answer it but I may have to take it on notice Councillor.

Councillor SRI: Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair, thanks for that explanation about the difference between the expenses and the capital. I was just interested to know if, for example, a project is needed to cut down a lot more trees than was initially anticipated, do those trees have a capital value and is that factored in in any way, or do we not assign a financial value to trees?


Councillor ADAMS: It is not actually in the budget as a capital, but I can assure you every tree is offset three or five times—

Chairman: Three.

Councillor ADAMS: —three times for every tree in a project that is removed. It is offset planted somewhere else. So not only is it capitalised, but it is tripled for the value of that tree as well.

Madam Chair, what we have here is where we were in September for our quarterly financials and our budget review, and what it shows us is that we are in a very, very strong financial position and I recommend the reports to the Chamber.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just rise to enter the debate on these items, particularly item B, the annual operational plan progress report and there's a few clangers in here.

If you just accepted what the Administration said every single quarter you would be led to believe that having variances, for instance, in the delivery of public transport of around $20 million than was otherwise supposed to have been expended, that would be par for the course. Things like providing active transport, so our bikeways; variances of $5 or $6 million was normal. It shouldn't be normal, Madam Chair.

We hear that these documents are living and breathing. Well after the first quarter you would think that the Council officers who were putting all this time and effort into the budget handed down by the LORD MAYOR; that this Administration would then be able to see out the projects in that budget; that proper planning would be able to go into this budget.

We've heard this morning that there are significant—as we know, it's been well-aired in this place—the significant delays in major bikeway projects like the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and Woolloongabba and Moreton Bay Bikeway projects, which are multimillion dollar delays in those projects and some of those which have started, I suppose, in the second quarter. Some of which are still—parts of those which are still outstanding.


- 55 -

But there are other significant delays in other bikeways, small bikeway projects, that we've received no explanation for, and the cyclists around Brisbane have received no explanation there, Madam Chair.

The Brisbane Metro—it's the subway that doesn't go. We were promised a subway system to rival the Paris Metro and what we've seen since then is a redesign a few times, and now for the last year or so, every quarter that money is allocated to this project, it is carried over and carried over and carried over.

We heard the DEPUTY MAYOR get up in this place regularly and the LORD MAYOR less so—he seems to have been losing interest in this project, Madam Chair—but the DEPUTY MAYOR gets up and says the State Government needs to get out of the way and give us this land and do this and improve all this, without having done the prior work.

Considering they've changed it so many times you'd be forgiven for wondering when they will next change that but, again, $13 million worth of public transport infrastructure that should have been proceeding. I don't know why this Administration can't just get on with the job.

When it comes to the Village Precincts project—and Councillor JOHNSTON touched on that and we were always, I suppose, of the view—we took the then Chair of City Planning at his word, Councillor SIMMONDS, at the budget information sessions, that no prior planning had gone into this process; that no projects—apart from the Aspley one which was individually listed in the budget—that no projects were on a shortlist of any kind; that Council officers hadn't considered any projects.

Then in pretty short order we saw the announcement of a whole heap of these projects, so then started thinking: well there must have been a list. There must have been a list somewhere that we were denied the access to. They clearly had it, but then when you read this during the first quarter we're already seeing around $600,000 worth of those projects being delayed, you then start to think: actually they really didn't have that list after all.

So maybe we should have accepted their first position that they had done absolutely no planning in the lead up to the budget in finding suitable projects. They went and announced a whole heap in a flurry without proper consultation with Councillors and local communities, and not listening to communities that have put together petitions, small and large. Some up to—have been petitioning for 10 years for a project, whether it was in the form of a SCIP (Suburban Centre Improvement Project) project or the Village Precinct project with hundreds of signatures on them.

No, clearly this Administration is all at sea when it comes to projects that really impact on the community, Madam Chair. We have heard about the delays to the Kings Smith Drive project and Councillor COOPER would have us all believe that that's just normal. We shouldn't be concerned that these people that have been living through this unneeded upgrade—

Councillor COOPER: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor CASSIDY: That these people that have been living through this unnecessary upgrade will now have to spend another 12 months—and all those trades that are suffering, all those small businesses that may have to go out of business now—that this is just normal because it shouldn't be up to Council who did 150 different tests along the riverbed there, or up to the contractor who did extensive testing as well. It shouldn't be up to any of them to realise what is in the riverbed—the riverbed that's been there for, I don't know, hundreds of thousands of years, potentially.

The riverbed has been there a very long time. Council supposedly did their homework, the contractors supposedly did theirs and yet here we go, we're stuck


- 56 -

with a 12-month delay on a project that road transport experts from the RACQ right down to engineers all said at the time was unneeded and was excessive and was clearly gold plating.

Even Campbell Newman, when he backed away from his original idea of a tunnel or a viaduct, said that the upgrade that should proceed through that corridor is a public transport upgrade; a separated public transport whether it was for light rail or dedicated buses.

Now all we're going to see is those people that want public transport choices through there and transport choices will be faced with a choice of either getting in their car, or getting in a bus that is going as slow as their car, Madam Chair.

From day one—and Council's own business case showed that this upgrade really wasn't warranted at all. When pressed—and the LORD MAYOR didn't want to release the business case. He said earlier that all the commercial inconfidence information was all out there on the public record that everyone in Brisbane could access the contingencies part of this project. I refute that, but if the LORD MAYOR's happy for us to call the file, get the contingency figure and give that to the people of Brisbane—if he's happy for that we'd be happy to do that as well, on his advice.

But the business case showed that the outbound—so the afternoon peak on Kingsford Smith Drive—carried 34,000 vehicles before the project started, and in 2031 it would be carrying—guess how many? 34,000 vehicles, about 6,000 more in the am, Madam Chair. We're seeing this $650 million worth of expenditure on one short section of road; one that even the former Premier and Lord Mayor in this place said didn't need to proceed like it is now. He said that it should be a public transport corridor through there.

The upgrades to pedestrian and cyclist facilities and upgrades to key sections, key bottlenecks, could have been achieved through a smaller upgrade. Just like the current LORD MAYOR Graham Quirk said a number of years ago. He advocated for a $200 million project to fix those key bottlenecks.

So against all the better advice, all the better advice out there in Brisbane, this LORD MAYOR so arrogantly pursued what he now describes and this Administration now describes as just an entry statement to Brisbane, because we know as a functional road this upgrade is not going to add much. It's 60 seconds to travel time savings and that's it. We know it's been an enormous disruption to those local communities—


Chairman: Point of order Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Kingsford Smith Drive is one variance and it only talks about the money; not the project—

Councillor CASSIDY: What variance?

Councillor ADAMS: The variance in the budget review.


Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY I do understand it is one project that is listed in the entire report. I do uphold your right to speak about the project but if you can just confine it to the financial aspects that would be appreciated.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So the snapshot in time that Councillor ADAMS talked about, the first quarter, this Administration must have known this enormous time and cost blowout was coming down the line, and this one little variance, as Councillor ADAMS calls it, was—


Chairman: Point of order Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented.



- 57 -

Councillor CASSIDY: —was clearly a sign of things to come.

So in summing up, what these documents here before us show us, once again, is a textbook case of a Council Administration that is so out of touch with the needs of communities right around Brisbane, that they cannot be trusted to deliver any of these projects.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER you had a misrepresentation please.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The outrageous statements of Councillor CASSIDY suggesting that we have no sympathy for those who are affected by the delay in the practical completion of this project is completely without any foundation. Not a surprise. Of course this Administration is actually on the front foot and conveying to people that we absolutely apologise that the contractor has not been able to meet our expectations, and we'll do everything in our power to assist them as we progress with the project. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS your misrepresentation please.

Councillor ADAMS: Councillor CASSIDY's very sarcastic remark, which you won't hear in Hansard, said one little variance. I said it is one amongst many items in the report.

Chairman: Is there any further debate?

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Just briefly, Madam Chairman, look it feels like Groundhog Day every time the budget review or the financial reports come through to Council because Opposition Councillors, including the so-called independent, claim the same thing—so-called independent otherwise known as the Labor Councillor for Tennyson Ward—


Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —she runs their strategy—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Order!

Warning – Councillor Julian SIMMONDSThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor SIMMONDS that unless he desisted from interjecting he would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor SIMMONDS was warned that, if he were suspended from the service of the Council, he would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. Clearly I'm an independent Councillor, I'm not a member of any political party, and there is a rule in this place that we should be referred to appropriately. It is also a misrepresentation. In fact, 76% of the time I vote with the LNP in this Chamber.

Chairman: Order! Order! It has been a long meeting so far with a lot to go through and we still have a lot more to go. So I ask all Councillors to refer to each other appropriately, behave with civility and courtesy to each other, and we will get through this meeting.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Fascinating to hear those figures, the statistics, of how often Councillor JOHNSTON votes for the Administration. I’m sure she doesn't tell her residents that particular figure, because apparently we're the worst Administration in the world and she would never agree to anything that we ever do.


- 58 -

But, Madam Chairman, it is the same thing they bring through every time. They literally dust off the same speech and it's like insert figures here. It never goes anywhere. Nobody cares because literally it is the boy who cried wolf. Every time they get up here and try to convince people that the sky is falling, that everything's out of control, that everything's being mismanaged, guess what? We continue to deliver projects on the ground, we continue to do the things that we promised to the people of Brisbane we would do, and time and time again people continue to support us electorally. We intend to continue that record.

Madam Chairman, I don't even know why I'm speaking. I am getting—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —I'm getting bored of this debate myself because I—otherwise I'm going to be guilty of getting up here and saying the same thing every time like the Opposition did but, Madam Chairman, the reality is—

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —what these reports show is we're an Administration that delivers, we're an Administration that is clearly focused on delivering the projects that we went to the last election with, and we're getting on with that job.


Nothing further?

DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like right of reply?

I will now put items B and C.

Clauses B and C put

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

Thereupon, Councillors Kara COOK and Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 18 - 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 and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 6 - Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Amanda Cooper, Vicki Howard, Peter Matic, and David McLachlan.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke.

A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE H 152/160/1218/380-02

378/2018-19


- 59 -

1. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. Council is committed to delivering on the actions contained in Brisbane’s Future Blueprint. Amendments are required (the proposed amendment) to be made to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to achieve the following principle and action from Brisbane’s Future Blueprint:- Principle: Protect the Brisbane backyard and our unique character- Action 01: Stop townhouses and apartments being built in areas for single homes.

3. At its meeting of 4 September 2018, Council resolved to prepare the proposed amendment. Council wrote to the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister) on 5 September 2018, requesting early confirmation of State interests. A response has not been received from the Minister within the timeframe set out under the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline).

4. The proposed amendment has now been prepared and is set out in Attachment C (submitted on file). The proposed amendment changes the Low density residential zone code and other associated parts of the planning scheme to remove provisions allowing multiple dwellings (townhouses and apartments) in the zone, while provisions referring to well-located sites of more than 3,000 m2 are removed. The proposed amendment includes changes to neighbourhood plans which made specific or general provision for multiple dwellings in the Low density residential zone.

5. Within the Low density residential zone, all development applications for multiple dwellings are impact assessable, which is the highest level of assessment available under the planning scheme, as the Planning Act 2016 only allows prohibition of development in certain circumstances. The proposed amendment changes all relevant parts of the planning scheme to remove existing specific provisions and clarify that multiple dwelling outcomes are not supported in the Low density residential zone.

6. The schedule of proposed amendments is set out in Attachment B (submitted on file).

7. The process for amending the planning scheme is set out in the Guideline. Should Council decide to progress the proposed amendment, the Minister will be requested to complete a State interest review of the proposed amendment, and for agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment. Public consultation on the proposed amendment would then be undertaken upon receipt of the Minister’s response and approval, and in accordance with the Guideline.

8. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

9. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO DECIDE TO PROGRESS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO REMOVE PROVISIONS ALLOWING MULTIPLE DWELLINGS IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

As:

(i) pursuant to section 16.1 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline) made under the Planning Act 2016, decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to remove provisions allowing multiple dwellings in the Low density residential zone (the proposed amendment)

(ii) pursuant to section 16.4 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, has prepared the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment C (submitted on file),

then:


- 60 -

(i) directs, pursuant to section 16.5 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that a notice be given to the Minister which includes a copy of the Council decision to amend the planning scheme to include the proposed amendment and the required material for the proposed amendment as prescribed in Schedule 3 of the Guideline, requesting:

(a) a State interest review of the proposed amendment

(b) the Minister’s agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment.ADOPTED

B ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018134/695/317/927

379/2018-1910. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.

11. Sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 state that the Chief Executive Officer must present financial reports to Council at least quarterly. The reports are to state the progress that has been made in relation to Council’s budget.

12. The Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report September 2018 (Attachment B, submitted on file) separately identifies and reports the financial results of Council’s Program Services (i.e. Council excluding Business Activities) and Business Activities. The written commentaries provide explanation of the figures.

13. Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months.

14. The previous financial report for the year ended 30 June 2018 was presented to Council on 4 September 2018. The current report relates to the period ended 28 September 2018.


16. RECOMMENDATION:



DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018

As:

(i) sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 require that the Chief Executive Officer present financial reports to Council at least quarterly

(ii) section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months,

then:

(i) directs that the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for the period ended September 2018, as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file), be noted.


- 61 -

ADOPTED

C 2018-19 BUDGET – SECOND REVIEW134/135/86/301


18. Section 162(2) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 provides that Council’s budget for a financial year may be amended at any time before the end of the financial year.

19. The Second Budget Review has been prepared and considers:(a) emerging issues requiring funding, additional revenue and expenditure for the 2018-19,

2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years(b) requests to bring forward project funding to 2018-19 and other forward years(c) the proposed amendment (Attachment C, submitted on file) to the Schedule of Fees and

Charges 2018-19.

20. Attachment B (submitted on file) outlines the recommended amendments to the approved budget for the 2018-19, 2019 20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years.


22. RECOMMENDATION:



DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS – SECOND REVIEW AND TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES 2018-19

(i) Council resolves to adopt the amended budget allocations for Programs 1 to 8 and Businesses and Council Providers in accordance with Attachment B (submitted on file).

(ii) Council resolves to adopt the amended Schedule of Fees and Charges 2018-19 (as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file):

at page 3 under the heading ‘Animal Management’, sub-heading ‘Permit Fees’ by adding “Note 3: The self-assessable permit application fee excludes poultry.”

(iii) Council directs that the amendment is taken to have effect immediately.ADOPTED

D MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE B 152/160/1218/390

381/2018-1923. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

24. At its meeting of 14 June 2016, Council resolved to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) through amendments intended to support the provision of aged care accommodation (the proposed amendment).

25. The proposed amendment will achieve the following.- Update the Strategic framework in the planning scheme to emphasise the importance of

facilitating well-located retirement living and aged care accommodation.- Create a new Retirement and residential care facility code, with specific provisions tailored to


- 62 -

such facilities, to replace the use of multiple codes.- Encourage the refurbishment and extension of existing retirement and residential care

facilities.- Broaden the zones in the city where a retirement facility and residential care facility is

envisaged, to encourage new retirement and residential care facilities in our neighbourhoods.- Provide for retirement and residential care facilities in Low density residential and

Low-medium density residential zones as code assessable where they meet existing height requirements.

- Increase allowable building height as code assessable for residential care facilities and retirement facilities in the Medium density residential and High density residential zones.

- Facilitate co-location of small-scale supporting uses, such as coffee shops and recreational activities, in retirement facility and residential care facility developments.

- Facilitate integration with existing facilities, such as churches, health care precincts and educational facilities.

- Facilitate retirement facilities and aged care facilities in well-serviced areas near existing shops, public transport and key services.

26. By letter dated 19 July 2016, the then Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, confirmed the State interests to be addressed in the proposed amendment. Council, at its meeting of 29 November 2016, resolved to send the proposed amendment to the then Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment and request a State interest review and agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment.

27. On 12 December 2016, in accordance with the requirements of the Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline), the proposed amendment was sent to the then Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment. A State interest review and agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment was requested. By letter dated 6 April 2018 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister), advised that public consultation could proceed, subject to the satisfaction of the ministerial conditions. The proposed amendment relating to Sport and recreation zoned land was not progressed and the Minister was advised to this effect by letter dated 29 May 2018.

28. Public consultation on the proposed amendment was carried out from 18 June 2018 to 21 September 2018 in accordance with the requirements of the Guideline and the ministerial conditions, which also required an extended consultation period (refer Attachment B, submitted on file). During the consultation period, Council received 99 submissions, 93 of which were properly made. The key issues raised in the submissions related to the following matters:- proposed changes to built form requirements including building height, site cover and building

length- proposed changes to the level of assessment- inclusion of a new care co-located uses activity group that facilitates the co-location of small

scale supporting uses with retirement and residential care facilities- inconsistency with Brisbane’s Future Blueprint action ‘Protect the Brisbane backyard and our

unique character’.

29. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including descriptions of how the matters have been addressed, has been prepared (Attachment C, submitted on file). Having considered the submissions, changes have been made to the proposed amendment (Attachment D and Attachment E, submitted on file). The changes do not make the proposed amendment significantly different to the version on which Council carried out public consultation.

30. The Guideline requires that, should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, Council must provide the Minister with the summary of matters raised in the submissions, and request the Minister to provide approval to adopt the proposed amendment.

31. Changes to align the proposed amendment with the Planning Act 2016 have been made, and the Minister has confirmed (refer Attachment B, submitted on file) that the proposed amendment is in a form consistent with the Planning Act 2016.

32. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed


- 63 -

33. RECOMMENDATION:



DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE B

As:

(i) at its meeting on 14 June 2016 decided to make a major amendment (the proposed amendment) to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014

(ii) was advised by the Minister, by letter dated 6 April 2018 (Attachment B, submitted on file), that it may proceed to public notification of the proposed amendment subject to the ministerial conditions

(iii) has undertaken public consultation on the proposed amendment,

then:

(i) pursuant to Steps 7.1 and 7.2 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline), having considered the submissions on the proposed amendment, has prepared a summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including how those matters have been dealt with (Attachment C, submitted on file), and has made changes to the proposed amendments (Attachment D, submitted on file) which are not considered to be significantly different to the version publicly consulted on

(ii) decides, pursuant to Step 7.5(b) of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, to proceed with the proposed amendment with changes (Attachment E, submitted on file)

(iii) directs, pursuant to Step 7.2(c) of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that each person who made a properly-made submission about the proposed amendment be advised in writing about how their submission has been dealt with

(iv) directs, pursuant to Step 7.6 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister’s approval to adopt the proposed amendment be sought and that notice be given to the Minister in accordance with Step 7.7 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline.

ADOPTED

E STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF STREET FURNITURE ADVERTISING165/830/179/551

382/2018-1934. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

35. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 13 November 2018.

36. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.


- 64 -

37. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence]. The Commercial-in-Confidence information is available at Attachment A (submitted on file).

Purpose

38. The Stores Board recommends approval to enter into a Licence Agreement with Adshel Street Furniture Pty Ltd (Adshel), for the provision of Street Furniture Advertising.

Background

39. Council operates approximately 6,200 actively serviced bus stops throughout Brisbane. These bus stops provide an essential service to residents and visitors to Brisbane and are currently maintained and cleaned by internal Council resources and a portion by an external contractor, Adshel.

40. Council entered into a 20-year contract with Adshel on 1 March 1999 for the supply, installation, refurbishment, cleaning and maintenance of over 800 bus shelters around Brisbane. This Out Of-Home (OOH) advertising contract included the granting of exclusive advertising rights as follows: - Category A – approximately 830 premium bus shelters with illuminated advertising lightbox

panels (owned presently by Adshel for the contract term, including cleaning and maintenance of those shelters)

- Category B – advertising on Council-owned shelters and seats (excluding cleaning and maintenance by Adshel).

41. Example images of the two categories are contained in Attachment B (submitted on file). These two categories were offered to the market through the Request for Proposals (RFP) process that is the subject of this submission.

42. The premium bus shelters are classed as premium advertising assets and are currently Adshel-owned assets. This ownership structure allows minimisation of risk to Council within these shelters (e.g. glass breakage and vehicle accidents). The existing 20-year contract obligates transfer of ownership of these assets back to Council at its conclusion. The intention is to continue this model of ownership in the new agreement.

43. Advertising space on premium bus shelters is typically sought by national advertisers such as the Australian Government. Advertising display space on Council-owned shelters and seats is typically sought by local advertisers such as local restaurants.

44. Since October 2015, Adshel has converted 100 of Council’s lightbox advertising panels to digital panels under formal contract variations. Adshel also has approximately 30 scrolling paper panels active in Brisbane. Presently, in return for granting of advertising rights, Council receives a guaranteed minimum payment each quarter ([Commercial-in-Confidence] for the 2017 calendar year) and a [Commercial-in-Confidence] the guaranteed minimum payment.

45. There are several other benefits Council receives for no charge through the current arrangement, most notably:- world-wide advertising with Adshel to the value of [Commercial-in-Confidence] over the life

of the contract- [Commercial-in-Confidence] campaigns each year on the 100 digital panels in Brisbane - [Commercial-in-Confidence] bus shelter relocations each year, valued at up to

[Commercial in-Confidence] each.

46. As the existing 20-year contract is in its final year, proposals were sought from the open market to establish a new arrangement(s) with advertising, cleaning and maintenance services to commence 2 March 2019.

47. What is being procured and why:Street furniture advertising and associated cleaning and maintenance services for premium bus shelters and advertising for Council-owned shelters and seats. These services are being procured to:- preserve and grow Council’s revenue streams from bus-stop advertising- continue the provision of clean, presentable and well-maintained bus shelters at nominated

Council premium bus stops (the current Adshel assets)


- 65 -

- enable partnering with a progressive and innovative firm for potential improvements including revenue optimisation, smart-city functionality and street furniture design, at Council’s discretion.

48.Pre-market approval: 30 April 2018 by the Establishment and Coordination

CommitteeProcess used: RFP (with negotiations)Closing date for responses: 13 June 2018Offer validity period expiry date: 10 December 2018Pre-market approval adhered to? Yes

Summary of responses

49. The following table outlines the offers received:

Name Registered address,ABN and ACN

Combined offer for Category A

and B

Category A –Premium bus

shelters

Category B –Council-owned bus shelters and

seatsAdshel^ Level 9, The Forum

205 Pacific Highway St Leonards NSW 2065ABN: 77 000 081 872ACN: 000 081 872

Offered Offered Offered

Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd (Claude)

Level 5, 657 Pacific Highway St Leonards NSW 2065ABN: 14 000 919 540ACN: 000 919 540

No offer No offer Offered

QMS Media Limited (QMS)

214 Park Street South Melbourne Vic 3205ABN: 71 603 037 341ACN: 603 037 341

Offered No offer No offer

^ Current incumbent for street furniture advertising.

50. The following table summarises the offers for both categories:

Name Weighted evaluation score [out of 100]

Revenue* (excl. GST)** [after any

negotiations]

Value for money (VFM) Index***

Recommended offerAdshel 93% [Commercial-in-

Confidence]Not applicable

Offers not recommended Adshel (Category A)Claude (Category B)

92%# [Commercial-in-Confidence]~

Not applicable

QMS 56% [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Not applicable

*Revenue represents the total minimum guaranteed payments resulting from projected advertising sales and an initial payment payable to Council over the 10-year initial term and optional two-year extension period. These amounts reflect the best minimum guaranteed revenue positions for each of the tenderers.** Note: All monetary figures in this submission are exclusive of GST.*** No VFM index has been calculated as this arrangement is a revenue arrangement, the most advantageous proposal for Council was determined through the weighted evaluation criteria. # Claude achieved a weighted evaluation score of 63% for their Category B submission. For comparison purposes, the weighted evaluation score here is a proportional blended evaluation score based on the revenue component contributed with [Commercial-in-Confidence] of this score resulting from Adshel’s Category A proposal and [Commercial-in-Confidence] resulting from Claude’s Category B proposal. ~ The revenue amount represents a combination of Adshel’s Category A and Claude’s Category B offers. This amount consists of [Commercial-in-Confidence] for Adshel’s Category A revenue, a


- 66 -

[Commercial-in-Confidence] Adshel initial payment, [Commercial-in-Confidence] for Claude’s initial payment and the remainder in Claude’s guaranteed revenue.

51. Both Category A and Category B:



negotiations]

VFM Index***

Recommended offerAdshel 93% [Commercial-in-


Offer not recommended QMS 56% [Commercial-in-


Category A:



negotiations]

VFM Index***

Offer not RecommendedAdshel 93% [Commercial-in-


Category B:



negotiations]

VFM Index***

Offers not RecommendedAdshel 87% [Commercial-in-

Confidence]#Not applicable

Claude 63% [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Not applicable

* Revenue represents the total minimum guaranteed payments resulting from projected advertising sales and any initial payment payable to Council over the 10-year initial term and optional two-year extension period. These amounts reflect the best minimum guaranteed revenue positions for each of the tenderers.** Note: All monetary figures in this submission are exclusive of GST.*** No VFM index has been calculated as this arrangement is a revenue arrangement, the most advantageous proposal for Council was determined through the weighted evaluation criteria.# No revenue is payable to Council where the stand-alone Adshel Category B offer is accepted. Advertising sales will occur, providing support to local businesses, the main target market for this form of advertising.

Evaluation of responses:

52. Evaluation criteria: (a) Mandatory/essential criteria:

Nil

(b) Weighted evaluation criteria:

Weighted evaluation criteria Weighting(%)

Revenue generation model 40Operations and maintenance 30Innovation and partnering 20Experience and track record 5Commercial systems and processes 5

Total: 100


- 67 -

(c) Price model:Whole-of-life revenue over the term (inclusive of cost elements such as operations, cleaning and maintenance costs, and moves, adds and changes as technology advances). Revenue, both in absolute terms and suitability, and viability of the proposed commercial model for revenue generation, is considered in the revenue generation model criterion above.

53. Addenda issued:Two addenda were issued before the close of tenders to clarify tenderer queries.

54. Submissions not considered further as lodged late:None

55. Submissions not considered further as incomplete/non-conforming:None

56. Submissions not considered due to failing a mandatory criterion:None

57. Initial evaluation: The evaluation panel completed its initial review of scoring against the weighted evaluation criteria. This initial evaluation phase also included all three tenderers being invited to provide a face to face presentation to Council.

Specialist technical advice was received from an OOH advertising consultant, NexusFactor, on the veracity of revenue models proposed by the tenderers.

Consideration was given to the possible award scenarios. There are three possible scenarios, award to either Adshel or QMS for both categories or award to Adshel for Category A and Claude for Category B. The scenario where Adshel is awarded Category A and Claude Category B results in [Commercial-in-Confidence] less revenue to Council over the term. Only the Adshel proposal for both categories was progressed as all other scenarios resulted in less advantageous outcomes to Council.

58. Shortlisting and additional stages: Following the initial evaluation, Adshel was progressed through negotiations. The remaining two tenders were parked at this point as their proposals offered Council significantly less benefit.

59. Summarise any clarification/modification/negotiation of tenders undertaken: Negotiations were undertaken with Adshel to resolve a set of non-compliances. These negotiations resulted in changes to the licence agreement including a modification to increase the advertising exclusivity scope. This expanded exclusivity for advertising from premium bus shelters and Council-owned non-illuminated shelters to be a format size of between 1.4 and 2.6 square metres within a 10 km radius around Brisbane’s General Post Office (GPO) and Council controlled contiguous footpaths adjacent to arterial roads with daily vehicle traffic movements of above 20,000 within the Brisbane Local Government Area, and beyond this zone, within a 250 metre radius of existing premium street furniture shelters.

Objectivity and probity

60. Was a probity auditor used?O’Connor Marsden & Associates Pty Ltd (OCM) is the appointed probity auditor. OCM has attended evaluation moderation, strategy, decision-making and negotiation meetings and has had direct contact with all tenderers enquiring of any probity concerns. OCM has confirmed that, as of the date of this post-market submission, OCM has no unresolved probity issues. They will provide Council with their final written probity report on the conclusion of the process after debriefs with unsuccessful tenderers have been carried out.

Recommended tenderer/s (most advantageous outcome for Council)

61. Most advantageous:The recommended tenderer is Adshel for the following reasons.- It achieved the highest weighted evaluation criteria score.


- 68 -

- Its approach to cleaning and maintenance was assessed as very strong and includes an expanded zone of cleaning from what was requested in the original RFP to five metres either side of the premium bus shelter.

- The recommended offer represents minimal transition risk as it has been Council’s street furniture advertising provider for close to 20 years.

- Its offer incorporates a sound revenue model that includes the following benefits to Council:- [Commercial-in-Confidence] of projected advertising sales as a minimum guarantee

payment to Council or [Commercial-in-Confidence] over the potential 12-year term of the licence agreement

- [Commercial-in-Confidence] initial payment to Council- [Commercial-in-Confidence] annual no charge allocation or [Commercial-in-

Confidence] over the potential 12-year term for Council to use to provide messaging to the community

- [Commercial-in-Confidence].- It has demonstrated a strong willingness to act as a strategic partner to Council and has a

strong ability to provide innovative street furniture and smart city solutions.- The total number of sites with advertising is not increased through the Adshel proposal. - The advertising asset development plans proposed by Adshel [Commercial-in-Confidence].

These plans are completed by [Commercial-in-Confidence] of the contract and will bring the total [Commercial-in-Confidence], all within the existing estate of approximately 830 premium bus shelters.

- Council can access an annual $280,000 (excluding GST) allowance for shelter relocations. This amount escalates each year by CPI.

- External advice from NexusFactor supports Council’s assessment of this proposal as being the most advantageous to Council.

62. Tenderers not recommended:QMS are not recommended for the following reasons:- it achieved a lower weighted evaluation score than Adshel- the proposed cleaning and maintenance approach was assessed as being less likely to deliver

the desired outcomes to Council- its revenue model offered less benefit to Council than Adshel’s model.

Claude are not recommended for the following reasons:- it achieved a lower weighted evaluation score than Adshel- the revenue model offered Claude and paired with the Adshel Category A proposal was

assessed as being less advantageous to Council than Adshel’s proposal for both categories.

63. Environmental management, quality assurance, access and equity, zero harm and support for locally produced and Australian products:The Evaluation Team is satisfied with the environmental, quality assurance, access and equity and zero harm position of the recommended tenderer. The Adshel proposal includes beneficial environmental practices such as treatment of cleaning water and recycling of materials used in the advertising process including glass and poster material, telematics and route optimisation software and energy and water saving initiatives. Adshel has a strong Brisbane presence necessary to deliver services across the city.

64. Risks associated with this contract (including mitigation strategies):

Procurement risk Risk rating

Comments/other risk mitigation strategies

Liability for damage, injury or statutory compliance within street furniture

Medium - Ownership of premium bus shelters to be retained by the recommended tenderer (who will continue to carry the liability under the licence agreement).

Revenue leakage or missing projections

Medium - Contractually obligated minimum guaranteed payment amounts.

- Council retains audit rights.- [Commercial-in-Confidence].

Presentation and condition of street furniture (including glass breakage)

Low - Contractor has submitted a robust cleaning and maintenance plan.

- Council retains step-in rights should public safety be at risk.


- 69 -

Procurement risk Risk rating

Comments/other risk mitigation strategies

Technology advancements in bus shelter design and smart cities functionality at bus stops and other street furniture.

Low - Licence agreement to include strategic partnering clauses to allow Council to work with the contractor on advancements, trials and shelter replacements during the contract term.

Transition risk Low - Incumbent provider recommended.

65. Is this contract listed as a critical contract requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?No, however the contractor is required to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council to maintain critical services.

Contract proposed66.

Type of procurement: Establishing a Licence AgreementIf establishing a new CPA, how will it be operated?

Not applicable

Contract standard to be used:

Bespoke licence agreement developed by City Legal, CAG, and negotiated with Adshel considering advice from McCullough Robertson. The agreement includes strategic partnering concepts such as relationship objectives, innovation (e.g. revenue optimisation, smart city functionality and street furniture design) and Council's performance objectives.

Amendments to the contract standards e.g. is liability and indemnity to be capped?

Negotiated elements of this agreement include the following.- Exclusivity over a prescribed format of between 1.4 and 2.6

square metres in a 10 km radius around the Brisbane GPO and Council controlled contiguous footpaths adjacent to arterial roads within the Brisbane Local Government Area, and beyond this zone, within a 250-metre radius of existing premium bus shelters.

- [Commercial-in-Confidence].- [Commercial-in-Confidence]. - Inclusion of clauses to manage asset transfer during insolvency

events in response to the Ipso Facto law reforms.- Council retains step in rights to address issues such as public

safety and a failure to perform operational services.- Audit rights are retained allowing Council to verify revenues and

sales. - [Commercial-in-Confidence].- All applicable content standards have been maintained such as

no political advertising, contentious and offensive material.- Council maintains the ability to request advertising that breaches

these standards is promptly removed.Has the proposed contractor(s) signed the contract to formalise their offer?

Yes

Execution date of contract: This is anticipated to be 29 November 2018 with the advertising appearance date 2 March 2019.

Term/period of contract: An initial term concluding 1 March 2029 with one optional period of two years (to allow alignment with expiry of the CityCycle contract).

Price basis: Revenue price basis that includes [Commercial-in-Confidence] of projected advertising sales as minimum guaranteed payments, a [Commercial-in-Confidence] of advertising revenue [Commercial-in-Confidence] and a [Commercial-in-Confidence] initial payment.

Variation for rise and fall in cost:

Minimum revenue payments are guaranteed for the duration of the agreement.

Provisional sums? Not applicable


- 70 -

Security for the contract: An unconditional bank guarantee equal to the amount of the [Commercial-in-Confidence] payment for the minimum guaranteed fee for contract year 1. The guarantee amount is to be reviewed every two years and adjusted to be equal to [Commercial-in-Confidence] of the minimum guaranteed fee in the previous 12 months.

Defects liability period/ warranty period?

Not applicable

Liquidated damages: Not applicableSoftware component? Not applicable

Funding

67. Estimated expenditure under this CPA/contract (excluding contingency if any):This revenue arrangement will return [Commercial-in-Confidence] ([Commercial-in-Confidence]) in minimum guaranteed payments to Council over the potential 12-year term of the licence agreement.

68. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract? Not applicable, this is a revenue arrangement.

69. Procurement financial benefits against pre-market estimate (if any):The average annual minimum guarantee payment is approximately [Commercial-in-Confidence] per annum guaranteed return to Council.

70. Council also receives an allowance of [Commercial-in-Confidence] for no-charge media under the agreement which allows community messaging to be provided.

71. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

72. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING.

(1) Entering into a Licence Agreement with Adshel Street Furniture Pty Ltd on a revenue price basis.

(2) The Licence Agreement to be for an initial term concluding 1 March 2029 with the option to extend for one additional period of two years.

(3) The Chief Procurement Officer, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services, in conjunction with the Divisional Manager, Transport for Brisbane, is authorised to extend the contract beyond the expiry of the initial term, for one optional additional period of two years, subject to the satisfactory performance of the contractor.

(4) The Manager, Commercial and Contract Services, Transport for Brisbane, is authorised to sign and manage the contract on Council’s behalf.

ADOPTED

F ASSET OPTIMISATION – SURPLUS PROPERTY DISPOSAL STAGE 42112/265/439/251


74. Asset Optimisation, Organisational Services, in consultation with relevant areas of Council, has identified the properties listed in Table 1 as underutilised and confirmed as surplus to Council requirements, and therefore suitable for disposal.

75. Table 1: Proposed properties for disposal

Address Recommendation1. 1 Horace Street, Windsor Disposal


- 71 -

Address Recommendation

2. 594 Mains Road, Nathan Disposal3. 600 Mains Road, Nathan Disposal4. 548A–554A Archerfield Road, Inala Disposal5. 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken Ridge Disposal

76. In accordance with section 217 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation), Council cannot enter into a valuable non-current asset contract (relevantly, the sale of land) unless it first:(a) invites written tenders for the contract; or(b) offers the valuable non-current asset for sale by auction.

77. Section 226(1) of the Regulation provides a number of exceptions, which Council may apply to the disposal of an interest in land other than by way of tender or auction. Table 2 below lists the properties and the relevant exceptions allowing to dispose of land other than by tender or auction.

78. Table 2: Relevant exceptions for the proposed properties for disposal

Address Exception1. 1 Horace Street, Windsor 226(1)(c)(iv)2. 594 Mains Road, Nathan 226(1)(b)(i)3. 600 Mains Road, Nathan 226(1)(b)(i)4. 548A–554A Archerfield Road, Inala 226(1)(b)(i)5. 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken Ridge 226(1)(b)(ii)

79. Attachment B (submitted on file), provides further background for each property and Attachment C (submitted on file) shows site plans. Valuations for the properties at 1 Horace Street, Windsor; 594 Mains Road, Nathan; 600 Mains Road, Nathan and 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken Ridge, are provided in Attachments D, E, F and G respectively (submitted on file). An aerial photo of the Boral site access for 1 Horace Street, Windsor, is provided in Attachment H (submitted on file).


81. RECOMMENDATION:



DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PERMIT COUNCIL TO DISPOSE OF AN INTEREST IN LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 226(1) OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE REGULATION 2012As:

(i) Council is the owner of 1 Horace Street, Windsor (Lot 2 on SP193904), 594 Mains Road, Nathan (Lot 5 on SP150579), 600 Mains Road, Nathan (Lot 4 on SP137378), 548A–554A Archerfield Road, Inala (Lot 302 on SP163904, Lot 301 on SP163905 and Lot 300 on SP163906), and 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken Ridge (Lot 158 on RP210185) (the properties)

(ii) Council proposes to dispose of the properties

(iii) section 226(2) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that Council decide by resolution that an exception set out in section 226(1) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 may apply before disposing of a valuable non-current asset other than by way of tender or auction


- 72 -

(iv) 1 Horace Street, Windsor, is not suitable to be offered for disposal by tender or auction due to the access constraints, and as there is no other person who owns other adjoining land who wishes to acquire the property

(v) 594 Mains Road, Nathan, 600 Mains Road, Nathan, and 548A–554A Archerfield Road, Inala, are to be disposed of to State Government agencies

(vi) 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken Ridge, is to be disposed of to a community organisation,

then:

(i) resolves that the exceptions set out in the table below under section 226(1) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 apply to the disposal of the properties

Address Exception1. 1 Horace Street, Windsor 226(1)(c)(iv)2. 594 Mains Road, Nathan 226(1)(b)(i)3. 600 Mains Road, Nathan 226(1)(b)(i)4. 548A–554A Archerfield Road, Inala 226(1)(b)(i)5. 321 Bracken Ridge Road, Bracken

Ridge226(1)(b)(ii)

(ii) determines that the sale of the properties should be on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Project Director, Asset Optimisation and Chief Legal Counsel, City Legal

(ii) for 1 Horace Street, Windsor, authorises the Project Director, Asset Optimisation, to negotiate a sale price of the property calculated on the basis that such a price is either equal to or greater than the market value of the property as determined by the valuation prepared by Harvey Ehlers and Associates, as set out in Attachment D (submitted on file).

ADOPTED



384/2018-19At that juncture, Councillor Krista ADAMS moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, that the procedural motion submitted by Councillor Krista ADAMS at the meeting on 30 October 2018 be taken off the table. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: I'm trying to deal with one point of order at a time Councillor JOHNSTON. I'll just follow on with Councillor ADAMS. You both got up at the same time and I'm watching my screen.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I table the advice that's been received from the Integrity Commissioner and provide a copy for all Councillors. The Integrity Commissioner has agreed that the information that could identify a private individual relevant to that advice be redacted.


- 73 -

I also will send a copy of the item that was lying on the table, item A of the E&C report from the meeting held on 22 October 2018—be distributed to all the Councillors just to remind them of the debate.

Chairman: Okay. We'll just hold for a moment whilst those—have you got sufficient copies for everyone Councillor ADAMS?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Just confirming that was my request—that we get a copy of them.

Chairman: Yes, okay. We'll just pause so that all Councillors can receive a copy of the advice and the—yes, it would be handy if I had one, thank you—the advice and also a copy of the previous motion. Thank you.

So just to remind all Councillors, the item that laid on the table from the Council meeting of Tuesday 30 October was relating to the E&C Committee report held on 22 October and was item A, the Community Conservation Assistance Program 2018-19.

LORD MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


LORD MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, I just wish to advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when the matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner I am satisfied that I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.

Chairman: Thank you LORD MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered at Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied that I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to participate in the debate and voting on this matter.




Councillor ADAMS: I advise the chamber out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.

Chairman: Thank you Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor BOURKE: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, point of order. I wish to advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice


- 74 -

received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied that I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.


Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when the matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.


Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied I do not have a conflict of interest and intend to debate and vote on this matter.


Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I advise the Chamber that out of an abundance of caution, when this matter was considered by Civic Cabinet I declared a conflict of interest. As a consequence of the advice received from the Integrity Commissioner, I am satisfied I do not have a conflict of interest and I intend to debate and vote on this matter.


LORD MAYOR.


Chairman: Go on Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. There's been some information redacted from this letter which does not relate to the privacy of the individual, as Councillor ADAMS suggested. It relates to the amount of the donation and the year of the donation.

The year of donation proves to be critical to the Integrity Commissioner's advice, which indicates that there is an issue with the time factor. Now that's critical in us determining whether or not this is a conflict of interest, and I believe that date should be un-redacted so we can make an informed judgment about whether or not there is a conflict of interest here.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I believe that the redaction was in relation to identification of that person, but I will ask either the LORD MAYOR or Councillor ADAMS if you would like to provide any further information.

Councillor ADAMS: I've spoken to the Commissioner, Madam Chair, with this and it's clear in the Integrity Commissioner's response around the timing and her advice around the timing and this issue, in particular. The two points that are redacted make it very easy with ECQ (Election Commission of Queensland) records to determine who that person is, so that is why they were redacted. I ran this past the Commissioner and she was quite comfortable with that—that her advice stood without those in the letter.


LORD MAYOR.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. In fact, Madam Chairman, on page 4 of the Queensland Integrity Commissioner's letter, which I've just received, it talks about the fact that there may be—well she doesn't have specifics, but the length of time that has elapsed since the donation would tend to minimise the risk, but


- 75 -

we don't know what the length of time is. It has been redacted and it is not possible—she still indicates there may be concerns, but we need to know the date that does not identify anybody. A month and a year should be perfectly sufficient. I don't know what's been redacted but we need to understand the date so that we can make an informed judgement, as is our obligation, to ensure that we are addressing this matter.

She also does make the point that the size of the donation is relevant as well and that has been redacted. So I certainly would consider that to be important, but the date, given the critical nature of this, I think is important that we know. I can't see how a date, a month and a year, would identify a person at all.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, as you are aware, there are specific reports that do detail who's made donations at what time and that would directly lead to an identification.

Councillor ADAMS could you possibly provide some range? Is it greater than five years et cetera?

Councillor ADAMS: Madam Chair, it says here very clearly in the fourth dot point from the Commissioner on page 4 to take into account the time that has elapsed since the donation was made—elapsed—noting the disclosure period set out in LGEI, the Local Government Electoral Information.

We looked at those disclosure periods, we looked at the time that has elapsed and we have made it very clear in this place that we do not believe we have a conflict of interest.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, if we don't know what the conflict is, we, as other Councillors who are now required under the Local Government Act to make a decision about this, given it's been raised by the LNP, we are left in a position of not being able to make an informed decision without key information. All I am asking for is a month and a year. Certainly an amount would be good, too, but if that identifies the person I understand, but there's been more than one donor in a particular—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—Councillor JOHNSTON, as Councillor ADAMS has explained, she has contacted the Integrity Commissioner, the information has been provided and—

Councillor JOHNSTON: And redacted.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, please don't interrupt. Councillor ADAMS has said she has spoken to the Integrity Commissioner. The month and the year, as you are requesting, would create an identity situation. There has been a declaration that is required. That is the obligation on Councillors—that they are required individually to make that determination if they have a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

Civic Cabinet have stood today and made a declaration as they are required to do.

LORD MAYOR.


Chairman: Can I just allow the LORD MAYOR to do his point of order please.

LORD MAYOR: Well it's not a point of order. I'm ready to get on with the debate.

Chairman: Oh sorry, sorry.


Chairman: Point of order Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: In the document, the E&C Committee report, Madam Chair, a number of projects on private land are not able to be disclosed publicly but are disclosed to Councillors in this place and they're treated as privacy-in-confidence.


- 76 -

Chairman: Commercial-in-confidence you're referring to is that right?

Councillor CASSIDY: It's privacy-in-confidence in this case, Madam Chair, yes, but very similar. I don't understand why this information—I understand in this particular letter that Councillor ADAMS has tabled that's a public document, that can be redacted, but Councillors are required to make an informed decision why Councillors can't be provided with a privacy and confidence version of this letter so we are able to make that determination. I don't quite understand what the issue is there.

Chairman: Given that this discussion has taken place with Councillor ADAMS and the Integrity Commissioner I believe it's probably appropriate at this time for me to seek some legal advice just to verify.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, to the point of order if I may—


Chairman: Do you have a point of order?

LORD MAYOR: No, it's not to the point of order. I have a point of order to raise, sorry.

Chairman: Are you seeking my ruling LORD MAYOR?

LORD MAYOR: No, I'm just wanting to raise a point of order.

Chairman: Okay.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, Councillor ADAMS has sought advice from the Integrity Commissioner. That advice has been received. Councillor ADAMS was under no obligation to share this advice with other Councillors today. No obligation at all. She has had a discussion with the Integrity Commissioner regarding the redacted sections, whether that would impact on the advice from the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner, who is the authority on these matters, has said no.

Again, out of courtesy today Councillors have been provided with this advice to perhaps help them in future—not just this matter, in future matters—to assess their own situation. So, Madam Chairman, it seems that every time you try and help you end up with this sort of situation. We're the ones that have to satisfy ourselves as Cabinet members whether we have a conflict of interest, and that we have had clear advice from the Integrity Commissioner around that.


LORD MAYOR: So thank you for your advice Councillor but the Integrity Commissioner will do me over you every day of the week.

Councillor COOK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor COOK.

Councillor COOK: Madam Chair, I believe that we should have full disclosure of this letter, and if you read the last paragraph it says: ‘you may disclose this letter as you see fit; however, in the interests of transparency should you choose to disclose this advice, I would strongly urge you to disclose this advice in full’. In those circumstances, Madam Chair, I think it would be appropriate for you to seek advice, as Councillor CASSIDY has indicated, that we be provided with that information as commercial-in-confidence.

Chairman: Thank you Councillor COOK.


Chairman: Just before we go on a little bit more Councillor ADAMS, I will just note for the record that this is a personal letter that has been responded to directly Councillor ADAMS. So it is her choice and her capacity to deal with the Integrity Commissioner. This is not advice that has been provided directly to Council.

Councillor ADAMS your point of order.


- 77 -

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair. That is why I've made it very clear that I have spoken to Dr Stepanov about this because of that exact sentence—thank you Councillor COOK—and explained exactly what was being redacted, and she was more than comfortable with this. I have tabled this letter for the entire Chamber to be able to see and use as guidance in their own conflict of interest.


Councillor ADAMS: We have made it very clear that we do not have a conflict of interest because this is the advice that I received for the Cabinet members on my behalf—that I wrote to them and we've looked at the information before us.

Chairman: So this is private advice.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Number one—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON sit down now. This is the first circumstance where the Integrity Commissioner has been involved to ascertain for a Councillor individually whether or not they have a conflict of interest or—


Chairman: —stop it Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: What you are saying you don't know.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON enough.

Councillor JOHNSTON: No. What am I saying that's—

Chairman: If you let me finish what I am saying and stop breaching section 51 you might get the whole picture instead of half a cracker.

Warning – Councillor Nicole JOHNSTONThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor JOHNSTON that unless she desisted from interjecting she would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor JOHNSTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: Now when we are trying to look at the whole picture here, this is individual advice that has been provided directly to an individual Councillor. This is the first time advice has been sought from the Integrity Commissioner and presented in this Council Chamber.

In this case Councillor ADAMS has done it for the benefit of all Councillors. She is under no obligation to present the Integrity Commissioner's advice. It goes back to when an individual Councillor has a material personal interest or a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest, each of you are under the obligation to declare it and, where applicable, excuse yourself from debate and voting within the Chamber.

Now Councillor ADAMS has made that disclosure and she has also provided the advice that supports the position she has taken tonight, and Civic Cabinet members have made similar declarations.

I will just confirm—I will take a short adjournment and just confirm with the chief legal officer that there's nothing else required. As this is the first time we have had Queensland Integrity Commissioner advice presented in the Chamber, I want to ensure all Councillors are satisfied that the advice and the way it's sitting and being dealt with in this Chamber is appropriate.

So I request a short adjournment and I will just confirm with the Chief Legal Officer.


At that time, 6.26pm, it was resolved on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian


- 78 -

SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the meeting adjourn for a brief period, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors have been locked.


UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Councillors, I have discussed this with the chief legal officer. I will read you section 177E of the City of Brisbane Act, which relates to Councillors' conflict of interest at a meeting. 177E(1), this section applies if (a) a matter is to be discussed at a meeting of the Council or any of its committees; (b) the matter is not an ordinary business matter; and (c) a Councillor at the meeting, subsection (i) has a conflict of interest in the matter or (ii) could reasonably be taken to have a conflict of interest in the matter.

Now, in relation to this, Councillor ADAMS has informed the meeting that she has sought advice from the Integrity Commissioner, which has confirmed that she does not have a Conflict of Interest. All of Civic Cabinet have stood and declared, as per is their obligation under 177E(2) to inform the meeting about the Councillors' Conflict of Interest. So because those Councillors have declared they do not have a conflict of interest, therefore 177E(1) does not apply and there is no requirement on other Councillors to determine by vote if those Councillors can stay or are required to leave. So given that there is no conflict of interest, it is exactly the same situation as anybody else in the Chamber. So we will now proceed to the E&C item that has been brought back off the table, which is item A on the E&C report from the E&C meeting held on Monday 22 October 2018.

LORD MAYOR, to item A, please.


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, given the Integrity Commissioner's advice does not specifically say there is no conflict of interest and this is an interpretation by the LNP Cabinet, who clearly thought they did have one, and we do not have the information we need under 177E(2), I move dissent in your ruling and I want to place on record my concern at the lack of information about the nature of the conflict that's been provided.

The dissent motion lapsed for want of a seconder.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, as Councillors would be aware, we provide by way of these Community Conservation Assistance grants some $498,000, Madam Chairman, to assist various groups and individuals that are eligible to receive these grants. The Community Conservation Assistance program provides assistance to a range of, in some case, private landowners who have signed a Land for Wildlife agreement with Council and have demonstrated a commitment to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on their land.

So, Madam Chairman, by undertaking environmental rehabilitation, Community Conservation Assistance funding provides positive impacts for Brisbane's biodiversity and waterway health. Community groups and individuals to take active steps in the protection and restoration of Brisbane's natural environment is something which is good for the city. This grant program exists for that purpose and hence for the recommendation of these grants today.

Chairman: Further debate on item A?

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of item A before us, which is the support that we provide for the volunteers who operate in our Community Conservation Assistance programs. We provide support through this program


- 79 -

for individuals and groups within the Community Conservation Partnership program.

Those individuals or groups that are undertaking environmental restoration or rehabilitation works, recipient groups such as Habitat Brisbane groups, the creek catchment groups, private landholders who are members of the Wildlife Conservation Partnership program known as Land for Wildlife. So Council works in partnership with these groups and individuals to deliver on ground we control and bush restoration works within priority biodiversity areas which would otherwise be difficult for them to undertake this year.

There was up to $500,000 available for the grants and community groups and individuals could apply for up to $200,000 worth of assistance per project. As always, funding allocation depends on the merits of the proposed projects. Applications for the Community Conservation Assistance program 2018-19, opened on 2 July 2018 and closed on 30 July. There was a total of 91 applications received. Sixty-nine applications for the Community Conservation Assistance program valued at a total of $498,916 were recommended for full or partial funding.

They consisted of 28 projects on Council land and 41 projects on private land. Projects that are funded under this program include reduction and removal of invasive weeds, regeneration and revegetation, as well as watering and erosion control. So these are projects that are funded at the grassroots for grassroots work. Our free catchment and Habitat Brisbane groups, as well as individual landholders in Brisbane are invaluable for the services that they provide and Council would not be able to carry out this sort of work, the core business, without the vital work that these volunteers provide for us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes. Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, in relation to this item, we will be supporting the Community Conservation Assistance Program and the sites that are listed here. We believe that it is an important program that Council does and that has lots of benefits for the city. Just in relation to the issues that have been raised in bringing this forward in the Chamber, we do recognise that there is a lot of learning that needs to be undertaken by all of us in relation to this new State legislation. Part of that, I suppose, for us, is having some clear processes around how we identify conflicts of interest or material personal interests. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Just in relation to item A, I just wanted to make some comments around the consideration of this matter of the Community Conservation Assistance programs. The reason this has been problematic is the way in which it has been handled by the LNP. The LNP declared a Conflict of Interest when this matter first came to Council and refused, at that point, to say what the conflict was. Now, today, without notice, despite the fact that Councillor ADAMS received this advice two weeks ago, or almost two weeks ago, we've been given it and now they stand up and say they don't have a conflict of interest.

We still don't know what the conflict was, but clearly the LNP E&C members felt they did have one. I agree with Councillor GRIFFITHS that the reason this is problematic is the way in which it was handled. Essentially, they should have got advice about this matter before bringing it to Council and it is hugely problematic that information we need to make a decision has been redacted from us. The Queensland Integrity Commissioner's letter does not say there is no Conflict of Interest. It actually sets out a series of questions that Councillors are to ask themselves.


- 80 -

Now, that presumes that we know what the facts are, and we don't. I understand the LNP have told the media it relates to one of the people who are the subject of the conservation management grants being a donor to the LNP, and that seems to be what's in Councillor ADAMS advice. We just don't know who that is. So that is very problematic. I certainly know that people do good work with this program, but it has been tainted in this case, because of the LNP's failure to be open and transparent with Council, so we can make an informed decision.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. I just rise to talk on item A here. As Councillor GRIFFITHS has said, we will be supporting this item going through, because the work that is being done is important, both by community groups, which is fully disclosed at the frontend, and also individuals. But I suppose I just have a question that Councillor McLACHLAN may have been able to answer. He's already spoken, so perhaps the LORD MAYOR could, in his summing up, just around, I suppose, the reasoning behind the treatment of these private—these person's details as privacy-in-confidence.

So fair enough, their details, their names and addresses won't be disclosed, the suburbs in which this work is done, but what reporting is done, I suppose, the acquittal of the money; how closely Council works with these individuals and what return we get, I suppose. We support the program. I want to reiterate that. I just want to know how, as a Council and Councillors and the community more generally, who are paying the $500,000 in funds here, how that work is going and what reporting, I suppose, comes back to this Chamber.

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, Pullenvale Ward is certainly the largest in the city and predominately there is a lot of community members out there, not just community groups, but also private landholders, who are part of the Land for Wildlife program, who actually utilise this grants program to support them with their greenspace on their properties. But, in particular, I want to put on record that the land that they work on is theirs. The land that they work on, they work with Land for Wildlife officers with Brisbane City Council.

But with Pullenvale Ward, a lot of the land connects to both Council's neighbouring land, but also to the State Government's neighbouring land. So all of those parts of those parcels of land are actually publicly used and, in most cases, some of these large parcels, owned by residents, who utilise their conservation grants program, actually allow the public to utilise their space as well.

So in terms of accountability and how the funds are being used, I'm happy to take other Councillors within this Chamber out to the Pullenvale Ward, maybe even on horseback if they feel they dare to do that, to actually be able to see some of the terrain where these weeds have been that these grants have actually been able to eradicate. Thank you, Madam Chairman.


LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, just to respond a little bit to Councillor CASSIDY’s concern, Madam Chairman, with all of these grant recipients, firstly, as I said at the start, they have to sign a wildlife agreement, the Land for Wildlife agreement. That, Madam Chairman, carries with it certain responsibilities. Now, within that process, our own teams obviously do their own audits within the scheme of grants program, as we do with the Lord Mayor’s Suburban Initiative grant and a whole lot of other things.

There is a process of acquittal that approves, Madam Chairman, and so it is with these that we have to do those things, Madam Chairman, to (a) satisfy Auditor-General's requirements where we are giving grants out, where we're


- 81 -

dealing with public money. So that is certainly the case. So hopefully that goes some of the way to at least satisfying Councillor CASSIDY's concern.

Chairman: I will now put the item.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment Committee of 22 October 2018 was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER and Councillor Ryan MURPHY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 23 - 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, Norm WYNDHAM, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.


ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Vicki Howard, Peter Matic, and David McLachlan.

MATERIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS/CONFLICT OF INTERESTS:

Clause A The Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk), Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner), and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Vicki Howard, Peter Matic, and David McLachlan declared a conflict of interest in Clause A. Clause A was then referred to Council pursuant to section 177E of the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2018-19106/335/1240/36

386/2018-191. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. The Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCA) is a Council program which provides assistance to groups and individuals within Council’s Community Conservation Partnerships Program (CCPP). These groups and individuals undertake environmental restoration work which delivers habitat and weed management outcomes.

3. CCA is delivered through panel providers coordinated by Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure. Individuals and organisations do not receive cash.

4. Private landowners who have signed a Land for Wildlife agreement with Council and have demonstrated a commitment to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on their land are eligible to apply for CCA.

5. Applications for CCA 2018-19 opened on 2 July 2018 and closed on 30 July 2018. A total of 91 applications were received. Each application was assessed against criteria to rank the project’s biodiversity value, natural landscape linkage, weed priority significance, maintenance capacity of the


- 82 -

applicant and CCPP officer support. Vegetation significance was also considered using information from Council’s contemporary vegetation mapping. Assessment recommendations, project scopes and funding amounts were reviewed by a Comparative Assessment Committee comprising of senior staff from Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability.

6. As a result of this assessment, 69 applications valued at a total of $498,916.03 are recommended for full or partial funding (Attachment B, submitted on file). This consists of 28 projects on Council land (valued at $248,916.03) and 41 projects on private land (valued at $250,000).

7. Standby projects are also proposed to mitigate the risk of under expenditure. The two standby projects (valued at $11,300) are listed in Attachment B (submitted on file). Standby projects will be implemented if savings are realised after successful projects are fully scoped and budgeted, or unforeseen cancellations occur.

8. Prioritisation of standby projects has been determined by the Comparative Assessment Committee in consultation with CCPP officers. The 20 applications not recommended for funding are outlined in Attachment C (submitted on file).

9. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2018-19, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT B, submitted on file.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

Any debate?

Councillor BOURKE: Yes.


Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I just rise to speak quickly on the Centenary suburbs bus review, which was the subject of the Committee presentation last week, Madam Chairman. For those who have heard me speak in this Chamber before about the traffic issues in the Centenary suburbs, we are very constrained, given the river, the Ipswich Motorway and the Centenary Highway being the main ways in and out of the Centenary suburbs, Madam Chairman. The Centenary Motorway is a car park at the best of times and the Ipswich Motorway is also a car park.

The Centenary Highway carries somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 vehicles a day and has the same infrastructure that it had 30 years ago and with no major investment happening along the Centenary Highway through my ward, other than a section to the south, which is now in my ward, Madam Chairman, which was undertaken by the Howard government that they funded the State to fix up the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Highway intersection, Madam Chairman. What this means is my residents have to find other ways to get in and around the suburbs and catching public transport is something that my residents do.

That was proved by the results of the survey and the work that was done as part of the consultation for the centenary suburbs bus review. Madam Chairman, I have had regular correspondence with residents around the need to improve


- 83 -

public transport and that's why I went to the DEPUTY MAYOR and asked for a review of the bus services in the Centenary suburbs and the DEPUTY MAYOR outlined this afternoon about the work that we had done to try and convince TransLink to come on board and it was unfortunate that TransLink didn't see merit in this, so we pushed ahead on our own.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank all the residents that have had their say on the bus review and congratulate them for putting their views forward and I also want to thank the Council officers for taking that on board and also coming up with some great options that are going to be implemented.

So I was really pleased to learn that Council is going to be funding two new PPT, Personalised Public Transport, routes in the Centenary suburbs; one down Westlake Drive, Madam Chairman, capturing an area that isn't able to be serviced by standard Council buses, but one where I have for quite a number of years had residents frequently asking for the access and provision of public transport; and the other one, Madam Chairman, is a bus service running from Mt Ommaney Shopping Centre down through the Sumner Park industrial estate to the Wacol train station.

We had tried previously to get a bus route down to the Wacol Train Station, but like in the DEPUTY MAYOR's ward, Madam Chairman, the Wacol train station is not actually in the Brisbane City Council 3G contracted area, so while it's part of the City of Brisbane and while it is a major opportunity to connect public transport opportunities, we can't run a Council bus to the Wacol train station, but we can, Madam Chairman, facilitate a personalised public transport option.

What this will hopefully do, through the 12-month trial, is demonstrate that there is a need to connect that industrial and job generator to public transport, Madam Chairman, instead of having people who want to catch a bus to the Sumner Park industrial estate have to get off the bus at the top of a hill and have over a kilometre walk to some parts of the industrial estate to get to their job.

Madam Chairman, outside of those which are being delivered by Council, the DEPUTY MAYOR and I are going to continue to push TransLink to implement a range of other options, so there were five other options that are being sent now to TransLink for consideration. So an additional early morning trip on the inbound City Express routes for the 453 and the 454, Madam Chairman.

There's also a merge of the three precinct and two peak hour Rocket services and extended services into the southern CBD, so that's going to be using Legacy Way to provide better public transport, Madam Chairman, for the residents in the centenary suburbs. Also increased middle of the day frequency, so it's not just about getting to and from work.

It's about getting around the suburbs and getting to Indooroopilly, Madam Chairman, getting to the University of Queensland in the middle of the day and also higher frequency for the eastern suburbs, so that's Sinnamon Park, Seventeen Mile Rocks, Madam Chairman, to get to train stations. We have Darra station. It is a major hub. It's the joint end of the line for the Springfield line and the Ipswich line, Madam Chairman, but the park and ride facilities there are not suitable and the only way to get efficient use of that facility is to have better bus services.

So we're putting the challenge to TransLink to adopt these. They didn't want to be part of the review, but they can't ignore the residents of the Centenary suburbs and they need to get on and deliver better public transport for the residents in my ward.


DEPUTY MAYOR?

I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.


- 84 -


ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Kara Cook, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CENTENARY BUS SERVICES COMMUNITY RESEARCH

387/2018-191. Greg Spelman, Manager, Strategy and Network Services, Transport for Brisbane, attended the meeting

to provide an update on the Centenary bus services community research. He provided the information below.

2. Council proposed a joint review of the Centenary bus services to TransLink in September 2017, February 2018 and May 2018. TransLink declined to participate in the joint review in September 2017, March 2018, June 2018 and September 2018.

3. In July 2018, Council received four petitions with a total of 356 signatures seeking a review of bus services within the Centenary suburbs. The petitioners sought better connectivity to local train stations and access to the Sumner Park Industrial Estate from Wacol.

4. Council responded to the petitioners informing them that any significant network change should involve community engagement to ensure changes align with community interests. Council will undertake community research to ascertain those views, however, TransLink has the overall responsibility for the bus network and funding of the network.

5. The characteristics of the Centenary suburbs indicate there is lower density of population, higher car ownership, higher average age and higher household income than other parts of Brisbane. The population in this area is expected to increase by only 0.3% from 2011 to 2036, compared to 1.1% for the whole of Brisbane. Most of the population growth of the Centenary suburbs is expected to be in the Darra-Sumner corridor, which is largely serviced by rail.

6. The challenges of the bus network in the Centenary suburbs and a map of the existing bus network were shared with the Committee.

7. The scope of the community research included recognition that travel needs of the community change continually. It was important to understand the community’s views and experiences using public transport in the Centenary suburbs and determine whether there are opportunities to better meet the community's public transport needs.

8. Council used three methods to conduct community research. The first method included the use of a research agency and they had a representative sample of 567 respondents. The second method included face-to-face research via kiosks in a shopping centre at which 46 respondents were surveyed. The third method was an online survey that had 393 respondents, all of whom were not necessarily from the Centenary suburbs. All three methods had the same set of questions. The key questions used in the survey were shared with the Committee.

9. Results of the community research indicated the CBD is the biggest destination, but comprises less than half of the total of bus users (39%). The CBD and inner-city area, when combined, comprise as a key destination for 58% of bus users. Other destinations experience dispersed demand, including Indooroopilly (five per cent), Mt Ommaney (seven per cent) and UQ (three per cent).

10. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents were satisfied with current services. When asked to outline the main concerns with current services, 87% of respondents indicated they had no concerns. Sixty-two per cent of respondents considered it acceptable for trips to involve one transfer rather than needing a direct service, with seven per cent indicating they would not accept transfers. Thirty-one per cent of respondents indicated they would accept two or more transfers as part of one trip.


- 85 -

11. Statistics shared with the Committee indicate the key driver for encouraging greater public transport use for both users and non-users was frequency followed by shorter journey time. There is support for new or improved bus services that connect to the local rail stations, particularly among the current non-users of bus services and eastern suburbs bus users. Support was also indicated for new or improved express services to the CBD via Legacy Way and the Inner Northern Busway, particularly from the peak period commuters and western suburbs bus users.

12. The key conclusions from the online survey indicate that a majority of respondents were from the western portion of the Centenary suburbs. They are primarily peak hour travellers with a younger demographic. The CBD remains a key destination (39%), followed by Mt Ommaney (12.6%), the inner city (11.1%), UQ (10.4%) and Indooroopilly (7.4%).

13. The survey outcomes indicate that there is no support for widespread or significant change to bus services. There is strong interest for improvements to frequency of services and increased feeder services to rail stations but roadworks will limit the short-term viability of some services. There is also some interest in more effective Rocket services via the Legacy Way. For transfers at interchanges to be effective, the customers expect shorter wait times and significant journey time reductions.

14. TransLink has overall responsibility for the public transport network and growth funding. TransLink approval will be required for any service changes. Council will provide the survey and community research outcomes to TransLink and submit proposals of potential service enhancement options for their consideration. Council will also plan and initiate a 12-month trial of two hail ‘n’ ride Personalised Public Transport (PPT) services commencing mid 2019 for areas currently not well serviced by conventional public transport.

15. Council’s proposals for TransLink consideration based on the research outcomes were shared with the Committee.

16. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Spelman for his informative presentation.

17. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.ADOPTED

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER?

Any debate?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item B.

Seriatim - Clause BCouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE RETIREMENT VILLAGE AND SURROUNDING LOCAL RESIDENTS IN YERONGA, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, unfortunately, the issue of road and pedestrian safety near The Village at Yeronga has a long and sordid history under this LNP Administration. At the time the DA was initially approved on that site I was a candidate for election in 2008. I sought advice from the then shadow Infrastructure spokesperson, now LORD MAYOR, Councillor QUIRK.

He assured me at the time that the DA addressed the traffic matters, which it really didn't, and (2) that if there was a problem down the track, we would be


- 86 -

able to fix it. Now, I lobbied very hard in my first couple of years as a Councillor for additional safe crossing points along Hyde Road in Yeronga. It was an issue that was clearly raised with me. It's a very busy road, Hyde Road. Vehicles go at a very high speed. It's a location where I put a SAM (Speed Awareness Monitor) sign and a Slow Down sign.

So we have an enormous volume of records already available to this Council about the number of vehicles using this street, the type of vehicles using this street and the speed of the vehicles using this street. In fact, the SAM is there at the moment, to my knowledge. The problem happened here several years ago when the refuge was proposed for between the dog park and the shops at Hyde Road. There was a design drawn up. It was presented to The Village and several members of the executive of The Village at that time felt that it was discriminatory that they didn't get traffic lights.

Several of them believed that if they took their case to the LORD MAYOR, they would get traffic lights. Possibly some of them were members of the Liberal Party who believed they had a conduit to get this done. Well, I don't say possibly, I know they were. So unfortunately The Village then got a second petition going, saying they wanted to wait for traffic lights. Now, when this matter came to Council back—oh god—four or five years ago now, I spoke in this place about the fact that these residents would get nothing, based on Council's response. I'm so sad that say that I've been right.

So for the past four or five years, these residents have literally got nothing. Now, let's be clear. This is an area where Council allowed a major up-zoning of a site. There are now five blocks of retirement village units up to seven stories and a nursing home block and there is no safe crossing point for the 350 units that are there, all with people of an older age group. All of them. They have no safe way of crossing between their retirement village and the shops on the opposite side of the road. Now, this is distressing them. It's distressing me, because we've been in here so many times.

The last petition a couple of years ago was calling for the refuge. What did Council do? We'll need to do a pedestrian count. So I followed up on that. Council never did it. Council never did it. They said, oh, we're only going to do a pedestrian count when we list it. Council won't list it. This is a terrible, terrible circumstance. This retirement developer is a for-profit developer. They paid $5 million in infrastructure charges, some of which was offset for sewage works, but this Council got $3 million plus in cash—in cash—and they're not spending it in the local area to ensure that residents can safely cross the road.

I am so concerned that an older person will be hit trying to cross to get to their local shops. This is a shocking, shocking set of circumstances and an indictment on the LNP. The response before us today is just hopeless. Yet again, Council is simply telling the residents they will do nothing. They're saying they won't spend the money to prioritise infrastructure where it's most needed. Well, I can tell you, the elderly residents of The Village believe it is most needed here. The intersection does not meet the warrants for traffic signals and the use of infrastructure charges is not supported.

Let me be clear, the lights were proposed by Council traffic officers five years ago. The officers proposed it. Not me. That was the response in the petition approved by this Council that now you say we're not going to do. I don't think that's good enough. I know that at The Village at Coorparoo, traffic lights got put in there as an election commitment to those residents. I doubt there was even a survey done. I can tell you now this is owned by the same group. It's not lost on the residents that that's an LNP Ward and this is an independent ward. So this Administration has let elderly residents down.

The fact that Council will reinvestigate the suitability of a pedestrian crossing facility, the LORD MAYOR was in the paper just two months ago saying if residents wanted a refuge, they would—he would do it. He would do it. That's why I did the petition. Clearly, I've come in here with a petition of hundreds of residents to take the LORD MAYOR up, who's not even here in the Chamber,


- 87 -

but to take the LORD MAYOR up on his commitment made publicly to residents that if they wanted a refuge, he would do it.

Well, I can't think of any greater disrespect to those residents than this response that they are going to get from Council. We'll have another look at it. You've been having a look at it every year for the last five years, because we've had petition after petition after petition. It is simply not good enough. Lights are what is needed here. It is the best and safest option. Cansdale Street is on a major bend. It services both the QAFL (Australian Football League Queensland) and the Hellenic Soccer Club and they're huge big sporting organisations and it is chaos down there on the weekends. There is a huge, new retirement complex there and a nursing home.

Lights are what is needed to make this intersection safer. The failure of this Administration to act is appalling. In response to the request to slow traffic down, they're saying Council will conduct a new seven-day traffic survey. Honestly, the SAM is there every year. The Slow Down sign is there right now. You don't need to do another survey. You've got all the data in the world. It is one of two of the highest speeding locations on a consistent basis in my ward, the other being the parallel road to that called Kadumba Street. There is a problem here.

It is just not good enough that you are putting off these residents with a do-nothing response. I am so disappointed that, yet again, the LNP is letting down residents who, in good faith, have come to them asking for Council to take action. That is to build the refuge but, preferably, to install lights. Now, I'm not giving up on lights. I think it is the best solution that we can offer, but it is clear that this LNP Administration is planning to do nothing, yet again. The last petition response two years ago said Council was going to go away and do a survey and they never did it. That's—I asked questions. They just haven't done it.

I just think it is appalling; to let residents down in this way is shameful, particularly older residents who absolutely want to make sure that they can safely access the community. We've heard the debate tonight about retirement villages. You all stood up and said how important they are as the LNP. I stood up in that debate and said you can't do them without the necessary services and infrastructure needed to support older residents living in that community. This is a prime example of that—prime example.

It is just not good enough that you are refusing to do important pedestrian upgrades that match the needs of the residents who live in that area. You up zoned it. You approved it and you now have 300 odd—350, I think it is, units in that retirement village and they have no safe way of crossing the road. Plus, the elderly people in the nursing home, plus all the residents who live there, plus the sporting clubs, plus the active travel school that just won school of the year, 250 metres up the road. I mean, all of this, and yet does this Administration see the need to act? No, it does not. No, it does not. I think it is appalling.

Shame on you. I will not support a do-nothing response.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.


At that time, 7.04pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of one hour, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors have been locked.


UPON RESUMPTION:



- 88 -

Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise to speak to item A and it's very important that I make a contribution to the debate about Howard Smith Wharves. It's an important build for Brisbane, a facility for families to enjoy and a new backyard for many residents in Central Ward. Representing Brisbane's inner city, I am proud to be part of a Council that has initiated several transformative projects that will continue to enhance Brisbane's global reputation.

The Brisbane City Master Plan of 2014 established a new direction for our city centre and delivers on the vision of an open Brisbane. Open for business, an open outdoor lifestyle and open for all people to enjoy. The public realm is so important to the delivery of this vision because in Brisbane we enjoy the open air and we have the opportunity to embrace the many beauties the Brisbane River has to offer. Active transport, ferries, CityCats, marinas, events and recreation.

Of course, one of the landmark projects of this Council moving forward is the revitalisation of the Howard Smith Wharves underneath our beautiful Story Bridge. For many decades, this iconic site has been nothing more than a neglected wasteland. Deserted since the navy and water police moved on, the wharves, which are bounded by spectacular cliffs and vistas of the river, have offered nothing more than fenced off sheds and a thoroughfare for cyclists and pedestrians.

Following years of extensive consultation with local stakeholders, I am over the moon that this area will soon be fully transformed into a spectacular new public space that will bustle with restaurants, conference and hotel facilities, markets, retail and tourism. The rundown heritage listed buildings that are on site are being restored and repurposed, bringing Brisbane's past, present and future together, creating the South Bank of the future.

Madam Chairman, you will have heard me talk previously about ensuring that Central Ward has parts as beautiful as our children, Howard Smith Wharves will be one of those parts in years to come as together we transfer from an eyesore to an icon. Unlike previous representatives, I was elected not to play games with this parkland. The toing and froing whipped up by desperate politicians posturing from the past needed to stop.

The posturing needed to stop because this was a remarkable opportunity to restore the last remaining wharf site in Brisbane's city centre. The posturing needed to stop because the parkland will provide a magnificent public space for recreational activities. The posturing needed to stop because this will be a fantastic commercial development which will bring more tourists to the city and create jobs.

I know the Howard Smith Wharves rejuvenation will celebrate the best that Brisbane has to offer and am fully supportive of what the LORD MAYOR, Councillor COOPER, our stakeholders in industry and the majority of the community want to see and I'm very glad we have all worked together to give Brisbane a world class waterfront destination.



Councillor COOPER?

I now put items A and C.

Clauses A and C put

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

Chairman: I will now put item B.


- 89 -

Clause B put

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

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


AYES: 18 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 4 - Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Steve Griffiths and Kim Marx.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HOWARD SMITH WHARVES

389/2018-191. Dean Morse, Manager, Project Management, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, and

Marie Gales, Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide information on Howard Smith Wharves (HSW) and U-turn signage at traffic signals. They provided the information below.

2. Stage one of the HSW project was opened to the public on 13 November 2018. Stage one involved works on the Rivershed lawn, the main lawn and grass amphitheatre to accommodate everyday public leisure activities, festivals, weddings and functions. The opening of stage one also featured a new public river edge boardwalk; public artwork; shared cycle and pedestrian paths adjoining Riverwalk and connecting through to the city boardwalks; parkland lighting; and creative lighting illuminating cliff walls.

3. Stage four of the HSW project, which comprised Howard’s Hall and adjacent parkland areas, was opened on 15 November 2018. Completed works included the Howard’s Hall exhibition space; conservation of WWII bunkers; pod landscaping; east and central lawns for everyday public leisure activities, markets, festivals, weddings and functions; river stairs connecting the site with the water’s edge and allowing for kayak access to the river; public artwork; extensive soft landscaping; and access paths.

4. Works are currently underway to establish the dining and lifestyle precinct as part of stages one, two and five of the HSW project. Once completed, the dining and lifestyle precinct will include a new overwater bar, Mr Percival’s; restaurants including Stanley, Toko and Greca; a public river edge boardwalk including an operable awning cover; a shared cycle and pedestrian path connecting Riverwalk through to the city boardwalks; parkland lighting; and creative lighting illuminating cliff walls. The dining and lifestyle precinct is expected to open in December 2018.

5. A new boutique Art Series Hotel at HSW is expected to open in March 2019. The planned works will also establish a new CityCycle station at the entry of the site, and a shared car, cycle and pedestrian


- 90 -

zone, which will form the entry to the hotel. The shared zone will also allow for broader site vehicular access via a new roundabout with soft landscaping features.

6. Construction of a ferry terminal at HSW is due to begin in late 2019. The ferry terminal will be serviced by CityFerry, which currently services the Thornton Street, Eagle Street and Holman Street terminals. The completion of the ferry terminal will reinforce HSW’s historical link to the Brisbane River, and provide residents and visitors with an alternative public transport link.

7. The Committee was also informed of updates on U-turn signage at traffic signals.

8. There is concern that some motorists are confused by existing U-turn signage at signalised intersections. In response, Council has proposed to trial simplified U-turn signage at traffic signals at six ‘hot spot’ locations for the duration of 12 months. The Department of Transport and Main Roads has approved the proposed trial.

9. The proposed trial will take place at the following ‘hot spot’ locations.- Logan Road, Greenslopes

- northern approach to the traffic lights at Curd Street- Logan Road, Holland Park

- northern approach to the traffic lights at Birdwood Road- Manly Road, Tingalpa

- western approach to the traffic lights at Castelrea Street- Beaudesert Road, Moorooka

- southern approach to the traffic lights at Durack Street- Gowan Road, Stretton

- southern approach to the traffic lights at Compton Road- Main Street, Kangaroo Point

- northern approach to the traffic lights at River Terrace.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Morse and Ms Gales for their informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE RETIREMENT VILLAGE AND SURROUNDING LOCAL RESIDENTS IN YERONGACA18/836624

390/2018-1912. A petition from residents, requesting Council improve pedestrian safety for the residents of The Village

retirement village and surrounding local residents in Yeronga, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 11 September 2018, by Councillor Steve Griffiths on behalf of Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

13. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

14. The petition contains 142 signatures. Of the petitioners, 129 live at The Village retirement village at the intersection of Cansdale Street and Hyde Road, three from other streets in Yeronga and 10 from other suburbs of the City of Brisbane.

15. The petitioners are requesting that pedestrian safety be improved in the vicinity of The Village retirement village which is located at the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street, Yeronga. The petitioners are requesting funding be allocated from infrastructure funds paid as part of the original development to prioritise traffic signals at the intersection as well as a reduced speed limit and a pedestrian refuge connecting the local shops with a nearby dog off-leash area.


- 91 -

16. Hyde Road has a speed limit of 60 km/h and is classified as a district road under Council’s road hierarchy providing through movement of people and goods as well as access to local residential properties. There is one Council bus route (route 105) operating along Hyde Road. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

17. The investigation for pedestrian improvements on Hyde Road near the intersection of Cansdale Street has been subject to five previous petitions. Two petitions were received at the end of 2012 (file references CA12/447099 and CA12/538331), totalling 325 signatures, requesting Council not to install a pedestrian refuge and to instead prioritise a signalised pedestrian crossing. At the time, $100,000 had been allocated in Council’s 2012-2013 budget for the design and construction of a pedestrian refuge at the location.

18. Council identified that in order to provide a signalised pedestrian crossing, it would be necessary to signalise the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street. The outcome of the two petitions was that due to the objections raised, Council would no longer proceed with the pedestrian refuge and instead list the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street for signalisation. The improvement would therefore be subject to future budget allocations.

19. The third petition, received in 2014 (file reference CA14/243734) with 137 signatures, was requesting the installation of a pedestrian crossing facility at the same location as the 2012 proposal. The petition outcome explained the funding allocation from 2012-2013 for a pedestrian refuge which was at the same location requested in the 2014 petition. The outcome also explained that based on community feedback from the two subsequent petitions objecting to this proposal, a pedestrian refuge was no longer being considered at this location and the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street was listed for signalisation.

20. The two most recent petitions in 2017 (file references CA17/278150 and CA17/305050), totalling 217 signatures, requested the signalisation of the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street including the provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing. As a result of these petitions, a new traffic survey was undertaken to update the data relating to the intersection.

21. With regard to the current request for a signalised pedestrian crossing, the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street remains listed for the signalisation subject to future budget prioritisation against competing citywide projects. However, it is noted that the traffic volumes and accident history at this intersection do not meet the requirements for signals outlined in the Austroads ‘traffic warrants’.

22. The previous pedestrian refuge design (shown in Attachment C (submitted on file)) created in 2012-2013 did not proceed due to demonstrated community feedback at the time which sought the installation of a signalised crossing.

23. The previous design would create a significantly improved pedestrian access between the residential properties and shops on the southern side of Hyde Road with the retirement village, dog park and sporting facilities on the northern side of the road. It would therefore be recommended that this option be reinvestigated for future consideration.

24. The petitioners’ request for infrastructure charges to fund the installation of the traffic signals has been noted. The charges collected by Council contribute to fund the provision of essential trunk infrastructure across the Brisbane City Council Local Government Area. The use of these funds is efficiently prioritised to ensure that infrastructure is delivered where it is required most and that these costs are not passed on to ratepayers. As the intersection does not meet the warrants for traffic signals, the use of infrastructure charges is not supported.

25. The current speed limit along Hyde Road is 60 km/h between Fairfield Road and Utzon Street. Speed limits throughout Brisbane are set in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which is published and continually updated by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The MUTCD contains the guidelines which Council must adhere to when determining an appropriate speed limit for roads. The guidelines take into consideration many factors including the road geometry, function of the road, and adjacent land usage.

26. In order to determine if there could be merit in a formalised speed limit review for Hyde Road, an updated 7-day traffic survey will be undertaken.


- 92 -

Consultation

27. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

28. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

29. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Peter Cumming and Steve Griffiths abstaining.

30. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA18/836624

Thank you for your petition requesting Council improve safety for the residents of The Village retirement village and surrounding local residents in Yeronga.

The intersection of Cansdale Street and Hyde Road at Yeronga remains listed for consideration for future signalisation, subject to future budget prioritisation against other competing citywide projects. However, it is noted that the intersection does not meet any of the requirements for signals outlined in the Austroads ‘traffic warrants’.

Your request for infrastructure charges to fund the installation of the traffic signals has been noted. The charges collected by Council contribute to fund the provision of essential trunk infrastructure across the Brisbane City Council Local Government Area. The use of these funds is efficiently prioritised to ensure that infrastructure is delivered where it is required most and that these costs are not passed on to ratepayers. As the intersection does not meet the warrants for traffic signals, the use of infrastructure charges is not supported.

Council will re-investigate the suitability of a pedestrian refuge crossing facility in the vicinity of the Cansdale Street intersection. If the location meets the warrants to be listed for consideration, this would also be subject to future budget prioritisation relative to other citywide priorities.

With regard to the request for a review of the speed limit on Hyde Road, Council will undertake a new 7-day traffic survey to determine if the current usage is suitable to warrant a formal speed limit review process.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Michael Denman, Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0985.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED


- 93 -

C PETITION – ABOUT PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES TO FLEETWAY STREET, MORNINGSIDECA18/842529

391/2018-1931. A petition from residents, about proposed parking changes to Fleetway Street, Morningside, was

received during the Spring Recess 2018.

32. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

33. The petition contains six signatures. All of the petitioners reside on Fleetway Street.

34. The petitioners suggest that the proposed changes to parking on Fleetway Street, Morningside, to assist with waste collection, will inconvenience residents. The petitioners are requesting an on-site meeting to discuss an alternative solution.

35. Fleetway Street is considered to be a neighbourhood access road in Council’s road hierarchy, providing access to local residential properties. There are no Council bus services operating on Fleetway Street and it is not a through access route as it ends in a cul-de-sac at its south-eastern end. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

36. Fleetway Street is approximately seven metres wide. While this width is not uncommon across Brisbane, Council received enquiries in February 2018 about how rubbish collection is facilitated on narrow streets. It was noted that rubbish collection vehicles were having difficulty accessing the section between Pinedale Street and the cul-de-sac due to illegal parking. In response, Council sent information letters in March 2018 to local residents of Fleetway Street reminding them of the parking regulations contained in the Queensland Road Rules, including the requirement to ensure three metres of clear road space is maintained for passing vehicles.

37. The attempts made to encourage residents to self-regulate the parking issues were unsuccessful and, as such, parking restrictions have been proposed to resolve the matter. In order to measure community support for these changes, consultation letters were sent to all properties on Fleetway Street between Pinedale Street and the cul-de-sac. The proposed restrictions were either ‘No Stopping’ to cover the waste collection times (6am-12pm Tuesday only) or the installation of permanent ‘No Stopping’ restrictions. Council received 12 responses including this petition which was received separately. The consultation results indicated 58% supported ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the waste collection day of service.

38. In response to this petition, Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, is willing to meet with local residents to discuss the issues raised and determine an appropriate way forward to address the waste collection issues.

Consultation

39. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

40. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

41. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

42. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.


- 94 -

Attachment ADraft response

Petition Reference: CA18/842529

Thank you for your petition about proposed parking changes to Fleetway Street, Morningside.

Fleetway Street is approximately seven metres wide. While this width is not uncommon across Brisbane, Council received enquiries in February 2018 about how rubbish collection is facilitated on narrow streets. It was noted that rubbish collection vehicles were having difficulty accessing the section between Pinedale Street and the cul-de-sac due to illegal parking. In response, Council sent information letters in March 2018 to local residents of Fleetway Street reminding them of the parking regulations contained in the Queensland Road Rules, including the requirement to ensure three metres of clear road space is maintained for passing vehicles.

The attempts made to encourage residents to self-regulate the parking issues were unsuccessful and, as such, parking restrictions have been proposed to resolve the matter. In order to measure community support for these changes, consultation letters were sent to all properties on Fleetway Street between Pinedale Street and the cul-de-sac. The proposed restrictions were either ‘No Stopping’ to cover the waste collection times (6am-12pm Tuesday only) or the installation of permanent ‘No Stopping’ restrictions. Council received 12 responses including this petition which was received separately. The consultation results indicated 58% supported ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the waste collection day of service.

In response to this petition, Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, is willing to meet with local residents to discuss the issues raised and determine an appropriate way forward to address the waste collection issues. To arrange this meeting, please contact the Morningside Ward Office, on (07) 3407 8200 or via email at [email protected].

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr David Clarke, Senior Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 5601.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.


Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, just before I get to the two items that are on the Committee report, there was a bit of a debate during the townhouse amendment package a little bit earlier this afternoon around Doolandella. Councillor STRUNK was sharing his frustration and how upset he was about the townhouse developments that had occurred out at Doolandella and how the residents didn't know that they would be living next to townhouses, Madam Chairman, and how apparently it was our fault on this side of the Council chamber.

A little bit of history goes a long way in this place, Madam Chairman, because what I've got here is the Planning for the Future of Doolandella newsletter from October 2003 which was done by the Australian—so who was in power back then? It was the Australian Labor Party.



- 95 -

Councillor BOURKE: Now, I'll take Councillor CASSIDY's comments about his fashion sense at the time.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, it was actually Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor BOURKE: Councillor STRUNK. Sorry. So here is the Doolandella Local Plan brought in by the Australian Labor Party who—it probably is right that the residents know because the local councillor at the time in the Soorley administration probably didn't tell them what they were doing but you can clearly see, Madam Chairman, along Blunder Road here there's some very dark purple blocks. As you get further down Blunder Road to where an intersection with Brookside Street and Crossacres Street, you actually move into multi-unit dwelling zonings, Madam Chairman.

As you go further down then into Redhead Street, Madam Chairman, and further down Blunder Road, you continue to go into the houses and multi-unit dwellings zoning. So this isn't the product of this Administration, Councillor STRUNK, through you, Madam Chairman. This is planning that was done at the hand of the Australian Labor Party that facilitated those townhouse developments that are going on that you so ardently tried to push back as saying these were the result of City Plan 2014. No.

No, Councillor STRUNK. These were at the hand of your own Australian Labor Party, just like the original amendment 40 years ago that actually introduced the provisions for 3,000 square metre lot townhouses to be built in this city. It was your own party's doing. So when you try to get up in this place and provide a lecture when it comes to planning maybe just do a little bit of history, have a look at some of the history and go back to what the actual root of the zoning was as opposed to just trying to make up these fairy tale stories about how City Plan 2014 caused the townhouses down there in Doolandella, Madam Chairman, through you to Councillor STRUNK.

Turning to the report, Madam Chairman, there's two items on the report. There's a presentation about the Character Design Forum, Madam Chairman. This is something that I've spoken about in the Council Chamber before. It's an outcome of the Plan your Brisbane exercise and Brisbane's Future Blueprint. It was one of the recommendations. I had the pleasure of launching the Character Design Forum down at the Powerhouse with Councillor HOWARD a few weeks ago, Madam Chairman.

We had a great group of concerned and interested local residents down there to talk about not only Queenslanders but other traditional building types here in the city and what are the important elements but also how can we facilitate the much needed renovations that happen in those without losing the character and without losing those important elements as well, Madam Chairman.

The other item, Madam Chairman, was a petition around the Sue's Korner shopping precinct at Boondall being included in the Village Precinct Projects and I'm happy to leave that item for debate in the Council Chamber.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just on item A, the presentation on the design forum. We support the design forum going ahead and going forward but the particular time of year in which the public consultation is happening could probably have been held for longer or perhaps at a time of year not during school holidays to ensure that we have a better engagement with the community. But nonetheless we support this process.

On the petition for Sue's Korner shopping area to be included in the Village Precinct Project, I put on record, as I have in the past and did in the Committee meeting, that the process of which projects were selected has been flawed from the start. We were told first of all at the budget there were no projects selected.


- 96 -

Subsequently a whole heap of projects materialised out of nothing seemingly. So that process has been flawed from the very start.

However, the petition response before us, which I do support, does state that the Sue's Korner precinct will be listed for upgrade and certainly I will be including that in my budget bid to the LORD MAYOR and look forward to seeing funding for planning in next year's budget.


Councillor BOURKE?


Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Ryan Murphy (A/Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Jared Cassidy, Steven Huang and Jonathan Sri.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman).

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CHARACTER DESIGN FORUM

392/2018-191. Omar Barragan, Design Brisbane Manager, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning

and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Character Design Forum. He provided the information below.

2. The Character Design Forum (the forum) is an online forum for residents to have their say about how Queensland houses and other traditional residential designs should be adapted and extended.

3. Improving design quality in the city was a strong theme that emerged from the Plan your Brisbane consultation, which took place in late 2017 and early 2018. This consultation engaged widely across the city with more than 100,000 residents having their say and participation from every suburb in Brisbane.

4. The consultation resulted in the principles and actions encompassed in Brisbane’s Future Blueprint (the Blueprint). These include: Ensure best practice design that complements the character of Brisbane; Empower and engage residents; Protect the Brisbane backyard and our unique character.

5. Specific design-related actions in the Blueprint include the creation of the forum for residents to guide the preservation of our city’s Queenslanders and other traditional designs. This is part of a wide range of actions such as the establishment of a design office for the city, Design Brisbane, and a design strategy for the whole city. Other actions such as a Design Rating Scheme, design guides, Brisbane City Plan 2014 amendments and the Intergenerational Planning Forum will allow for residents and the industry to further have their say, and shape design excellence for the city.

6. Queenslander houses and other traditional residential designs are found across at least 90 suburbs in Brisbane. They are an important part of our identity and our lifestyle. However, home owners are wanting to extend and adapt these buildings to meet with modern lifestyles and expectations. That’s what this forum is seeking to explore; what are residents’ tolerances for change and what are the design principles that should guide future management of these important city assets.

7. In order to provide the greatest opportunity for residents to contribute, the forum has been developed as an online forum via Council’s website using the EngagementHQ platform to host a series of activities. These have been developed to stimulate residents to think about the character of their area, how individual Queenslander houses and other traditional houses contribute to that character, and why it is


- 97 -

valuable. The activities are a combination of both short and longer activities and allow people to participate in different ways and revisit the site multiple times. The feedback gathered from the online forum will be analysed and a set of design principles will be published in early 2019. These will guide the management of these important assets.

8. Residents can upload photographs of their favourite character houses and adaptions and they can provide feedback as to why Queenslander houses and other traditional designs are special to them. Importantly, the forum gives residents the opportunity to select and discuss the different elements that are critical to the character of these buildings and their contribution to the street. Council encourages all residents across the city to have their say, and to inform the development of a set of design principles that will guide the future management of this iconic housing. The forum will be available online until 31 December 2018. Images of different Queenslander houses and feedback received online were shown to the Committee members.

9. To celebrate the commencement of the online forum, Council hosted a launch event at the Brisbane Powerhouse on 10 November 2018. The event was oversubscribed within a few hours, demonstrating the level of interest in this topic from the community. Residents had the opportunity to have a face to face discussion with Council officers and to discuss some of the activities available on the online forum. Speakers at the launch included Catriona Drummond and Costa Kassab from the Brisbane based animation studio, Ludo. Ludo has developed a new cartoon for ABC Kids called Bluey which showcases our beautiful city to the world, in particular Queenslander houses. Other speakers at the event included Stuart Vokes and Aaron Peters from the Brisbane based architectural firm Vokes and Peters, who spoke about the important components of the Queenslander house style.

10. The activities of the forum allowed attendees to discuss the different elements of Queenslander houses and other traditional designs and how important they are in contributing to character, as well as the different style and approaches to adaptations and extensions. Attendees at the launch event also contributed their views on why Queenslander houses and other traditional designs matter to them. Some examples were read to the Committee members.

11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Barragan for his informative presentation.

12. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING SUE’S KORNER SHOPPING PRECINCT, BOONDALL, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19CA18/923837

393/2018-1913. A petition from residents requesting Sue’s Korner shopping precinct be included as part of the Village

Precinct Projects initiative for 2018-19, was received during the Spring Recess 2018.

14. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided the following information.

15. The petition contains 39 signatures.

16. The Sue’s Korner shopping precinct is located at the intersection of Sandgate, Beams and Stanworth Roads, Boondall. The petitioners maintain that the proposed project would enhance and beautify the precinct, which is a busy local hub for the community that has not received any upgrades. Photographs of the current Sue’s Korner shopping precinct area are provided at Attachment A (submitted on file).

17. Subject to budget deliberations, the site will be listed for consideration for inclusion in a future Village Precincts Project program.

Funding


- 98 -

18. Subject to budget considerations, funding for site investigations may be sought under Program 4 (Village Precinct Projects) during the 2019-20 financial year.

Consultation

19. Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

20. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathan Sri dissenting.

21. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECT PROGRAM DELIVERY BUDGET HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOCATED FOR 2018-19. HOWEVER, THE SUE’S KORNER SHOPPING PRECINCT, BOONDALL, WILL BE PUT ONTO COUNCIL’S LIST OF SITES FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMINING FUTURE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS.

ADOPTED

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 of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Before I get to the item before us, I just need to go back to last week's Committee meeting and also to today's Committee meeting. We had a fairly full agenda in our Committee today and I wasn't able to answer questions that have been asked in last week's meeting and I said I would provide some answers to those questions.

Last week in the Committee, Councillor JOHNSTON demanded answers to several questions, some of which I believe have privacy issues. So I'll be careful in how I respond to the questions that were posed because I think it would be inappropriate to provide some of the answers to the questions she asked. Councillor JOHNSTON did stand up in this place last week and categorised this as a refusal to answer questions and a lack of understanding or knowledge about the questions being asked.

Well, I'll go to the issues that were being raised, Madam Chairman. Councillor JOHNSTON demanded that I name the new Assistant Curator for the Sherwood Arboretum. This is an appointment that has not yet been announced and I don't know if naming that person would have breached any privacy concerns. They haven't been announced so I don't know if they're serving out notice from their current job before this becomes public knowledge. I think the question—if in the mind of Councillor JOHNSTON she regards that as a legitimate question, I encourage her to seek an answer to that via her local Assets Manager. At the end of the day, while Councillor JOHNSTON demanded answers of me in Committee on this issue, it is an Asset Services issue.

I'm very pleased to say that I was successful in my budget bid before the last budget to get this position secured so that we can proceed with providing curatorial support for the Sherwood Arboretum. That's responding to direct requests from the Friends of the Sherwood Arboretum and I'm very happy that I was successful in getting the budget secured so we could get an assistant curator to help Dale Arvidsson to assist in the management of the Sherwood Arboretum.


- 99 -

Councillor JOHNSTON also demanded to know, down the penny, what that person was being paid. Again, I don't think that's an appropriate question to answer. I'm happy to say that the person will be employed in Council's Band 6 range, but I'm not prepared to go down the path of giving Councillor JOHNSTON, despite her demands to know this sort of detail down the penny, what this person will be paid as a salary but I'm happy to say that they'll be in the Band 6 range. I'm sure Councillor JOHNSTON has the capacity to look that up and find out what that range is.

Councillor JOHNSTON also asked several questions that is all public information from the Oxley Creek Master Plan. I would encourage her to look at the Oxley Creek Master Plan to get answers to the questions she demanded. They all related to things that we've talked about in the Oxley Creek Master Plan which has been through this place.

Councillor JOHNSTON wants to ask specific details about things like the Greenway, which is a conceptual plan to link the whole length of the Oxley Creek area, down to the materials that are being provided for the pathways. Councillor JOHNSTON, come on, give us a break. This is a conceptual plan and at this stage the sort of detail that you are demanding answers to and saying we're not providing you or refusing to provide you with answers, that detail isn't yet available. But all the information that you wanted is contained in the Oxley Creek Master Plan which describes the priority projects that are underway under the Oxley Creek Master Plan.

Madam Chairman, we had an interesting presentation last week on the Student Environmental Leadership Network which is part of a Green Heart program. This is a specific program that's pitched to the tertiary to secondary students and a very successful program. It's been going since 2013 and we are providing both environmental leaders and leaders in their own right by encouraging this sort of activity.

We know that we're getting good outcomes in terms of student leaderships within the school network, within the secondary school network and, since 2013, over 300 students have graduated from that program and are providing a great network of capable informed passionate young leaders. Very pleased to see them coming through.

Related to that, if I may, I just bring to the attention of all Councillors a flyer on the Green Heart Schools program, the 2019 program. This is being mailed out to all wards in the last week, the Green Heart Schools program, which does extend and provide services across the entire school curriculum from junior school through to secondary school and beyond. So I encourage all Councillors to have a look at the Green Heart Schools 2019 program and the resources available.

Now is the time to be thinking about who you should be writing to, to encourage your local schools to make sure they know what's available in terms of resources from the Council, what is linked to school curriculum and go through what's in the primary schools' program, what's in the secondary schools' program, what's available through the environmental centres, school learning programs. Fantastic resources that are here available.

Whilst last week's program was one element of the Green Heart Schools program, there is a very substantial program that's available through 28 page document which explains everything that we're doing to provide assistance and support for schools in your wards

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


Nothing further?

I will put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.


- 100 -


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Nicole Johnston, Angela Owen and Julian Simmonds.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – STUDENT ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP NETWORK

394/2018-191. Wade Fitzgerald, Major Projects and Asset Coordination Manager, Natural Environment, Water and

Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Student Environmental Leadership Network. He provided the information below.

2. The Green Heart Schools program (the program) educates and encourages school students to live more sustainably to help create a cleaner and greener Brisbane. The program functions as a coordination point for all of Council’s school programs and involves the following events, activities and competitions.- Student Environmental Leadership Network (SELN)- Future BNE Challenge, World Science Festival Brisbane- Lord Mayor’s Green Heart Photography Competition- Teacher professional development- Teacher and student support- A regular e-newsletter- An annual mail out to all Brisbane schools

3. SELN is a unique learning and leadership program that directly engages and supports school communities. The project-based, active learning model directly supports students to acquire deeper knowledge and skills by working on real-world challenges. Each SELN school selects and implements an environmental project to improve their school’s sustainability, including communication tactics and project documentation.

4. Focusing on leadership and environmental sustainability, students develop their communication skills and leadership capacity to implement an environmental project and drive behaviour change in their schools. Nominated SELN student representatives are required to attend five Council facilitated formal meetings (one per term, with an additional orientation meeting in the first term).

5. At these meetings, students gain knowledge, confidence and leadership skills to equip them to develop and lead the behaviour change project and achieve sustainable project outcomes in their schools. Students share their learnings with their school environmental group members. The Lord Mayor, councillors and professionals in the environmental field, attend the meetings to support students to lead environmental discussions and work together to develop projects.

6. This year, there were 17 private schools and four state schools that participated in the SELN program, in comparison to previous years where the amount of participating private and state schools was almost equal. Schools that participated in the 2018 SELN program include All Hallows’ School, Ambrose Treacy College, Anglican Church Grammar School, Aspley State High School, Brigidine College, Brisbane Girls Grammar School, Clayfield College, Hillbrook Anglican School, Iona College, Loreto College Coorparoo, Lourdes Hill College, Mansfield State High School, Mount Alvernia College, Prince of Peace Lutheran College, QLD Academy of Creative Industries, St Aidan’s Anglican Girls School, St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace, St Peters Lutheran College, St Rita’s College, Stuartholme School, and Wavell State High School.

7. Highlights of the 2018 SELN program included:- participation of 55 student representatives across 21 schools- participation of more than 250 student environment group members- 140 litres of waste removed from the Brisbane CBD in a clean-up activity- more than 7,000 students reached via school assembly presentations.


- 101 -

8. Some examples of the projects implemented by SELN schools include:- energy reduction and solar panel installation proposal- creation of native plant, herb, vegetable and therapy gardens- introduction of recycling and paper recycling- removal of single use plastic items and introduction of soft plastics recycling- installation of new worm farms and composting- water consumption reduction- recycling unwanted clothing into accessories- encouraging and facilitating active travel to and from school.

9. All Hallows’ School SELN representatives met with officers from Council’s Carbon and Energy team to build their proposal for introducing additional solar panels at their school. The students have presented their business case to the school administration for consideration and action.

10. St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace SELN representatives met with officers from Council’s Active School Travel team to develop their project to implement an active travel project at their school. Together they explored strategies to encourage more Year 10 students to travel actively, particularly on public transport. Not only do they want to increase the number of students travelling on public transport, but also to ensure appropriate, safe behaviours on buses and trains.

11. St Aidan’s Anglican Girls School (St Aidan’s) and their SELN representatives started plans to join the Precious Plastic Community to build plastic recycling machines at their school that recycle plastic into printing filament for use in 3D printing. This is an ongoing project for the school. The SELN representatives also completed a waste audit to determine the amount of plastic used at St Aidan’s and have started implementing an educational awareness campaign to help their peers reduce the amount of plastic around the school and in the tuckshop. Additionally, they have changed plastic cutlery to bamboo cutlery in the tuckshop and other plastic recycling plans are ongoing.

12. Photos of SELN representatives from Hillbrook Anglican School, Iona College, Mansfield State High School, and Aspley State High School with their respective projects were shown to the Committee.

13. The 2018 SELN graduation was held on 8 November. Student representatives were presented with certificates from the Lord Mayor and Green Heart badges from Councillor McLachlan. The SELN graduates’ teachers and school environment group members were also in attendance.

14. A video of SELN representatives from Iona College, Lourdes Hill College and Hillbrook Anglican School was shown to the Committee.

15. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Fitzgerald for his informative presentation.

16. RECOMMENDATION:


FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Just before coming to the report, I would like to mention that I was proud to open the 2018 Worn OUT Upcycled Refashion and Cosplay event at the Princess Theatre on Saturday night. Brisbane City Council is proud to support the Worn OUT event and along with the work that Reverse Garbage Queensland and Textile Beat do, it was a great evening and it aligns with Council's vision of keeping our city clean, green and sustainable.


- 102 -

So I would like to mention the work of Jane Milburn and we had Rebecca Levingston as one of the co-presenters. So it was a great way for Brisbane City Council to be involved in, yet again, educating our residents about recycling and a fun way as well.

So moving to the report, Madam Chairman, there was one item and that was the Committee presentation on Council's resource recovery centres. The Manager of Waste and Resource Recovery gave us an informative presentation on how Council encourages recycling and resource recovery through our centres. We have four centres on the mainland of Brisbane located at Ferny Grove, Nudgee, Chandler and Willawong which are open every day of the year. Residents can visit our Resource Recovery Centres and drop-off any items for resource recovery or recycling free of charge.

As part of this program, Council also has a product stewardship collection supported by the Federal Government, including eWaste, Paintback and Mobile Muster. Council also organises regular special events including our most recent three Free Green Waste weekends to enable residents to drop-off green waste free of charge to aid storm season preparedness, as well as hosting one hazardous items collection per Resource Recovery Centre per year.

So as an innovative Council, we also partner with universities to support research and trials. Council's Brisbane Bin and Recycling app has also been a great success with over 70,000 people using the app which allows residents to access an easy to use guide on what can and can't be recycled and receive reminders of events happening in their area like our kerbside collection events, for example.

I'd like to thank officers for all the great work they do in delivering this important service for the residents of Brisbane City Council but, in particular, I'd like to pay a special thank you to our residents who are hard at work helping us to keep our city clean, green and sustainable. I recommend it to the Chamber.

Chairman: Any further debate?

I'll put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Field Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Vicki Howard (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Julian Simmonds, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRES

395/2018-191. Terry Bird, A/Manager, Waste and Resource Recovery Services, Field Services,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s Resource Recovery Centres (RRCs). He provided the information below.

2. Council’s RRCs provide a waste recycling and disposal option for Brisbane residents and businesses. The RRCs offer a cost effective, safe and convenient customer experience and encourages recycling and resource recovery. The centres are located at Ferny Grove, Nudgee, Chandler and Willawong, and are open every day of the year. An aerial picture displaying the layout of the Chandler RRC was shown to the Committee members. The layout includes: weighbridges, resource recovery area, amenities, general waste area and green waste area. A photograph was also shown of the Chandler resource recovery area.


- 103 -

3. Free resource recovery options include reusable items for the Tip Shop, paint, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, waste oil, and comingled recyclables. Product stewardship collection points include e-waste, paintback and Mobile Muster. Council organises regular recovery special events which includes: - three free green waste weekends for storm preparedness- national and international study groups - disaster/storm waste options- one hazardous waste collection day per RRC per year- trials and research with universities.

4. Resource recovery areas are staffed by the Endeavour Foundation. The foundation recover good quality items to sell at the Tip Shops which were destined to become landfill. All proceeds from the Tip Shops are reinvested back into providing real possibilities for people with a disability.

5. 2017-18 statistics for the RRCs include:- 132 tonnes of oil and 353 tonnes of paint recovered - 928,264 customer visits last year- 581 tonnes recovered for the Tip Shops- 11,853 tonnes of resources recovered from the recovery areas- 40% of all visitors used the recycling area - 617 tonnes of e-waste and 294 tonnes of batteries recovered- more than 80,000 tonnes of green waste processed at RRCs.

6. In 2014, Council began investigating options for increasing awareness about waste via Council’s bin collection calendar. More than 70,000 Brisbane residents access the calendar every year via Council’s website.

7. Council has now developed a smartphone and tablet app (iOS and Android) which supplements the existing bin collection calendar and provides a comprehensive range of features. The Brisbane Bin and Recycling app supports the operation of the RRCs. Full details on how to download the app can be found on Council’s website. Benefits of the app include:- a mobile platform which provides information when and where needed by residents- support for residents in their resource recovery efforts- a comprehensive educational tool- a bin collection calendar and optional reminders- a push notification about relevant events- an engaged audience - more than 85,000 downloads- helping to achieve Brisbane’s Vison 2031 of being clean, green and sustainable.Features of the app including the bin collection calendar was shown to the Committee members.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Bird for his informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Madam Chairman, there's only one item and that's the Committee presentation on the Brisbane Festival, the overview of the program. I just want to take the opportunity to really acknowledge this amazing festival and how it continues to grow from strength to strength every year.


- 104 -

We've seen considerable uptake year upon year of pre-sale tickets to the extent that I think this is the best year they've had as far as pre-sales, a significant percentage of tickets were sold within a very short period of the festival being officially announced. There was such a great variety of performances and again prices as well from free activities in City Hall straight through to Spiegeltent and other performances as well. Most of them are very reasonably priced.

Also as part of that are the shows that were done at QUT at Kelvin Grove in partnership with La Boite. The work that the festival's team did to create that atmosphere over there within that forecourt easily rivals the work they did down at South Bank. The variety of performances at a very affordable price of $20 was something that, I think, was a high attractor for everyone to see. But the whole festival itself just provided something for everyone and I think that's the great strength of it.

I look forward to Council's involvement and support of this program in the next financial year.


I'll now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman) and Councillors Kara Cook, Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman)

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2018

396/2018-191. Miriam Kent, Manager, Connected Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the

meeting to provide an update on Brisbane Festival 2018. She provided the information below.

2. The 2018 Brisbane Festival program was launched to the public at the Queen Street Mall on 3 July 2018, with many performances happening throughout the day. The response was fantastic, resulting in broad media coverage, social media activity and boosted ticket sales. This year, Brisbane Festival (the festival) set a new box office record by exceeding the total number of tickets sold in 2017 on day seven of this year’s festival. The 2018 festival surpassed last year’s box office sales by more than 23%, with a total of 84,941 tickets sold and booked (for free events) compared to 73,648 tickets in 2017.

3. More than 1.1 million visitors moved through the festival in 2018 with a total box office revenue of $3.175 million, compared to $2.571 million in 2017. During the festival, there were more than 900 performances including workshops and master classes across seven hubs and 25 venues.

4. The first show to sell out was Pub Choir at the Tivoli. Pub Choir was a one-off community engagement event where 1,500 people gathered to learn a popular three-part song in 90 minutes. Other best-selling shows of the festival were local productions or Brisbane collaborations, and included:- LIFE the Show by Strut and Fret – a circus, cabaret and comedy at the Spiegeltent - Ball Park Music & San Cisco – the opening event for the music festival held at the

Riverstage - Violent Solo – the closing event for the music festival held at the Riverstage - House of Mirrors – a visual art installation at the Treasury Brisbane Arcadia - Peter Grimes – an opera at the QPAC Concert Hall.


- 105 -

5. One of the festival’s strategic goals was to present outstanding arts experiences from around the globe to expand the senses, and celebrate uniqueness and diversity with 60 local, national and international productions across a variety of artforms, catering to a range of audiences. The festival launched 10 world premieres, including two Australian premieres and four presentations exclusive to Brisbane. Local works included:- En Masse by Circa- Eskimo Joe in concert with Camerata- The Owl and the Pussycat by Little Match Productions- Rovers by Belloo Creative- Umami Mermaids.

6. Opportunities were provided to Brisbane creatives through internships, and other opportunities through Treasury Brisbane Arcadia and Theatre Republic.

7. The festival celebrated the LGBTIQ community through six free and ticketed shows with LGBTIQ themes.

8. Several Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander works were also featured including:- River of Light – The Story of Maiwar- Yothu Yindi and the Treaty Project supported by Yirrmal- Man with the Iron Neck by Legs on the Wall- Biladurang by Joel Bray- Aboriginal Centre for the Performing Arts (ACPA) Gospel Choir performance with

Harry James and Memorial- Rovers by Belloo Creative.

9. This year the Brisbane River played a prominent role in the festival with River of Light – The Story of Maiwar, a free water fountain and light show developed in conjunction with Shannon Ruska and the Nunukul Yuggera Aboriginal Dancers. River of Light showed daily at 6.30pm, 8pm and 9.30pm throughout the festival and was enjoyed by more than 200,000 people. The show featured dynamic jets and giant spirals of water, full-colour lighting and rainbow-coloured lasers to tell the traditional story of the dreaming serpent that wove the Maiwar into being and created the life blood of our city – the Brisbane River. A video showcasing The River of Light – The Story of Maiwar was shown to the Committee.

10. The festival is committed to working in collaboration with the Indigenous community to strengthen cultural and artistic relationships, particularly in relation to Indigenous protocols, community engagement and programming. In 2005, Brisbane Festival formalised this relationship through the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Group (IAG). IAG:- represents the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the Indigenous

contemporary arts sector of Queensland- draws members from prominent Indigenous cultural groups in Queensland- provides advice on Indigenous protocols and content.

11. To ensure the festival continues to be financially accessible to all Brisbane residents and visitors, 20% of the program costs were spent on programming free events and activities. In addition, discounted prices people to certain shows were offered for the Indigenous community and young people. There were 53 ticketed events and seven free events at this year’s festival with an average price for tickets being between $38 and $48, compared to 58 ticketed and six free events with an average ticket price of $44 in 2017.

12. Approximately 478,000 people moved through the Treasury Brisbane Arcadia space which was the central hub of the festival. This was an increase of 178,000 people from 2017. Treasury Brisbane Arcadia provided live entertainment, close encounters with festival artists and late night DJs.

13. Sunsuper Riverfire (Riverfire) is one of the largest fireworks displays in Australia and is the largest held in Queensland. Attendance at Riverfire increased in 2018 by seven percent with approximately 520,000 attendees. The event also reached a broadcast audience of another 500,000 people. This year’s Riverfire involved 31 pyro technicians; 11,200 kilograms of fireworks; 2,400 kilograms of explosives; 5,400 aerial fireworks; and 55,030 ground-based effects.


- 106 -

14. Diverse and inclusive programming is a key priority and commitment of the festival. Some initiatives undertaken to achieve this include:- removing physical and cultural barriers between audiences and artists through the use of

public spaces, digital technology and works that encourage participation- reaching out to audiences who might not normally attend arts events- encouraging a social as well as an aesthetic dimension to the arts experience- encouraging audiences to try the unfamiliar.

15. In addition to ensuring the festival was accessible, the 2018 festival provided venues that had dedicated seating options for patrons with individual needs and their guests. Accessibility options for wheelchair access, listening systems and AUSLAN interpreted performances were provided and clearly advertised on the printed and online program. Across the festival there were six AUSLAN interpreted performances and sixteen shows with listening systems.

16. To engage and deepen the festival experience for audiences the below initiatives were used.- Thirteen moderated post-show conversations with artists and creatives were held across

QPAC, Theatre Republic and Brisbane Powerhouse.- Brisbane Times presented See More, Hear More, Speak More, to allow audiences to gain a

deeper appreciation of the great work at the festival. Specially curated online interviews, features, videos, podcasts and profiles were developed for selected shows to allow audiences to see more in the performances, hear more in the music and speak more keenly in the conversations taking place around the festival.

- Three shows also encouraged and allowed for meaningful participation of audiences.- Show-by-show event marketing plans identified niche audiences and relevant influencers to

act as promotional partners.

17. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Kent for her informative presentation.

18. RECOMMENDATION:


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 20 November 2018, be adopted.


Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last week we had a presentation on Brisbane Innovate 2018, our third iteration of this fantastic event bringing together private industry, academia, local start-ups and the community to generate ideas to solve citywide challenges. It was a slightly different setup this year because we had a preparation for the actual Innovate Day where we got more than 70 participants to get together to have a think about what they would like to tackle.

We've got three topics that we looked at and how they could work with each other and collaborate on that. So we had a bit of a warm up event which was a great outcome and due to the growth in the participation we’ve had a Brisbane Innovate, we did actually have to move to the Convention and Exhibition Centre this year. So we had a keynote address from our Queensland Chief Entrepreneur. We had panel discussions, we had talking about funding models and then we had the summit roundtables where there were more than 400 registered participants involved.

It was a great day. The ideas are starting come back into Council, they close on 7 December is very exciting, looking forward to seeing all the great ideas that


- 107 -

our local community can come up with to recognise some of the civic challenges that we have going into the future.




Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Adam Allan (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE INNOVATE 2018

397/2018-191. Cat Matson, Chief Digital Officer, Brisbane Marketing, attended the meeting to provide an update on

Brisbane Innovate 2018. She provided the information below.

2. Brisbane Innovate is Council’s annual open innovation event, bringing together private industry, academia, local start-ups and the community to generate ideas to solve citywide challenges. This year’s challenge topics focused on unlocking the value of waste, tackling social isolation and empowering local communities to create vibrant and proud neighbourhoods. Brisbane Innovate 2018 involved the following:- a challenge workshop in August- the official launch event in September- a warm-up event in early October- development of ideas during October- the flagship summit event in November.

3. Further scheduled activities include:- submission of challenge solutions in December- identification of solutions in early 2019 - fostering solution development.

4. This year, the challenge questions that was asked of participants are as follows.- How might we support residents to actively contribute to a community with pride in their local

place?- How might we create a new waste economy by unlocking waste as a resource?- How might we better connect Brisbane’s communities so that everyone has people and places

to connect to?

5. The warm-up event attracted more than 70 participants from a mixture of business areas, such as small-medium enterprise, start-ups, big business, non-government organisations and academia.

6. Photos from the warm-up and summit events were shown to the Committee.

7. Due to the growth in participation of Brisbane Innovate, this year’s summit event was held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. The summit featured:- a keynote address on moving towards a zero waste, circular economy by Ms Leanne Kemp,

Queensland Chief Entrepreneur, and CEO and Founder of Everledger- a panel discussion on alternative funding models, such as crowd funding, equity investment,

Better Brisbane proposals and partnerships- Summit round tables – where more than 400 registered participants were involved in

discussions around the challenge topics, with approximately 50% of participants choosing to be involved with the waste challenge, 30% involved with the social isolation challenge and 20% involved in the pride in neighbourhoods challenge.


- 108 -

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Matson for her informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:


B COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (RECEIVABLES, RATES, PAYABLES, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2018134/695/317/929

398/2018-1910. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided a detailed report, submitted on file, on

Council’s position relating to accounts receivable, rates, accounts payable, provisions and malls for the period ended September 2018.

11. The Chairman and the Committee noted the report. The financial report on Council’s position relating to accounts receivable, rates, accounts payable, provisions and malls for the period ended September 2018 is now presented for noting by Council.

12. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, as submitted on file, BE NOTED.

ADOPTED

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a petition, on behalf of Councillor CUMMING, opposing a development application lodged over 162 Oceania Terrace, Lota.


Councillor COOK.

Councillor COOK: Thanks, Madam Chair.

I have a petition to stop the townhouse development at Pockley Street, Morningside

Chairman: Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair.

I have a petition requesting that Council protect Hock Davis Park, Inala.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I have several petitions.

Firstly, from residents of Sherwood requesting Council trim a large and dangerous tree in Bentinck Street. Secondly, a petition of, I think, about 400 or 500 residents calling on Council to work with the State Government to widen the low rail bridge at Sherwood. There's several of those. The next one is to rename two parks in Yeronga out of respect to local residents and families and


- 109 -

the final one is a bit of an odd one, but someone is unhappy with those names and has three signatures for alternate names for the parks in Yeronga.

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have a petition requesting Council to not proceed with a mega zipline proposed at Mt Coot-tha.

Chairman: Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have two petitions. One about the Powerhouse dog park at New Farm and another about reinstating a footpath on Boundary Street, Fortitude Valley.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have an ePetition calling for the removal of a roadside parking space, very specifically, at 306 Junction Road, Clayfield.

Chairman: Councillor WINES, may I have a motion for receipt of petitions, please?

399/2018-19It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor 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 Topic

CA18/1081987 Jared Cassidy on behalf of Peter Cumming

Requesting Council refuse a development application for a retirement village at 162 Oceana Terrace, Lota.

CA18/1081820 Kara Cook Requesting Council refuse a development application for a multiple dwelling at 18 Pockley Street, Morningside.

CA18/1073763 Kara Cook Requesting Council refuse a development application for a multiple dwelling at 18 Pockley Street, Morningside.

CA18/1055378 Charles Strunk Requesting the retention of Hock Davis Park, Inala, instead of the transformation of open stormwater drainage into a community car park.

CA18/1081705 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council reduce the canopy of a large and dangerous tree on the frontage of 42 Bentinck Street, Sherwood.

CA18/945166 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council urgently take up the Queensland Government’s offer to widen (not raise) the low rail bridge separating Sherwood and Corinda.

CA18/1070792 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council urgently take up the Queensland Government’s offer to widen (not raise) the low rail bridge separating Sherwood and Corinda.

CA18/1070644 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council name the riverside parkland at Heritage Close, Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site as Rigby Place in honour of this local family; and rename The Esplanade Park, Yeronga to Ron Goeldner Park, in recognition of Ron’s significant contribution to the Yeronga and Brisbane community.

CA18/1070715 Nicole Johnston Requesting alternate park names be considered for the riverside parkland at Heritage Close, Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site and The Esplanade Park, Yeronga, that reflects the Traditional Owners of this area such as Uncle Desmond Sandy Park and Yugarapul Chepara Parkland.


- 110 -

CA18/1070918 Kate Richards Requesting Council not proceed with the mega zipline proposed for the Mt Coot-tha Reserve because of its impact on local green space, surrounding communities and the iconic heritage values of Mt Coot-tha.

CA18/1081936 Vicki Howard Requesting Council returf the dog park at the Powerhouse, New Farm, with shade tolerant grass.

CA18/1073876 Vicki Howard Requesting Council reinstate the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street between Ivory Street and Ivory Lane, Fortitude Valley, and that kerb ramps be reinstated in Boundary Street.

CA18/1073835 David McLachlan Requesting Council alter the signage so that the roadside parking space between the driveway of 306 Junction Road, Clayfield becomes a ‘no standing’ zone to make using the car park safer for all road users.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of General Business?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to speak on the Environment Parks and Sustainability Committee and questions in that Committee.

Now, if you had have listened to what Councillor McLACHLAN said earlier today, you’d think I would have been asking for State secrets in the Environment Parks and Sustainability Committee. But each week I go in there, hopeful and open, and ask questions about matters that are under his direct responsibility as the Chairman of the Environment Parks and Sustainability Committee.

Every week he has got no idea, and I kid you not, he doesn't know the answers, he takes them on notice, he forgets to give them to me, he gets up in here and he goes on about me trying to ask for private information. None of this is true. The LORD MAYOR announced that there was going to be an assistant curator at the Sherwood Arboretum as part of the budget. Now, that's a pretty public kind of role.

Of course, provision has been made for that expenditure as part of the $500,000 that has been allocated towards the project. Now, I have been asking questions about how that money is being expended. Residents in my area want to see some improvements and guess what? We haven't been given any information. I mean, I asked the Chairman and these are the questions last week: who's the new assistant curator, because I heard one had been appointed? How much is their salary? I don't know, $100,000—$150,000. I have no idea what a Band 6 is but I'll go and look it up later and what money had been allocated so far out of the $500,000 towards projects?

Now, I presume because he didn't answer any of those questions even in the Council Chamber today that (a) he doesn't know, which is his usual fall-back position in Committee, or two, which I think is more likely, nothing has actually been done yet. So I really don't know why Councillor McLACHLAN seems to think questions about the expenditure of publicly announced Council funding for publicly announced Council roles, for publicly announced Council projects, is private and confidential.

Now, Councillor McLACHLAN had the option of getting back to me by email, which I suggested today, and he said: ‘no, no, I want to do it in the Chamber’.


- 111 -

Now we know why, don't we? He just wanted to stand up and attack me. He could have got back to me, given me all this information and said please don't say the name of the person as we don't know if they've left their previous job yet. Now, I would've thought he'd know if they've left their previous job but I guess not, because even finding that out appears to be too hard.

I mean, Councillor McLACHLAN—sorry, Councillor HOWARD got the same questions last week. She didn't even bother to answer them. So, you know, I fear—you know, we saw last week as well these Committees don't function effectively. The chairmen don't like answering questions. They certainly don't want to answer questions in Environment, Parks and Sustainability that I put to Councillor McLACHLAN and he takes it personally when I ask him a question.

Well, guess what? You all voted to put me on that Committee. If you don’t like it, it's your fault. And guess what? It's my right to come in to that Committee and ask questions and that's what I intend to do. So you can play all the games you want, you can stand up in the Chamber and say I've done something terribly wrong which you implied today, which is just utter lies, lies, lies. You could have given me the information that I requested. You haven't done that. You still don't have any of the information available.

The interesting part of this is I obviously know more about the Oxley Creek Master Plan than Councillor McLACHLAN as well because one of the biggest concerns in all of the submissions that went in was the fact that Council could not identify what surfaces were going to be used for the greenway. Now, the greenway is one of their six priority projects so, again, I just asked Councillor McLACHLAN what progress had been made towards delivery of that project. He didn't know.

This is his signature $100 million project, probably the biggest one that he manages in his area and he didn't know. It's one of the six priority projects that you've announced, Councillor McLACHLAN, through you, Madam Chairman. Secondly, the issue about what the paths are made out of is of significant concern to the community that I represent and if you'd have read the submissions that the residents put in, you'd know this but you haven't read them, have you?

I know that it is of concern. I know that they don't know whether they're going to be able to support bikes, people, dogs, horses, and people just want some certainty around what is being proposed. Now, again, these are terrible questions, aren't they? Aren't I asking rude, invasive, nasty questions? How is $500,000 in public funds for a major project announced publicly in the budget by the LORD MAYOR being expended? That was question number one, about the Sherwood Arboretum.

Then question number two, how are you going with delivery of your major initiatives as part of the Oxley Creek Transformation Project, a $100 million project? You'd have think I had asked, you know, what the secret recipe to Kentucky Fried Chicken was and there was some sort of trade secrets that Councillor McLACHLAN did not want to share with anybody. But no, I was asking him about projects that are initiatives of his Administration that he's announced. He even stood up today and said how proud he was he'd secured the money but he just doesn't want to tell anybody what it's for.

Well, guess what, Councillor McLACHLAN? You put me on this Committee, I'm going to ask you questions, it's my right as a member of that Committee and it is your responsibility to answer them and I know that you make very little effort to do that. As your speech to this Chamber has proved tonight, you couldn't be bothered to check and provide the answers in a genuine way to ensure that the community has facts.

Now, I think it was Malcolm Fraser that said: ‘Into a vacuum people presume the worst.’ Well, guess what, Councillor McLACHLAN? If you continue to not talk about these things, you leave me with no option but to tell people that you refuse to provide the answers and that is what you are doing. So when people


- 112 -

say to me what's happening with the $500,000, I can say I put those questions to Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor McLACHLAN refused to answer.

I don't think it's hard. If people actually saw what was happening in our Committees, they would be absolutely shocked, shocked to see that they refuse to answer even simple questions about major budget initiatives, key LNP priorities and how public money is being expended. But that's how out of touch and arrogant this Administration have become, that they do not think they are responsible to other Councillors in answering questions. They don't even think I have a right to ask. I mean, Councillor McLACHLAN last week made it clear that I shouldn't even be asking him. Like there's some restrictions on being able to ask questions.

Other Councillors who sat in that meeting last week said to me that just doesn't happen in our Committees. So it's really quite shocking, I think, that there is this great sense of: ‘I don't have to answer your questions, you don't deserve to be able to ask them, you don't deserve to know the answers.’ Guess what? I was elected, I'm allowed to ask and I believe it is important that our community knows how huge amounts of public funding are being spent, where it's being spent and how effectively it's being spent. I will not in any way, shape or form back down from asking those questions week in, week out, in Committee.

Chairman: Further General Business?

Councillor TOOMEY.

Councillor TOOMEY: Thanks Madam Chairman.

Unlike the Tennyson Ward, or Councillor for Tennyson Ward, we've got some good news on this side of the Chamber.

Madam Chairman, I would like to advise the Chamber of a wonderful thing that's happened with one of my schools in the ward, which is Ferny Grove State School. Basically, Madam Chairman, what happened was one of the local contractors in my area, TLCC (The Landscape Construction Company), which is a landscaping company, do wonderful work all over the city, put out a competition to the schools. The competition involved the kids designing a garden for their own place and then TLCC would commit to building that garden.

Fortunately, Ferny Grove State School won and with their competition they actually ended up building a sensory garden. The sensory garden for itself is outside the classrooms for the special kids. They built in a wheelchair accessible garden. All the plants that were planted were ones that you could eat, had different textures with the touch. They created an aroma when you ran your hand over them. They put in a little basketball hoop that's got an adjustable height on it.

It's really a wonderful little garden now that these kids can get involved in. I was really pleased to go along and meet up with Brett Shackleton and the guys from TLCC for the opening and we opened it up, we had a bit of cake, we had a look around. For a small piece of land that was adjoining the classrooms, they've really turned this little piece of what was effectively the side of a hill into a wonderful little sensory garden where the kids can actually interact with what's going on in the bed. They can wheel their chairs up to there, get their hands dirty, mess around with the plants. There's a tiny little bit of water play there and a little slide that slides through it. It's just turned out so well for the kids. I'm really happy that they actually won.

So, Madam Chairman, that's what I did during the week. I opened up a little garden along with TLCC and the principal of Ferny Grove State School and we had lots of cake. Thank you.


DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Given that there's been recent speculation about who's in the Chamber at various times, I just wanted to point out that from


- 113 -

the Opposition, now that there's seven Opposition Councillors, there's only two in the Chamber at the moment, Councillor CASSIDY and Councillor STRUNK.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I just rise to thank and congratulate a couple of local businesses and a community organisation on a fantastic local initiative they came up with and partnered with Brisbane City Council on. Councillor ADAMS mentioned this last week and that was the Sandgate Bay of Lights project that occurred on Friday night and Saturday night at the former Sandgate Baptist Church.

The two local businesses are Bacon Factory Films, headed by Dean Gibson, and Kartia Designs by Kass Cartia and the Sandgate District Historical Society led by Pam Verney came up with a concept and brought it together to create a short film—well a slideshow, I suppose, of historic images of the local area. That was narrated and really wove together a history of our local community that started in the pre-European times with Aboriginal people that called our area home and some of the significant areas for them through to European settlement and right up to more modern history in our local area.

Pam Verney, the president of the local Sandgate Historical Society, really summed it up on the Saturday night when she said that we are all part of making of history all being there together. Maybe in a hundred years' time when someone—there's probably holograms or something beyond our imagination in many years' time capturing moments like that and it was a very special night. So I want to thank those individuals and businesses for putting their energy, finances and enthusiasm into making our community a very special place.

Linda Paddon was one of the voices we heard there. Bert Midgley is a local resident who's been in the community for a very long time. He's 94 years old. Linda Paddon is 104 years old and I bought my house, my first house, off Linda where I currently live today and she built that house with her husband. She was one of the voices and talks about where she met her husband, who was one of the local bakers in Sandgate, at a dance in the Sandgate Town Hall, as a lot of people did in those days.

That was a special moment for me because it's where I often say at things at Sandgate Town Hall I wouldn't be here if not for the Sandgate Town Hall. My grandfather was a RAAF—he was in the Royal Australian Air Force at Eventide during the Second World War. My grandmother was a local girl that went to a dance that the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) had organised, as it was known at the time, and they met there and got together again after the war and subsequently had children and raised their family locally.

So we certainly do have a very special community in the northern suburbs, the best community in Brisbane, I maintain. I know, those fighting words, but I firmly maintain that at events like that on Friday night and Saturday night really showed us so I want to congratulate all those involved.


There being no Councillors rising to their feet, I declare the meeting closed.

Thank you, Councillors.

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 Steve Griffiths on 22 November 2018Q1. List the number of labour hire workers engaged across all areas in Council in 2018-19 financial year to

date.

Q2. List the number of labour hire workers engaged across all areas in Council in 2017-18 financial year.


- 114 -



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 Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 20 November 2018)Q1. Which Council Committee Chairs and Council Chairs have undertaken domestic and/or international

travel within 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 financial years?

A1. Council is only aware of specific details relating to travel by Committee Chairs when related to Council business.

- Lord Mayor Graham Quirk- Cr Peter Matic- Cr Matthew Bourke.

Q2. Of those Chairs that have travelled, can you provide the details of dates and destinations travelled to and for what purpose?

A2. International travel undertaken by Councillors requires approval of full Council. Information on international travel during 2017-18 and 2018-19 is publicly available through Council minutes. Domestic travel details are below:

Travel From Travel To

Name Conference Venue Conference Subject

Travel type

09/08/17 09/08/17 Cr Graham QUIRK

Brisbane Metro Parliament meeting

Canberra Attended meeting

Economy

31/08/17 01/09/17 Cr Graham QUIRK

Council of Capital City Lord Mayors meeting

Sydney Attended meeting

Economy

20/09/17 21/09/17 Cr Peter MATIC

Waste Study Tour

Perth Emerging waste technologies

Economy

14/10/17 19/10/17 Cr Matthew BOURKE

Local Government Association of Queensland Annual Conference

Gladstone BCC representative

Economy

18/10/17 19/10/17 Cr Graham QUIRK

Council of Capital City Lord Mayors Meeting


Economy

16/11/17 17/11/17 Cr Graham QUIRK

Various meetings promoting business opportunities in Brisbane.

Melbourne Attended meetings

Economy

15/03/18 16/03/18 Cr Graham QUIRK



Economy


- 115 -

Travel From Travel To

Name Conference Venue Conference Subject

Travel type

27/03/18 28/03/18 Cr Graham QUIRK

Meeting with Ministers and Council of Mayors (SEQ)


Economy

02/05/18 03/05/18 Cr Graham QUIRK

Attended business meetings

Sydney Promoted future business opportunities for Brisbane

Economy


Local Government Association of Queensland Future Cities and Smart Communities Summit

Cairns Attended Summit

Economy


Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Policy Executive Meeting

Townsville Attended meeting

Economy

12/09/18 14/09/18 Cr Graham QUIRK



Economy

18/09/18 19/09/18 Cr Graham QUIRK

Council of Mayors SEQ meeting


Economy

24/10/18 25/10/18 Cr Graham QUIRK

Business Meetings

Melbourne Attended multiple business meetings promoting future business opportunities for Brisbane

Economy

Q3. Can you list the locations across Brisbane of street libraries that are located on Brisbane City Council land?

A3. Council does not keep a record of this information.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 8.52pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED


- 116 -

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Jade Stopar (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer)Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer)Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


- 117 -

· Web viewYou cannot believe a single word of ... I know the State Government is out for...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewYou cannot believe a single word of ... I know the State Government is out for...