· web viewcommittee presentation – brisbane metro community consultation 76...

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4520 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 14 March 2017at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4520 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 14 MARCH 2017AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________1

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________13ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE__________________________________________13

A WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE STAGE 1 – PRIVATE PROPERTY RESUMPTIONS__________44B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE ST LUCIA GOLF LINKS PRO SHOP_46C CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN__________________________________________________52D MINOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE C______54E OVERSEAS TRAVEL – 2017 LORD MAYORAL BUSINESS MISSION TO THE 2017 ASIA PACIFIC CITIES

SUMMIT (2017APCS) & MAYORS’ FORUM IN DAEJEON, SOUTH KOREA______________________55PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________56

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE METRO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION______________76INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________77

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – NEW TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES: PRACTICAL OR PIE IN THE SKY?_______________________________________________________________________81

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING FOR A GREENSLOPES HOSPITAL RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT SCHEME_82C PETITION – REQUESTING AN UPGRADE TO LYTTON ROAD IN BULIMBA, BALMORAL AND

MORNINGSIDE___________________________________________________________________84CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________88

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLUMBING SERVICES GROUP________90ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________91

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COORPAROO CREEK PARK________________________________94FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________95

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FLEET SOLUTIONS SAP REPORTING AND INSIGHT______________98B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE A LEOPARD TREE AT 63 ESTHER STREET,

DEAGON_______________________________________________________________________98LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE_________________________________________100

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UNIQUE VENUES_______________________________________101FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______________________________________102

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON BRISBANE INNOVATE_________________________103

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – ROAD SAFETY:_______________________________104

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________109

GENERAL BUSINESS:_____________________________________________________________109

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:_________________________________114

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______________________118

[4520 (Ordinary) Meeting – 14 March 2017]

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4520 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 14 MARCH 2017AT 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) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Steven HUANG (Macgregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

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

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

Independent Councillor (and Ward)Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

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

MINUTES:425/2016-17

The Minutes of the 4519 meeting of Council held on 7 March 2017, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

QUESTION TIME:

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

Councillor WYNDHAM.

Question 1

Councillor WYNDHAM: Yes. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

[4520 (Ordinary) Meeting – 14 March 2017]

Last night you hosted the 2017 Multicultural Business Scholarship and Mentoring Program Alumni event at City Hall, an event that provides students with multicultural backgrounds lifelong experience in the business sector. Can you update the Chamber on how these students are subsequently benefiting Brisbane?

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor WYNDHAM for the question. I also thank Councillor WYNDHAM and several other Councillors from both sides of the Chamber for being present last night, in what was the first Multicultural Business Scholarship and Mentoring Program Alumni event.

This mentoring program, but more specifically the scholarship program, is in its 10th year. This has come about as a result of an initiative from the Lord Mayor’s Multicultural Round Table. I do want to acknowledge Mr Michael Chan, the Chairman of the Round Table, and the members of the Round Table for their contribution, not only those who are presently there, but those who have been there in years gone by for their ongoing contribution.

So last night, Madam Chairman, we were able to celebrate the fact that there were some 300 alumni now, people that have participated within the scholarship program. We are seeing as a city, Madam Chairman, a range of success stories among those alumni. The scholarships are all about building a skill base in business, it’s about making sure that the young multicultural entrepreneurs of the future are skilled and have the capacity then to go on, create business, and create jobs within our city.

Not everyone of course from these scholarships goes on and undertakes business, but the reality is that each of them have benefited in a significant way within their chosen career path, albeit that not all, as I say, advanced into the world of business. But each of them have the business skills where, even if not now, later on, they can make that transition and continue to make a contribution to our city.

So, Madam Chairman, the Multicultural Business Scholarship Program commenced in 2008, and there have been many talented and aspiring business people that have received the scholarships from a range of multicultural backgrounds, from a range of nations. But one of the aims of the alumni event is to re-engage with recipients. It was to track their business progress, determine how we might be able to continue to help as a city in supporting and encouraging entrepreneurial spirit within Brisbane.

The support of educational institutions has been very important, and I want to thank all of those institutions who have partnered with us over the years, QUT (Queensland University of Technology), Site Institute and TAFE Queensland have been invaluable to the Business Scholarship Program. This year there will be some 37 placements that will be on offer by way of scholarships, and applications are currently open online.

Madam Chairman, about two years ago now, the Multicultural Round Table decided to establish a mentoring program. So some of the members of the Round Table with substantial business skills decided to make their time available to create a mentoring opportunity. So that now has seen a lot of young people have the opportunity to have one-on-one programs with our mentors, and I want to again thank those members of the round table—Mr Bob Bishop, Mr Andrew Foo, Mr David Widjaja, and Brian Lorigan—for the volunteering that they are providing. This year there will be some 24 participants who will be involved in that mentoring program. We’d like to also thank Career Employment Australia for their help in being part of the establishment of that mentoring program.

These things only occur through an event which is held each year, the Multicultural Business Awards Dinner, and the funds raised at that dinner provide the opportunity for the wherewithal to be able to create these sponsorships, so it is self-funding, Madam Chairman. I know there are Councillors from both sides of the Chamber who have attended that dinner in

[4520 (Ordinary) Meeting – 14 March 2017

- 2 -

past years, and I thank you all very much for your support of the event. It is well attended. It is always a good event, and it provides an opportunity to celebrate those awardees or recipients of scholarships for that particular year.

This year that dinner will be held on Saturday 27 May and again we hope to fill downstairs, the Auditorium, Madam Chairman, for the event. It’s an opportunity to celebrate and to—not only the provision of awards for multicultural businesses, but we thank all those involved.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

On 22 December 2016 your Establishment and Coordination Committee approved a $220,000 contract to Democracy Intelligence Pty Ltd to conduct a two-month review into your $60 million IT blowout on the Local Government Information Systems project. On Friday it was reported in the media that you were handed the report into this project in January. Have you received the report from Democracy Intelligence, and will you today, table this report to the full Council for scrutiny?


LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. Madam Chairman, I have indicated to this Chamber a long time ago that the issues surrounding the Local Government Systems upgrade. In fact, Madam Chairman, when there was issues that the Cabinet discovered around this particular issue, we acted immediately, and we did so by way of the engagement of a group, and Councillor CUMMING, you have announced in relation to that group that were engaged to look at the Local Government Systems. Just to remind people, Local Government Systems was where we were bringing 13 individual systems into a single platform.

So, Madam Chairman, when this project was faced with issues, we engaged the company that Councillor CUMMING has mentioned in his question. We have done so, Madam Chairman, quite deliberately, because we wanted to see a peer review held in relation to it, to find out exactly what was going on in terms of it, and we wanted to make sure that the issues associated with the vendor also were examined closely.

Now, I announced previously that we would be negotiating the contract with the vendor. Those negotiations are continuing. But I indicated also that we would be making sure that we got this project back on track. There were significant issues with it, Madam Chairman. There is no question about that, and I have been upfront about that. I announced that, Madam Chairman, some considerable period ago, in January.

I did that a couple of days after Civic Cabinet were provided with information, with a presentation in regards to the issue that Councillor CUMMING has raised. So, Madam Chairman, that work is continuing, and it will continue, because there were a number of measures that we indicated that we would be putting in place in relation to it. People—

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR was asked to answer a simple question, whether he had received the report from Democracy Intelligence, and if he will table this report to the full Council today. He is not answering the question.

Chairman: And the LORD MAYOR has five minutes to provide an answer, and part of the question was in relation to the Local Government Systems, which the LORD MAYOR is referring to. I will allow him to continue.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.


- 3 -

So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that there are clearly issues with the project. I have been completely upfront about that from January when I indicated that there were issues, and I announced some of the measures that were being taken in order to address that. So the review team briefed Cabinet on 23 January.

The question that has been put to me today, Madam Chairman, has been put to me before, and I’ve indicated the reasons before also as to why the release of that report will not be taking place. Madam Chairman, that report is pivotal, and the information contained in it in relation to the work being undertaken in this review, and the negotiation of the contract.

So it would be easy for political reasons that have, you know, a lot of commentary around that, and that would not be in the interests of ratepayers, Madam Chairman, in the middle of a renegotiation of a contract. So, that is the position. I have indicated that before—

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR was asked if he had received the report, and he is not answering that part of the question.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, I clearly heard the LORD MAYOR respond to that part of the question, and he—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Order! Section 51 of the Meetings Local Law, when I am speaking, you do not interject.

LORD MAYOR, please continue.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, as I indicated, the Cabinet were briefed on 23 January in relation to this matter, and it was on 25 January that I took the step of announcing that there was issues with the project, and the measures that we were taking, including the placement of a systems integrator as being one of those actions to get this project back on track. But a renegotiation of the contract was also a very critical part of it.

Now, what I’m saying here today—this is not new news. I’ve said this in this Chamber before, that the issues around that report, Madam Chairman, are pivotal to negotiations. So, we are not going to—


LORD MAYOR: We are not going to, Madam Chairman, jeopardise those simply for the Labor Party to play some political games.

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: That’s their only interest, let’s be clear, their only interest in this is to play some political games. So, Madam Chairman, that’s the reality.

We will pursue with the current vendor, Madam Chairman. We are trying to renegotiate a contract. That continues to be our preferred outcome, but, Madam Chairman, those negotiations are ongoing.


Councillor WINES.

Question 3

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER.

DEPUTY MAYOR, can you please outline for the Chamber about whether the term ‘metro’, which is used very widely to describe transit systems around the world, relates only to a particular type of vehicle, or whether it’s about other factors?


- 4 -


Chairman: Order! Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: That, Councillor WINES—

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: When the Chamber is silent, we will proceed.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: That, Councillor WINES, is the million dollar question, and a very pertinent one indeed, because the ignorant and the uninformed focus—


Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —only on the type of vehicle, and not on the transit system that is designed to move large numbers of people efficiently and effectively.


Chairman: Councillor—just a moment, please, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Councillor CASSIDY, you don’t yell out across this Chamber.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I was saying, the ignorant and the uninformed focus on the type of vehicle, and we see a little bit of that happening in the Chamber, and no doubt more to come.

But if you look around the world, and let’s forget about what’s happening right now in Brisbane, but if you look around the world, and you look at what cities and what systems use the term ‘metro’, you will find by any measure a massively diverse range of vehicles and a massively diverse range of modes of travel. Those metros around the world range from heavy rail, either above ground or underground, to tram systems, to even bus rapid transit systems. They’re all using the term ‘metro.’

I mentioned the other week in Council that Canberra apparently has a metro, which is basically just a tram that will have a single line—


Chairman: Order!



DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Canberra has a metro, apparently. Well, they call it a metro, which is just a tram—a single tram line.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

DEPUTY MAYOR: But, as I said, if you look around the world, and you ask the question, what makes up a true metro system, we are talking about mass rapid transit. That is the fundamental issue here. What makes up mass rapid transit? Number one, high frequency services, very regular services, significant carrying capacity, the ability to move tens of thousands of people per hour, and the right of way or segregation from general traffic.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! If you continue to interject, I will warn you.


- 5 -

DEPUTY MAYOR: And that, that is the key thing that makes up metro systems right around the world. Now, Labor thinks they know better. They think they know what a metro is—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —and did they promise a metro? No. They promised a tram to replace the CityGlider, that would stop at traffic lights, that would get stuck in general traffic, and that would carry, at much greater expense, no more people than the CityGlider carries. So the geniuses to my right, if they want to talk about public transport, let’s hear what they have to propose.

But what we will be proposing, and what we will be delivering is mass rapid transit, a true metro system for the City of Brisbane. Let’s go through the checklist. Will we deliver high frequency services? You better believe it. A service every three minutes, or 1.5 minutes where the two lines overlap.

Will we be able to move large numbers of people quickly and efficiently? Absolutely. The current South East Busway, without Metro, has a theoretical carrying capacity of 15,000 per hour. Now, it doesn’t actually carry that many people per hour because of key problems and bottlenecks within the busway network. With Metro, on opening day, we will boost that up to 22,000 people per hour—22,000.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order against you, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: I’m concerned the DEPUTY MAYOR is misleading the Chamber, because on 25 October last year he told the metro could be a ‘metro’ so long as it at least was light rail, so I’m not quite sure—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: I’m not quite sure—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: I think he may be misleading the Chamber—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: —because both he and the LORD MAYOR have said light rail.

Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON, I remind you of section 51 of the Meetings Local Law, when I speak, you cease and resume your seat. I don’t uphold your point of order.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The third point on the checklist is whether this system will have right of way over general traffic and other forms of traffic. Now, the South East Busway was never completed properly. It ends at a dead end in South Brisbane, and then the buses have to mix it with general traffic to get to the city. We know what a shemozzle the Cultural Centre interchange is. It’s an absolute shemozzle and the biggest bottleneck in the entire network.

So what we will be doing through Brisbane Metro is separating, fully separating the infrastructure, by delivering an underground station and by closing Victoria Bridge to general traffic to give public transport right of way. So does it tick all the boxes? You better believe it. You better believe it. Is it a metro? Absolutely. Absolutely. And, as I said before, Labor can kick and scream all they like, but as I said last week in Council, it’s time to get on board the Brisbane Metro.



- 6 -

DEPUTY MAYOR: It’s time to get on board the Brisbane Metro. Jackie Trad’s on board. Malcolm Turnbull’s on board. Yet this band—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —to my right are yet to get on board.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.


Councillor SRI, you’re not due for a question yet.

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 4

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR, it’s been reported, and Council staff have been advised that Brisbane City Council Chief Information Officer, Sarma Rajaraman, and Divisional Manager of Organisation Services, Greg Evans, have left the organisation. The report said that CEO Colin Jensen indicated in an email that the two were nudged out of the organisation due to their performance with regard to the $60 million Local Government Information Systems contract blowout.

LORD MAYOR, have these two Council officers, like the Chief Internal Auditor before them, been made the scapegoats for the many, many failures of this Administration?


LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question.

Madam Chairman, the organisational matters associated with this and other projects are constantly being reviewed by this Administration, and specifically through the CEO of the organisation, who has ultimate responsibility in relation to these matters.

Now, Madam Chairman, the reality is that this project hasn’t gone well. That’s public record. I announced the fact that the project had not gone well. Madam Chairman, I will always, as will this Administration, take the necessary action we have to in regards to these types of things. Now, ultimately, as I said, we set a policy as far as this Administration is concerned, and the organisational matters that have to be dealt with by the CEO, but where the CEO believes that certain actions need to be taken, this Administration will provide backing to that.

So, look, that’s the reality. You know, if this project had not gone well and certain actions hadn’t been taken, the Labor Party would be up here saying why won’t you act? Why won’t you act? You know, so, you can always rely on the Labor Party that whatever you do they’ll do the opposite, not because they genuinely believe it but because they simply want to play politics with it. Now, that’s fair enough. This is a political forum, so I kind of get that, but, Madam Chairman, what I wouldn’t also mind a little bit of on occasions is some consistency from the Labor Party, some consistency.

They are forever, forever bagging the senior management in this place. That’s a reality. And yet, and now, Madam Chairman, it seems through this question they are coming to the defence. You can’t have it both ways. Madam Chairman, we will take whatever necessary actions we have to in terms of the administration. I’m not about to discuss the where-to or what-fors of those decisions. It’s not appropriate to do so, Madam Chairman, and no Lord Mayor before me has either, of any political colour. So, Madam Chairman, I’m not about to start.

But I just say that it is the case that Mr Greg Evans and Mr Sarma Rajaraman have left the organisation, Madam Chairman, and as you would be aware, they were both engaged and involved in this particular project. So, that’s all I need to say, and all I will be prepared to say, Madam Chairman, on the issue.


- 7 -


Councillor KING.

Question 5

Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor McLACHLAN.

Council recently completed a survey on potential options for the Shorncliffe Pier kiosk. Can you please outline the results of the survey, and how this Administration is balancing lifestyle and leisure opportunities with a clean, green and sustainable Brisbane?

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor KING for the question.

Yes, that’s correct, Council has recently completed a survey of some 4,000 residents and business owners in the Sandgate and Shorncliffe areas to determine the level of support for a kiosk in the Sandgate foreshore park adjacent to the iconic Shorncliffe Pier that’s in Lower Moora Park.

Madam Chairman, as we all know, this Administration delivered on its commitment to reconstruct the Shorncliffe Pier, delivered on schedule and under budget on Good Friday a year ago. A ruined and rotted structure had to be completely demolished and rebuilt, with a commitment to ensure the character and romance of the old structure was replicated in that rebuild. Sure, concrete piers and girders for longevity, but topped with seasoned hardwood decking to create the look and feel of the old pier.

Today the new Shorncliffe Pier is a hugely popular destination for visitors and the people of Brisbane, and the pier will once again be the focus of the start of the Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race at Easter this year, and it will draw, I’m sure, thousands of visitors to the foreshore there.

Madam Chairman, along with the commitment to rebuild the pier, this Administration also made a commitment to activating this vibrant community space with the aim of providing local residents with the opportunity to enjoy our fantastic local lifestyle. Now, there has been a lot of discussion about how best to provide this activation and to what extent, and what support there would be for a modest kiosk on the foreshore.

Over 630 residents and business owners did respond to that survey conducted earlier this year—a copy of it here. The survey was to gauge support or otherwise for the concept of having a kiosk in Lower Moora Park, and if so, where and what issues of concern people might have. I’m pleased to say an overwhelming majority of 84% of respondents support a kiosk at this location—a great result. And what did the community and local businesses tell us? Well, many respondents expressed concern about the kiosk not impacting too greatly on the newly rebuilt pier. Absolutely, that’s understood. There was concern about the potential for additional litter to be generated by kiosk customers, and as—this is an important point—given the close proximity to Moreton Bay and the area’s key environmental values.

Design was an issue. A large percentage of respondents were also concerned about the design of the kiosk and that any activation would need to keep up with the park’s aesthetic values. And there were broader comments received as well. As with any activation of open space, there were concerns about commercial competition, with the respondents concerned about the potential impact to existing cafes and businesses in the area.

As Councillor KING touched on in her question, this is the challenge for a New World City like ours, to balance lifestyle and leisure opportunities along with the commitment to being a clean, green and sustainable city. We know that, of all our 2,000 parks, they’re all hugely popular, and there’ll always be questions about what services our residents and visitors can expect, and what’s feasible also to provide.


- 8 -

A kiosk facility is certainly something which the community is keen to see to complement the bayside lifestyle and leisure opportunities at the pier. Now that that consultation has been undertaken, we are now better poised to sensibly activate the area in light of our previous commitment.

So, Madam Chairman, the next step will be to request proposals for a small kiosk facility in the location that’s supported by the community from interested parties, and that may include community groups who are interested in providing facilities in this location, provided they have the resources necessary to provide the outcome that we are interested in providing. The preferred location won’t interfere with sight lines to the pier. We’ll take care to ensure that the next steps take into account the feedback and concerns that we’ve heard through the survey.

And I guess this is in parallel with food truck trials, for example, where we take deliberate care to ensure that any operation in parks take account of impacts on existing businesses, residents, public safety, public transport and any other issues of concern that residents and businesses might have. So, we are looking forward to seeing a response to the request for a proposal (RFP). We’ve seen that in previous public spaces, and we look forward to putting that out, getting the responses back to the RFP and proceeding with the kiosk at Shorncliffe Pier.


Councillor CUMMING.

Question 6

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR, you’ve refused to confirm whether you’ve received the Democracy Intelligence report into the $60 million IT blowout with the Technology One contract. As the contract was a two-month contract entered into on 22 December 2016, can you advise the Chamber if there have been any additional costs incurred due to the delay in this report being presented?


LORD MAYOR: I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question.

Madam Chairman, what I have said is that the report will not be made public, and I can’t be clearer than that. I’ve said it now not only today, but I’ve said it previously. So, Madam Chairman, I have said that, and I have given the reasons why. It would be not in the interest of ratepayers, Madam Chairman, in the middle of a negotiation where we are renegotiating a contract to do so.

Madam Chairman, I just want to again point out—


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: The LORD MAYOR has said the report will not be made public. Will it be distributed to Councillors who are entitled to see confidential information?

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, that is a supplementary question and therefore I don’t uphold your point of order.

LORD MAYOR.


So, in relation to the company concerned that were engaged to undertake this review, Madam Chairman, they will be engaged on an ongoing basis to make sure that we do get the best outcome. Now, I cannot stand here and say I am an expert in IT matters, Madam Chairman, and the reality is that the Cabinet is seeking support—the organisation, I believe, too, is seeking support in relation to this project to get it back on track, and that’s what I’ve said I’m committed to doing. We need expertise to assist us in doing this.


- 9 -

So, Madam Chairman, that is why I’ve announced the initiatives that I did previously in regards to what actions will be taken to bring this project back under control. We previously, of course, had a project called the BaSE project, which was 60 systems we brought into one. It was a $350 million project in that case, and it came in on budget. It ran very smoothly. Despite all of the dire predictions on that occasion, it did run smoothly. And perhaps that’s why the Opposition weren’t game to make dire predictions on this one. But the reality is there’s a lot of big organisations around this country, Madam Chairman, that have faced similar issues in the IT world.

The IT world is a world of its own. No other way to describe it, Madam Chairman. And so, all I’m saying is we are using this company to get the best advice we can. We do not claim to have the level of expertise we need to make sure that we can cover this in the interests of ratepayers, and that’s why we are engaging them. We are talking about a big project. This started as a $122 million project, a lot smaller than BaSE which was $350 million, but nonetheless it is a significant project that brings those 13 systems into a single platform.

But one thing I can assure the residents of Brisbane is that the services they are currently receiving will be maintained. People will not—in the context of the services they are receiving from Council—they will not notice change in relation to that. But, Madam Chairman, we will take advice on this, we need to. We need to in the interests of ratepayers going forward. So, Councillor CUMMING, just in relation to that, there will obviously be, you know, further checks that will come through. There will be further information that comes through in relation to that.


LORD MAYOR: Well, it’s no good saying ‘what?’ I’ve just said that we are going to engage them on an ongoing basis. Until, Madam Chairman, until—


Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: Until we get this project—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!

LORD MAYOR: —back under control. So, Madam Chairman, as I have indicated, there will be times that I will be coming back to this Chamber with additional information in regards to this project. I have indicated that previously, and I will continue to do so.


Councillor HUANG.

Question 7

Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor BOURKE.

Can you update the Chamber of the delivery of library upgrades that this Administration is undertaking to improve the lifestyle and liveability of our city? How does this Administration’s record on libraries compare to that of previous administrations?

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I start by thanking Councillor HUANG for his question, because we all know in this Chamber that this Administration and the LORD MAYOR are committed to providing and delivering great and fantastic libraries for the residents of Brisbane. It adds to the lifestyle and leisure opportunities that residents can enjoy right across the city, and we continue to manage and expand and upgrade our libraries in a very thought-through way, Madam Chairman.


- 10 -

We plan to spend $34 million this term alone on upgrading and improving our libraries, as well as providing a new pop-up library, and our upgrades to eight existing libraries, Madam Chairman. We all know that there are 33 libraries across our city and some 470,000 registered library card holders. And the statistic that is the most outstanding, Madam Chairman, is the six million-odd people who visit our libraries each and every year, and that number continues to grow more and more each year, Madam Chairman.

The reason is libraries are a hub for our communities. So gone are the days of libraries being just a place of books and a place of learning, Madam Chairman. They are now a hub for the whole community to come together, Madam Chairman, and to use. And I guess there’s no better example of that than the recent figure for February where we had 529,000 visitors across our library network in the month of February, and it’s the shortest month of the year. So for this financial year, that’s actually the most number of people that have visited one of our libraries, and it’s great to see more people visiting libraries.

Of course, that was achieved without the Chermside Library being open for two of those weeks, Madam Chairman. I had the pleasure this morning of attending the Chermside Library for a sneak peek with the LORD MAYOR and Councillor KING, and what I can tell the Chamber is that it is an amazing and fantastic new library for the people on the northside. But of course, it is one of our regional libraries, and it will be, when it’s opened this Saturday officially by the LORD MAYOR, the largest suburban library in our network covering some 3,000 square metres. So, a significant amount of space, Madam Chairman, but a great facility for the community.

It includes an expanded and upgraded play area with a camping theme, it has quiet rooms, it has a tech lab that is set up to support our creative economy and our digital economy work, Madam Chairman, with a green screen, and multiple cameras to film from different angles in the room. It has a wet space for creative arts groups to come in and create, whether it’s clay work or painting or other types of creative arts, Madam Chairman. It has three meeting rooms, which is the standard that we have now at our new libraries, as we build them, as we saw down at Wynnum, as well as a range of other facilities—Wi-Fi, internet desks and, of course, over 70,000 items in the collection for people to borrow.

Madam Chairman, the investment in Chermside comes on the back of our recently opened longer library hours on Saturdays. So this Administration is spending $800,000 each year to extend the opening hours of libraries right across this city, to make it easier for residents to use, and also provide those extra hours for people who may want to study or relax in one of our Council libraries.

All of this is being done, Madam Chairman, in a sustainable way, and we continue to deliver and upgrade and improve our existing facilities as well. So, over the course of this term, we’ll be building a new library in Bracken Ridge Ward, Madam Chairman, as well as upgrading the New Farm Library, the Ashgrove Library, Toowong, Stones Corner, Sandgate Library and the Garden City Library.

And as some Councillors may know, the DA (Development Application) for the New Farm Library has already been lodged, and is currently under assessment. We’ll also be unveiling our pop-up library and, of course, we recently launched our new mobile library. Madam Chairman, our mobile library goes to Aspley, Bellbowrie, Brighton, Ellen Grove, Forest Lake, Manly West, Mount Crosby and The Gap, and I do understand that there has been some calls for more mobile library services.

I’m aware of an article in the Quest Newspaper from back in December 2014 where Councillor GRIFFITHS wants the mobile library to go to Acacia Ridge. He wants it to go to Acacia Ridge, and I know that Councillor GRIFFITHS may have put that into his budget submission, and he just said yes. Well, Madam Chairman, I hope Councillor GRIFFITHS, when he’s down there talking to the residents of Acacia Ridge, is telling them that his party was the party that closed the Acacia Ridge Library.


- 11 -


Councillor BOURKE: I bet he doesn’t mention that to the residents of Acacia Ridge—that his party was the party that took the library, ripped the pages from the hands of the vulnerable children down there in Acacia Ridge, and took away their library, like they closed the Ithaca Library, Madam Chairman. They closed two libraries in this city in their time, in managing the affairs, whereas this Administration is building more libraries.


Councillor BOURKE: We’re providing—there’s a library at Mount Gravatt, Councillor CUMMING—shows how much you care about library services in this place.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE—

Councillor BOURKE: I just hope that the Labor Party are open and honest with people when they’re talking to them and telling them that they have a track record of closing libraries, whereas this Administration is providing better facilities, longer hours, upgraded libraries with more facilities, making it easier and more accessible for the residents of Brisbane to learn, study and enjoy these wonderful facilities for the whole community.


Councillor SRI, you’re due for one.

Question 8

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR, as you’re no doubt aware, the scale and pace of development in the inner city causes a lot of disruption for residents and local small businesses. Now, this construction boom is justified on the grounds that we need to increase the supply of housing in the inner city to cater for a rapidly growing population.

However, it seems that thousands of these new apartments are sitting empty long-term, which directly undermines this Administration’s stated goal of providing housing for new residents. So, I’d like to know approximately how many new apartments are sitting empty long-term and what is the LORD MAYOR and this Administration doing to ensure that that housing stock is put to more efficient use, and that the needs of a growing population are actually met?


LORD MAYOR: Well, I thank Councillor SRI for the question, Madam Chairman.

As interest would have it, I’ve not long come back from the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors in Sydney where I was last Thursday, and Friday morning. Madam Chairman, the discussion was also held with other Lord Mayors around this nation about the issue of apartments that are sitting empty, not so much in the west particularly, but certainly on the eastern seaboard.

Madam Chairman, one of the fundamentals was that nobody can really assess to any extent how many of these apartments are empty. Short of going door knocking on each of the apartments, there is no way of telling how often they are inhabited or—


LORD MAYOR: Yes?

Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt. The LORD MAYOR is misleading the Chamber because it’s—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you need to wait to be called. What is your point of order?

Councillor SRI: I am concerned the LORD MAYOR is misleading the Chamber as Melbourne and Sydney Councils have shown that they can estimate how many apartments are empty by looking at water usage.


- 12 -

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you don’t debate when you stand up on a point of order. I don’t uphold your point of order.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, I was with the CEOs of the capital cities and the mayors in most cases—Clover Moore was ill, so she wasn’t able to be there. But, Madam Chairman, I can tell you only what was relayed at that meeting, and there were presentations in relation to it. We discussed homelessness, Councillor SRI, we discussed a whole range of issues pertaining to city centres and how to deal with those issues.

Madam Chairman, I again repeat that there is no way of absolutely knowing what the level of vacancy rate is in relation to these apartments. In some cases, Madam Chairman, they are frequented maybe one or two months a year in some cases, where people come over. They might be overseas-owned, they come over and they utilise those apartments for that period of time.

There is the other issue, Madam Chairman, of, you know, Airbnb is another area of growing significance in capital cities. And so, Madam Chairman, some of these premises are used on a temporary basis in relation to that. And again, each city has a different approach in relation to those forms of use. So it’s not as simple as Councillor SRI either thinks or makes out. It is a lot more complex than that.

Now, Madam Chairman, in terms of that, in any case, where there is a private owner of a unit or apartment, Madam Chairman, I would question what right anybody has to say to that owner that they have to make some other use of that particular premises. I don’t know that that’s the society in which we live. It’s not the form of society which we have. There may be utopia somewhere else, I don’t know. I haven’t found it yet in any part of the world, in any system—


LORD MAYOR: —in any system, Madam Chairman. But that said, again I just relay what I learnt from other capital cities in discussion with them last week. So, Madam Chairman, that’s the best I can answer Councillor SRI’s question, thank you.

Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR. 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 6 March 2017, be adopted.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I just—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh, point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Seriatim for debate and voting - Clauses C and DAt that time Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON rose and requested that Clause C, CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN; and Clause D, MINOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE C, be taken seriatim en bloc for debating and seriatim for voting purposes.


- 13 -

Seriatim for voting - Clause EAt that time Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON further requested that Clause E, OVERSEAS TRAVEL – 2017 LORD MAYORAL BUSINESS MISSION TO THE 2017 ASIA PACIFIC CITIES SUMMIT (2017APCS) & MAYORS’ FORUM IN DAEJEON, SOUTH KOREA, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, given that we have C and D for debate and voting separately, we will need to do items A, B and E first if you could.

LORD MAYOR: Certainly, Madam Chairman. Thank you.

Madam Chairman, just before coming to the report and the items contained therein, I just want to report very briefly on a few other items. Firstly, last week I had the privilege of being at the Brisbane Arts and Culture Innovation Awards, what’s known as the BAACI Awards. This is an opportunity for us to acknowledge the creative industries, what it adds to our city in terms of lifestyle, but also very importantly the economic value that it adds to our city.

I don’t have a Brisbane alone figure, but across Queensland the creative industries now provide some 74,000 jobs, Madam Chairman, and a value of around $3.4 billion a year—$1.1 billion of which is in export values. So when we have events like we do at the Powerhouse, of the Asia Pacific arts market, Madam Chairman, that provides an opportunity for us to export our talent to shows across the globe, and that’s part of that $1.1 billion in economic value that it adds.

So this year we provided 20 talented young individuals and groups with grants which will total about $400,000, Madam Chairman, to grow Brisbane’s creative sector. There’s the Lord Mayor’s Young and Emerging Artists Fellowships providing an opportunity for artists in that 17 to 30-year age group, and this is the 21st year that those fellowships have been operating. Liesel Zink and Pamela Mei-Leng See, two of the recipients of these scholarships, Madam Chairman, are both carving out significant careers in terms of their particular performing arts—either in art or in the case of Liesel Zink, dance.

Madam Chairman, the other things I wanted to report on, I had another Lord Mayor’s Small Business Forum last week, and that was at Carseldine, last Wednesday evening. Also last Wednesday we had the Lord Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council, a new group of students this year. Madam Chairman, that’s probably as much as I need to cover off on events from last week.

In terms of the report before us, Madam Chairman, I just point to item A. Item A is the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1. This is private property resumptions, Madam Chairman. So again, over all, in terms of this project, we have a number of 48 properties, some of which will be complete acquisition, others will be partial, that will be required for Stage 1 of this project. Madam Chairman, if you go back in time, I mean, we see this road corridor as carrying some 62,000 vehicles by 2021. That’s what the traffic modelling we have undertaken predicts. It’s currently around 56,000 vehicles utilising the road.

We went out with a survey of some 40,000 households along the corridor, Madam Chairman, and there was an overwhelming view that additional lanes be diverted or delivered as general traffic lanes. At the moment there is some—


LORD MAYOR: —40 buses in the morning—

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Just concerned that the LORD MAYOR might be misleading the Chamber with that comment that there was overwhelming support when the survey responses were very low and were not statistically significant.

Chairman: I don’t uphold your point of order, Councillor SRI.

LORD MAYOR.


- 14 -

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I just say this, that the survey forms went out. It’s like all things, you can’t ever force people to vote, and you can’t ever force people to respond to surveys. But what we did do is we put those survey forms out, Madam Chairman, across the corridor, and I can give a breakdown, suburb by suburb, of the percentages of how people voted in relation to that. And in each case, in each suburb, without exception, there was majority support for those lanes to be used for all general traffic purposes. Madam Chairman, currently the corridor carries some 40 buses in the morning peak and 34 buses in the afternoon peak.

Madam Chairman, item B is that of the St Lucia Golf Links Pro Shop. This is a lease for the St Lucia Golf Links Pro Shop. There were five companies that tendered for the lease and operation of the pro shop. They were Hillstone, Golf World, AP Leisure, Rhino Golf and Golf Central. Hillstone is the recommended operator. This is based on the non-price score and also the value for money index, where Hillstone scored the highest in both categories. So, Madam Chairman, there will be certainly synergies as well with Hillstone currently operating the cafe and function space at St Lucia. This space is, of course, an extremely successful space with over 200,000 customers using the cafe and function room each year.

The lease length of 13 years lines up with the remaining lease for the cafe and function space. So that’s why, if it seems like an unusual length of time, that is the reason. It will line up with the cafe. So where Hillstone are the provider, the lessee, if you like, of both entities. It means that there is the same end date in terms of those facilities.

Madam Chairman, I must stress, though, that whilst it didn’t play a significant role in determining the recommended operator, it’s stated the recommended operator scored the highest in both of those categories that I mentioned.

So, the other one, Madam Chairman, was item E, I think, is what you were after. Madam Chairman, item E is the Asia Pacific Cities Summit. This is the summit which I have discussed here recently before. Madam Chairman, as in 2013, when the Asia Pacific Cities Summit was held in Kaohsiung, this Administration took the responsible Chair. In that case, in 2013, it was Councillor SIMMONDS, and this year that role is held by Councillor ADAMS. So, Madam Chairman, item E proposes Councillor ADAMS be a part of that Asia Pacific Cities Summit leg. So, Madam Chairman, it is not the full business mission, it is the summit, and in line with what Councillor SIMMONDS had undertaken in 2013.

Madam Chairman, this event, I just to remind the Chamber, was originally set up by Lord Mayor Jim Soorley. When I invited Jim Soorley to speak at the summit last year, an invitation he accepted, it was the 20th year anniversary of the summit. Madam Chairman, when that summit first started, there were very low numbers in attendance. We have built this summit now into a very significant event on the global front, and certainly within the Asia Pacific region. So it is an event which, because of the way it has grown, saw six cities bid for the summit, so they bid for the opportunity to stage the summit. Daejeon in South Korea, a sister city, were the successful bidding city.

So, Madam Chairman, the costs associated with this, as part of their bids, will all be covered. That’s the reality. I have also invited, as I did in 2013, the Opposition to provide a delegate to this event because, you know, I understand that there is politics in everything else, but in this particular event, it is my view that we ought to be able to do it as a single Council. I recall in the days when—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor JOHNSTON: The LORD MAYOR seems to think that this Chamber is only made up of the ALP and the LNP, Madam Chairman. I don’t think Councillor SRI or I got an invitation.


- 15 -

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, that is not an appropriate point of order. Councillor CUMMING received the invitation as Leader of the Opposition in this place.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: That’s exactly right, Madam Chairman, and of course, Madam Chairman, so you know, it’s one event where, when we were in Opposition, Madam Chairman, we did participate in the Asia Pacific Cities Summit because we believed that it was one of those times, one of the few times, if you like, where we could have a bipartisan approach in the Chamber because of the fact that it is about those relationships, and about the opportunity to provide some trade outcomes along the way.

So, Madam Chairman, it’s a standing offer that remains. I understand if Councillor CUMMING and his team don’t want to take it up. That’s entirely a matter for them. But I would always like to have seen them be a part of this event if nothing else. It’s not about the business mission. They can have their own view on that, but the summit itself is what I’m referring to. Thank you.

Chairman: Further debate on items A, B and E?

Councillor CUMMING: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

426/2016-17At that juncture, Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

I move that all Councillors be given a confidential briefing on the report by Democracy Intelligence Pty Ltd into the $60 million IT contract blowout.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, to urgency.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this urgency motion because the LORD MAYOR has made it clear that he will not be tabling this document, so I believe that it would appropriate for the Councillors of this Chamber, from all sides of the Chamber, including the Green and the Independent, receive a confidential briefing on the report.

Back on 24 January, the LORD MAYOR announced to the media that a contract blowout had occurred. He revealed that a $122 million IT contract to TechnologyOne was experiencing cost overruns of up to 50%, and a delay of up to 18 months. It was expected to deliver $146 million in savings to Council as well as upgrade outdated technology. However, the contract blowout will result in more money being spent on the new system than it is projected to save over the next 10 years.

LORD MAYOR QUIRK said, ‘I have an obligation to tell the people of Brisbane when things have not gone well, and today is one of those days’. He laid the blame squarely at the feet of the contractor, TechnologyOne. But the next day, TechnologyOne said in a comprehensive statement to the ASX that the Council had already been provided with a completed and tested version of the software and the implementation delay was a direct result of the Council shifting the goal posts since 2015.

Councillor BOURKE: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: While Councillor CUMMING’s dissertation from events six weeks ago is great, he hasn’t established why it’s urgent. I’d ask you to bring him back to urgency.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor CUMMING, to urgency, please.

Councillor CUMMING: It’s exactly because it’s been dragging on so long that it’s become an urgent matter and that we need to have this confidential briefing, Madam Chair.


- 16 -

Madam Chairman, in early 2017, the Council contracts revealed a $220,000 contract for Democracy Intelligence Pty Ltd to conduct an investigation into the TechnologyOne contract blowout. The contract was to run from 22 December 2016 to 22 February 2017. And since that time, we have been calling for the LORD MAYOR to release the results of the report. The ratepayers of Brisbane deserve to know exactly how and why this LNP Administration has blown out a contract by $60 million just 18 months into the contract.

The fact that the LORD MAYOR refused to release the full report publicly shows just how secretive the Administration is. However, I’m prepared to accept his reasons for not releasing the report, but I’m asking for a confidential briefing of all Councillors in this Chamber.


Councillor CUMMING: What we need to know is the reason why the problems have occurred and what the suggestion is for fixing the problem. Now, we’ve asked the LORD MAYOR on a number of occasions, and again today he’s refused to confirm or deny whether he’s actually received the report. And he said he will not be releasing the report in any circumstances, so we want a briefing.

Madam Chairman, another reason for the cause of urgency is the fact on 6 March an email was sent to all Council staff from the CEO, Colin Jensen—that was all Council staff except Opposition Councillors and their ward staff—stating that Mr Greg Evans, Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, and Chief Information Officer Sarma Rajaraman, had met with CEO Colin Jensen regarding their performance—

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your three minutes have expired.

Councillor CUMMING: Oh, what a shame.

Chairman: I will now put urgency to the Chamber.

The Chairman submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 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.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 Councillor Jonathan SRI.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman. We would like, in terms of the order in which matters are dealt with in the E&C, am I correct in thinking item E will be dealt with, voted separately from items A and B?

Chairman: That’s correct. So far, items A and B are together, item E is by itself, item C is by itself, and item D is by itself for voting purposes, and items C and D are going to be debated and voted on separately to items A, B and E.


- 17 -

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you.

Chairman: So we’re now doing items A, B and E.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to Clause A, the Opposition has made its position clear, and that we support this project. In fact, we are critical of how long it’s taken. It was originally to be completed about 2012, and if it’s completed by 2020, that will mean an eight-year blowout in time. However, in relation to the resumptions, we believe Council needs to be fair and reasonable to land owners. It’s a big step for people to have to give up their land. We call on Council to give the objectors a fair hearing and act in a just and fair manner towards them in resuming their properties, and making sure that we really do need to resume those properties that we’re seeking to resume.

In relation to item B, the St Lucia Golf Links Pro Shop, Madam Chairman, we are prepared to support this. I mean, it must be a bit of a blow to Golf World. I think they’ve been in a position of running the pro shop for some 27 years, looking at the documents. However, the net present value of the bid from Hillstone St Lucia Pty Ltd is worth $100,000 more over 13 years, which is not a lot but it’s something, and also the non-price score and the value for money index are both marginally higher for them as the successful tenderer. In addition, the other thing they’ve got in their favour is that they’re the existing lessee of the cafe and function areas at the St Lucia Golf Course, and have been involved with the course for some 29 years.

Finally, Hillstone are prepared to spend $740,000 on capital improvements whereas Golf World had offered $450,000. So, for those reasons we’re prepared to support item B.

Finally, in relation to item E, we’re a bit mystified by this one, Madam Chairman, because the cost of Councillor ADAMS’ trip will be some $1,600, and, Madam Chairman, it does say in the report that air fares and accommodation costs will be borne by Daejeon Metropolitan City for Councillor ADAMS. So, I can only assume this is her spending money for the four-day trip, Madam Chairman, $1,600, which is a considerable amount of money, Madam Chairman.

Someone suggested that it would perhaps be a contribution towards purchasing a Fendi or something like that, Madam Chairman. But I’m sure that’s—



Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chairman, so as I said, we’re concerned about that, and as we’ve said previously, we don’t support the trip in its entirety so therefore we won’t be supporting this item.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to enter the debate on item B of the report, which is the lease of the St Lucia Golf Links Pro Shop, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to hear that the Labor Party will be supporting this item today. It makes a change for them.

Madam Chairman, the lease that we have before us today is for 13 years, as the LORD MAYOR said. It does bring into alignment the two facilities that we have there. We currently have a lease with Hillstone for the food and beverage offering, and we had a lease with another lessee running the golf shop itself, Madam Chairman. That had presented some challenges in terms of the operations and responsibilities, and to make it easier going forward, we have tried to align the two leases so that they can come together. And hopefully in the future, instead of going out for two leases for the site, we would actually be looking to go out for a single lease for the whole site, Madam Chairman, when the current leases are expended.


- 18 -

As other speakers have said, the proponent that is before us today was both ahead on the non-price score, and the value for money index, Madam Chairman, which is a great outcome for Council. It’s an increase in the amount of revenue that Council will receive, but also, and most importantly for people who use the facility, there is a significant capital contribution. So, some $740,000 of upgrades which will consist of a range of different measures, Madam Chairman.

So it will be expanding the existing golf buggy shed, providing more space for more buggies for more people to use, improving the public amenities blocks which have always been a challenge at the site, installing CCTV cameras on two of the tees, weather-proofing of the voids between the pro shop and the existing food and beverage offering, remodelling, replacing and expanding the putting green and the retaining wall that is part of that, Madam Chairman, as well as the provision of golf simulators and a refurbishment of the current pro shop, including additional facilities to support the offering that is being provided by the new proponent.

Madam Chairman, it is a good outcome for Council. It was quite a detailed and lengthy process, and I just encourage all Councillors to support item B before us.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item A of the report, regarding the resumptions of properties for the Wynnum Road corridor upgrade.

I might start by responding to the LORD MAYOR’s comments regarding the survey. The LORD MAYOR’s placed great emphasis on this survey of 40,000 residents arguing that there was overwhelming support for this road widening project, and therefore that it should go ahead, arguing that there was overwhelming support for the decision to use the added lanes for general traffic rather than for bus lanes.

I’ve dug up the original survey that was sent out to residents, and it makes kind of bemusing reading, because the only question that residents were asked—that those 40,000 surveys that were supposedly sent out—the only question that residents were asked was, ‘what use would you like to see for the two new traffic lanes on the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1?’ So, what is important there is that we never actually asked residents, ‘do you want this project to go ahead? Do you think this is an effective use of $115 million of ratepayer money? Do you think this money could be better spent in other ways to reduce traffic congestion?’ We never had that debate or that public discussion. This was really the only substantial piece of public consultation regarding this $115 million project.

There were a couple of community information sessions where we said: ‘hey, this is what we’re going to do’, but in terms of actually taking residents’ feedback and input on board, this survey was pretty much it, and the only question we asked was, ‘what would you like to see for the two new traffic lanes?’ So we framed the debate very narrowly from the beginning. We took it for granted that there was broad public support for widening the road without ever exploring that deeper question.

But what’s particularly troubling about this survey is the information that’s provided to residents and the way it’s worded. So basically the residents are called to choose between general traffic lanes and bus lanes, and they’re presented with a little bit of information about each of those options to sort of guide their decision. What I find particularly concerning is that, in the information about whether key considerations for bus only lanes on Stage 1 of the Wynnum Road corridor, one of the dot points says, ‘if bus-only lanes are selected, there will be no travel time savings for any other traffic during peak periods’.

Now, I don’t think Council can say that with confidence, and I don’t think that’s factually correct. There’s plenty of documented evidence that if you provide bus


- 19 -

lanes, like priority bus lanes for commuters, more commuters will shift to buses, and that will reduce traffic congestion on those general traffic lanes. But in terms of crafting the survey where you already know what you want the outcome to be, I think this is an excellent example, because it guides survey respondents towards a particular suggestion.

If you get a survey that says, ‘do you want general traffic lanes or bus lanes? By the way, if we go with bus lanes, there’s going to be no improvement to traffic congestion’, of course residents are going to choose that they want the additional lanes to be general traffic lanes. But I think what’s even more concerning is that we place so much emphasis on this survey, and yet the number of responses was strikingly low. The LORD MAYOR might want to correct me on the exact figure, but I believe it was in the realm of seven per cent of residents actually responded to this survey. I could be wrong. If you can dig it up, I’d appreciate that. I remember being shocked at how low it was and saying, ‘well, gee, if that’s all that responded, clearly there’s a problem here’.

I would suggest that the reason that many residents didn’t respond is because, (a) they had no faith that their views would be taken on board, and (b) that they didn’t support the project at all. So if they were called to respond as to whether they wanted the additional lanes to be general traffic or bus lanes, they would have said, ‘well, I don’t want either’. As a resident before I was elected, I remember putting that on my survey response, saying I don’t want either additional bus lanes, or general traffic lanes. But that option was never given to residents and, as a result, our only substantial piece of consultation regarding this project is flawed, and is not to be relied upon as a genuine indicator of public sentiment regarding this project.

But to the question of resumptions more specifically, ultimately as Councillors in this place, we’re called upon to decide whether this project is necessary. That’s the test. In supporting these resumptions, we must be convinced that they are necessary for the broader public interest. Now, I’m a big supporter of public transport, and if there was a major new rail line or a major new bus project that was of proven benefit to the population, I’d be happy to make that tough decision to support resumptions. But my opposition in this case is that I don’t believe this project is necessary, and I’m not convinced that the Administration has done the homework to prove that it is.

Fundamentally, the Administration’s support for this project comes down to a lack of vision and a failure of political imagination. I say that because I think most of the Councillors in this Chamber still don’t believe it is possible to shift a large proportion of Brisbane commuters to public transport, and active transport. If we’re honest, that’s what it boils down to. Most of you in this place think it’s not possible to shift Brisbane away from being a car-dependent city, and think that’s a great shame, because it’s a missed opportunity and it means we’re going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We know that, as Brisbane grows, it is not possible to continue widening roads and continue to facilitate a system where the majority of commuters have to travel by private vehicle transport. That is not sustainable, it doesn’t make economic sense, it’s not efficient, it’s not good for communities, and it results in a tremendous waste of ratepayer money.



Councillor SUTTON: Would Councillor SRI take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SRI?

Councillor SRI: Yes, I’d welcome it.

Chairman: Through the Chair, please.

Councillor SUTTON: Councillor SRI—

Chairman: Through the Chair, please.


- 20 -

Councillor SUTTON: Sorry, Madam Chair, through you, I’m just seeking some clarity in terms of your position. If the Wynnum Road upgrade and the additional lanes of traffic were going to be bus lanes, would you support the resumptions then in terms of the public transport infrastructure build?

Councillor SRI: Thanks for the question. No, my first position would be that our existing road alignment should be changed so that left-most lanes are converted to bus and T2 lanes. So rather than widening the road and creating an additional lane, the preferred option would be to just use one of those existing lanes as a T2 lane. But, if we can’t do that, clearly I would support bus lanes over a general traffic lane.

But if the road widening is definitely to go ahead, I would suggest that, rather than a bus only lane, the best option would be a T2 lane. That way we’re providing some priority for buses, but those residents who are car-pooling are also having an advantage, and that will encourage people to shift away from single occupant motor vehicle travel.

To come back to that general point, though, this whole project is symptomatic of a broader failure in planning in Brisbane, where we are still proceeding on the assumption that, for the future, for the next 10, 20-year horizon, we expect and want most people to be travelling in and out of the city on these major corridors via private vehicle transport. That’s what this project encourages, and I think it’s a great shame that we’re not thinking laterally, we’re not exploring how to shift residents away from that kind of transport behaviour. I’m not just saying we should be shifting—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I remind you that this E&C item is actually on property resumptions, it is not based on a broader public transport discussion.

Councillor SRI: Sure.

Chairman: You need to come back to the report. You don’t have the opportunity to go around the world on this one.

Councillor SRI: That’s fine, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the reason I’m raising this is because the fundamental question in voting on these resumptions is whether or not the project is necessary, and the question of whether or not it is necessary goes directly to what kind of transport system and what approach we’re going to take to moving people around this city for the foreseeable future.

Now, the statistics presented in favour of this project suggest an increase of around 6,000 vehicles per day, five years down the track. That’s really the only solid data that we’ve been presented with, but there’s no conversation. There’s no alternative figures about the number of vehicles that would be using that corridor if we significantly increase the number of buses travelling along that corridor, if we lowered the price of public transport, if we provided priority T2 lanes or priority bus lanes for commuters. None of that’s been on the table.

None of those alternative options have been meaningfully considered, and I think that’s deeply disappointing, because it means residents in East Brisbane and presumably one day residents further east in suburbs further along the corridor, are going to be told, ‘yes, we’re taking your homes because some kind of gut instinct told us that it would never be possible to shift people out of private vehicles’. Even though cities around the world are doing that, much larger cities with significantly greater traffic congestion challenges have done the work in shifting their residents, shifting their commuters away from private vehicle transport, and we need to do the same here in Brisbane.

We cannot continue to resume properties, we cannot continue spending hundreds of millions of dollars, throwing money after projects that will not meaningfully improve traffic congestion in the long term.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I bring you back to the report. It is about specific private property resumptions. You need to come back to the report, please.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. So, for this report, we’re talking about roughly a 700-metre stretch of road. Seven hundred metres, and it’s costing us around


- 21 -

$115 million, and the majority of that is the cost of the road resumptions, as I understand. Maybe it’s not exactly the majority—Councillor COOPER might want to correct me about that—but a significant proportion of the cost of the project is the need to resume these properties.

Now, I’m the first to agree that we need to redesign that Heidelberg Street intersection. I’m the first to agree that resuming one or two properties immediately around that Heidelberg Street intersection might be necessary to improve the safety of the bend. But this is not about that intersection. This is not about safety concerns. This is about Stage 1 of the Wynnum Road project as a whole, which is a poor use of ratepayer funds, and which is not an effective solution to traffic congestion.

Given that it is not an effective solution to traffic congestion, I would suggest and submit to you that—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, your time has expired.

Councillor SRI: Thanks.


Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on items A and E.

Firstly, Madam Chairman, just some brief remarks on the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1. Madam Chairman, I think that other Councillors would have received some emails overnight both for and against the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1. I certainly got some from residents both in favour and against.

I have been in this place now for nine years, and I know this project has been on the Council books for a lot longer than that. Having listened to the history of the project and having taken into account all the views of the residents who have written to me, my remaining concern is that these resumptions appear to be unduly impacting on a number of residents. A number of them are forced resumptions in a sense. So, as I understand it, there are 21 resumptions of private property where those residents have not objected, there are two resumptions of private property where the residents have objected, and we’ve heard some of those people in the Chamber here previously. Then there are 14 parcels of Brisbane City Council land which I presume largely relate to Mowbray Park that are also being resumed.

So we are talking about a very significant amount of resumptions impacting on both public parkland—one of the most historic parks in the city—as well as the impact on residents. What worries me, Madam Chairman, is I can’t interrogate whether or not this is a fair and just process, and I appreciate the words that Councillor CUMMING used earlier, because this is where I think the problem is. The road upgrade does need to happen. Certainly you can talk a lot about the design, you can talk a lot about how wide, you can talk a lot about what it’s going to carry and how, and they’re issues that have been aired very thoroughly in this Chamber over many years. To be fair to Councillor SRI, and it’s not often mentioned by the LORD MAYOR or the DEPUTY MAYOR, when the surveys about bus lanes were done, it was my recollection that Councillor Abrahams’ part of the project did support bus lanes. But this Administration—it was the only section that did.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. So this section, when there was a survey done about whether people would support bus lanes or not, very clearly this section of road, people supported having bus lanes. My understanding is, at that stage, that they weren’t opposed to or weren’t opposing the widening either. So I guess based on all the evidence I’ve seen today, this is a necessary project.

What troubles me greatly is that we are now forcing resumptions on people in quite distressing circumstances, as we’ve heard in this Chamber in recent weeks. That is really, really troubling to me. I would like assurances from the


- 22 -

LORD MAYOR today that we have done everything in our power to ensure that we have been just and fair in the way in which we have gone about resuming these properties.

I don’t want to find out afterwards that the 21 residents who are listed here as being agreeable to the resumptions, weren’t. I don’t want to find out later that there are problems that have just been covered up, because we are making a decision today that is affecting 23 homeowners in our city. It’s impacting on their assets, it’s impacting on their finances, and it’s impacting on their lifestyle. I want to make an informed decision today. I want to know that everybody who wanted their entire property bought back has had that opportunity, not just the front section, because I don’t want to be left having to explain to people in future years that the five-metre section that they took, which was probably only ever told to them to be two metres, now means their front door is on a major road.

So I want to know from the LORD MAYOR particularly, that we have done everything to respond to the individual circumstances of these people with respect to the resumptions in here today. I want to know how many have been offered full resumption, and I would like to know whether others asked for full resumption and didn’t get it. I am extremely concerned about the two residents who obviously don’t agree to this, and the impact that this will have on them.

Finally, I am very concerned about the impact of the resumptions on Mowbray Park, and in particular the historic cenotaph that will now be located on a major road. So, whilst I support the project, I have some very strong concerns about the way in which we’ve gone about the resumption process, and the fact that we can’t actually have a decent discussion necessarily with the new local Councillor around his concerns. So, that’s where I am, Madam Chairman. I will be supporting this today, but I want to put on the record that I would like explanations from the LORD MAYOR specifically, that each individual home owner that is affected has had personalised discussions with this Council and that they have got the outcome they asked for, not just the outcome that Council wanted for them.

I hope in summing up the LORD MAYOR will address that, because to be a successful project, we do not want to leave people living in dire circumstances on a main road when for, I would be guessing, most of these people, this property is their sole financial asset. It’s their superannuation, it’s their inheritance for their children, and I want to know that these people are being looked after. Okay, there’s a billionaire who’s got a property down there, but that would be the only one, and there’d be a lot of battlers down there, too. So no laughing, thank you, this is a serious issue.

However, what is laughable is item E on the agenda today, Madam Chairman, and I’d like to make a few remarks. I mean, you ask a few questions in this place about who’s going on an overseas trip, and it dribbles out for weeks afterwards, Madam Chairman. It does look like the LORD MAYOR’s picked a winner. He’s not taking the DEPUTY MAYOR with him, he’s not taking Councillor COOPER with him, but he is taking Councillor ADAMS with him on an overseas trip, again. She’s been on multiple overseas trips, Madam Chairman.

What I want to put on the record is we apparently are forking out $1,600 in miscellaneous expenses for Councillor ADAMS. Now, I don’t know what that is, Madam Chairman, but what I do know is that, as a Chairman in this place, Councillor COOPER gets—sorry, Councillor ADAMS gets an extra $20,000 a year as an expense of office—as an expense of office, Madam Chairman, which is specifically for this type of thing, incidentals. Because the LORD MAYOR has been very clear today, she’s going in her capacity as the Finance Minister.

Now, Madam Chairman, if that is the case, I would urge the LORD MAYOR to amend this motion before us today and withdraw this $1,600. $20,000 Councillor ADAMS gets—and every other Chairman—for incidentals, and it is not reasonable that she will get an extra $1,600 on top of that for this trip. The $20,000 isn’t accounted for. Presumably we’ll never find out what the $1,600


- 23 -

was spent on, Madam Chairman, and I don’t think it’s okay that you can double dip, because that’s what’s going on here.

So if Councillor ADAMS is going on this trip, she reasonably, I believe, should use the expense of office provided to her, some $20,000 annually that she doesn’t account for, to pay for any incidentals associated with this, presumably perhaps some meals or newspapers or Wi-Fi or whatever it will be. But, Madam Chairman, it’s not reasonable that she has that money, and then this Council is being asked to approve more.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Yes, it’s Councillor COOPER, not Councillor ADAMS, just a minor detail. I rise to speak to item A of the report today. I believe that it’s important to be clear as to what we are discussing today. So we’re actually talking about resumption of private property for the Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1 project. We have received, and it outlines quite clearly in the report, we have received two written objections from property owners set out in Attachment D, and the report that has been prepared is in response to those written objections.

The other people who Council have been in dialogue with have not objected, so they have agreed with Council as to the terms in which they would be undergoing that resumption process. So, again, Councillor JOHNSTON is incorrect. This is absolutely about dealing with those two received written objections.

So, in terms of the commentary from Councillor SRI, he has railed against this project I think since he has joined us in Council. But I would like to really be absolutely clear with him that Council has done extensive work in relation to this corridor. Council does not do anything on a whim. It does it based on accurate, carefully considered information.

While I might represent the northern suburbs of Brisbane, every part of this city is experiencing growth. Every single part of Brisbane is experiencing a whole range of impacts from that growth, but in particular we’re experiencing growth in traffic and traffic congestion, as you would anticipate.

In particular, this corridor deals with the growth that’s being experienced in the more eastern part of our city, so this project is not just a small, minor project. This is a project that actually has quite strategic benefits to the eastern suburbs of Brisbane, and it is one that has, until recent times, had bipartisan support. So it was endorsed by the Administration, and it was supported by the Australian Labor Party. So the previous Councillor for that area, Councillor Helen Abrahams, supported this project, and Councillor SUTTON has indicated her support for this project. And yes, there were discussions as to what it would constitute, but there was no argument that this project is warranted.

There’s been a lot of work that has informed this particular process. It’s particularly looked at trying to minimise the impact of this particular upgrade, but also to get the best value for money, because every dollar we spend, every ratepayer dollar we spend, we have to make sure that it delivers a good and sustained outcome for the people of Brisbane. So, we don’t just plan for one year or two years, we plan for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years.

I note that Councillor SRI suggests that we aren’t thinking about the future. We absolutely are. Because yes, there will be changes, all sorts of changes will occur as to how we move around this city. But one thing is undeniable—there is growth occurring. There is growth occurring in every part of Brisbane, and we need to make sure that infrastructure is in place to accommodate that particular growth.

I note that we had a speaker come in last month, and she spoke on behalf of her parents, and she talked about the impact that it’s making on her elderly parents, and I don’t think there’s anyone in this Chamber who couldn’t say that they absolutely very much sympathised with the voice that she brought forward to the Chamber. It is a difficult matter. No one wants to have to move people, but


- 24 -

this is something that we have had to—in a really long term way, we have had to go, ‘this city needs to accommodate this kind of upgrade, particularly for this corridor, for the improvements to the traffic flow, for the safety benefits that this delivers, for a whole range of reasons’. That is why Council is absolutely saying that we must undertake this project. It is not on a whim. It is a strategic decision that we have all made. And it’s not something of recent times.

So we had a formal announcement in 2014. It was actually in the Transport Plan for Brisbane, which was the 2008 to 2026, which was released in 2008. It identified this as a major project. So it’s been a long time that it has been clearly identified. And the benefits that it will deliver are very significant, noting that there are, as the LORD MAYOR said, about 56,000 vehicles per day using this particular piece of road, and this project will in fact deliver improvements by up to about 50% in peak periods to travel times.

Not only will it improve the travel along that particular corridor, it will also have a flow-on benefit to restrict the number of activities, particularly rat-running in local streets. If you get the corridor to function effectively, you are less likely to see people doing the thing that makes local residents extremely irate, and that is rat-running to try and jump out and get ahead of congestion.

In particular, we have seen that there are significant accidents that have occurred over that five-year period, and I know Councillor SRI keeps on saying that this is not something that he agrees with, but I do think it is pertinent for us to consider the WebCrash data to notice what has been going on, and there have been people that have been seriously injured, and I think it is an absolute responsibility of us to make sure that the roadway is appropriate for the use.

If we know that a vehicle, so a large vehicle cannot traverse this corridor through the bend without actually going into a neighbouring lane, what kind of Council would we be if we said that that was acceptable, that we knew that that was not a possibility? So this particular project—



Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we have also undertaken extensive community consultation. We have doorknocked all affected property landowners. We have had one-on-one meetings with them. We have followed up. There have been over 1,000 contacts between people and Council officers as part of this particular project. We have had community information sessions. We have had all sorts of newsletters that have gone out.

So if I just list off the broader communication activities, we’ve had two community information sessions in October and November of 2014, we’ve had the local residents’ survey in July of 2015, we’ve had two community informations in July and August 2016, we have had five community newsletters with project updates, including one released on 23 January this year. We have had extensive consultation as a part of this particular process. We have a dedicated project hotline. We have an email address that’s been set up and available since 2014. As I said earlier, over 1,000 interactions with interested stakeholders since the project’s announcement.

It is absolutely clear that this is a project that delivers great benefits for our city, and it is not a pleasant thing to have to resume land from people who would prefer to remain in their home. We absolutely understand that. But in the interests of our city, it is a project that we must do. It is a project we are committed to, and have been committed to for an extended period. This is something that will help make sure that, as our city grows, we deliver the infrastructure that residents really expect from all of us. And that will benefit not


- 25 -

just people travelling in cars, but it will make significant improvements to how the public transport network works.

It will deliver improved benefits for pedestrians and cyclists. This is a project that is being carefully considered by Council officers, and I am disappointed that we have heard people suggesting that Council officers are treating this in a very facile way. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is something that we all take very, very seriously, and this investment delivers significant benefits, with a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 4.69, so significant benefit that it delivers for the wider Brisbane community.

Madam Chair, we understand and we sympathise with people who object to this resumption, but these resumptions must go ahead, because this is a project that will deliver such benefits for the city, that it is undeniable, and we want to see every kind of opportunity for our city to deliver the infrastructure we require as we continue to grow over the years ahead. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you claim misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Just on two brief points.

Councillor COOPER seemed to be asserting that I was not concerned about safety along this route, and I’m at pains to emphasise that I do support upgrading the Heidelberg Street intersection, and I resent the implication that I’m not supportive of that. But again, it appears that Councillor COOPER is conflating an upgrade to the safety issues—

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, if you’re claiming misrepresentation, you merely state what you believe has been misrepresented. You can’t go into another speech.

Councillor SRI: Okay, I’ll just narrow that down, yes. So I’m saying that I do support that Heidelberg Street intersection safety upgrade, and I’m frustrated that I—

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, what you’re frustrated about is not a point of misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Sure, sure. Okay, so the second point of misrepresentation—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you only claimed one point of misrepresentation. Sorry, you need to resume your seat.

Further speakers?

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item A and item E of this report.

Firstly, the Wynnum Road upgrade private property resumptions that are here before us today. I’m on record of giving this project my full support, save for a number of design aspects that I acknowledge that the Administration has said that they will not embrace. If Labor had been doing this project, not only would we have seen it fast-tracked, we would have included the duplication of Canning Bridge into the scope. We would have included bus or transit lanes into into the scope.

In fact, that last point is part of the reason why we had the survey in the first place. It was the Administration’s attempt to prove a point to Councillor Abrahams and I, after we had been lobbying for that particular design to be adopted by this Administration. They went out with a heavily loaded survey, which I said at the time was designed to fail. I knew before the results even come back what it would be. Simply by reading how they had set up the survey.

My view on that hasn’t changed. It’s something that I’ve said a number of times in this place. It was always going to get the results that it got, because that is how the Administration designed it up. I believe I said at the time it is one reason why we cannot have a proper and mature debate about the need for investing in public transport infrastructure, real public transport infrastructure in this city, while this LNP Administration holds the keys to all the resources and all the money, and all the corporate communications that it can muster, because


- 26 -

they will always win out over an under-resourced Opposition that actually tries to articulate an alternative point of view, despite whatever theoretical and whatever research and case studies are in existence.

So we acknowledge that the Administration isn’t going to put in a transit lane or a bus lane as part of their delivery of the Wynnum Road upgrade, but I guess my position is that at least if the road corridor is widened, at some stage it may be able to transition in the future when the need arises. That’s how I comfort myself at night on that particular point.

But I do think that, as hard and as difficult as the resumption process is for the residents involved—and I do acknowledge those residents, I know it is difficult. I still believe that the growth in Brisbane’s eastern suburbs into the future is still going to necessitate the additional room, whether or not it’s utilised by private vehicles or public transport into the future.

I believe, and I’ve said ad nauseam over the years, that this is a once in a generation project. We’ve got one chance to get it right. I do believe that, whilst that public transport infrastructure would have been good to include, such is the project as it is designed now, that it could be transitioned.

I also support Stage 2. I know the Administration is pursuing Stage 2-light at the moment, but I do support Stage 2. I do think for the same reason that what is included as part of the initiatives, in Stage 2-light, is the introduction of a short bus jump queue, something that I have leant my support and proactively volunteered to the Council officers when they were talking through the design process for that Stage 2-light initiative that they have commenced.

Councillor COOPER is right in what she says about rat-running in local streets. I’m seeing it right now through the suburbs of Norman Park and through Balmoral Park. In fact, this park has a road that goes past a local kindergarten. I don’t think that’s appropriate. Also the rat-running through Norman Park goes through roads that lead to a local school. Again, I think that we need to fix the road traffic corridor—to stop the rat-running.

I also don’t think it’s appropriate for residents to queue to get on to Wynnum Road from Hawthorne Road and Riding Road. In the morning now is such that you can spend 25 minutes to half an hour just waiting to even get on to Wynnum Road before you hit the Wynnum Road traffic congestion.

So it is very much a necessary project, but I do acknowledge the residents and all of the people who have emailed in the last, you know, 24 hours, but I have been very clear about my position for a number of years, and it’s not going to change now, even though I understand it is a difficult situation for these people. But I guess that’s what, you know, being a local Council, and the LNP being in charge of the local government. It’s about making tough decisions, and not everyone is a winner when you have to make those complex and tough decisions. But I acknowledge that—the complexity of the issue for those residents as well.

Turning to item E, the overseas travel item. I guess a key point that I want to make is—there are two key points that I want to make, and it’s firstly, I turn the attention to the answers to the Questions on Notice that are on the agenda paper today, where it actually outlines that the total cost of this trip to Council—this is the $1,600 for Councillor ADAMS to travel, that is this week’s reports or the $14,500 for the LORD MAYOR to travel that was in last week’s report, the answers to the Questions on Notice indicate that this mission will cost the city $31,600. So that figure wouldn’t have been publicly disclosed had the Opposition not asked the Questions on Notice this week.

There was no voluntary admission from the Administration about the full cost of this trip, and I think that if you’re going to undertake these trips, it is incumbent on you as the keepers of this information, to be open and transparent about the full costs to Council when undertaking that. I understand you can come back and talk about the benefits, and the economic benefits and all the rest of it after the trip, or in the lead-up to the trip, no problem, but have the decency to be open and honest and transparent about the real cost to this Council. Don’t try to


- 27 -

hide it. This is the type of behaviour that had the Liberals tagged as mean and tricky back in the 90s. That is what this Administration is exhibiting here when it tries to hide these costs.

The second point that I just have to make is to note that the decision has been made that Councillor ADAMS should accompany the LORD MAYOR on this trip, which is an interesting choice, given, you know, some of the current stuff that’s been floating around the media in recent times. And it’s also interesting to note in the context that, when the LORD MAYOR announced his Civic Cabinet line-up back in April last year, there was a specific Councillor appointed as having responsibility for international relations.

Councillor interjecting: Who was it?

Councillor SUTTON: Good question, Councillor CASSIDY. Through you, Madam Chair, I’ll announce that. It was actually the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER.

‘As expected DEPUTY MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER was re-elected by the LNP party room, but has been moved from Infrastructure to Public and Active Transport, with special responsibility for the development of the Brisbane Metro and international relations’.


Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, one can only speculate as to why then, despite appointing Councillor SCHRINNER as his spokesperson for international relations not less than 12 months ago, that he would opt, then, for the company of Councillor ADAMS in her role as the Chairperson for Finance and Economic Development. I’m just going to let that one sit, and perhaps there’s someone in the LNP party room that might be able to explain that to me at some other time.


LORD MAYOR.


Madam Chairman, I might just handle them one at a time, if I may. Firstly, can I say in relation to resumptions, and I’m talking here of course on item A, there is nothing that’s ever nice about the resuming of someone’s property. But, Madam Chairman, the reality is that, in a growing city, such as Brisbane, we do need to do this on occasions. We do it not only for road purposes, we do it, and have done it recently, to establish parks in our city.

We have indicated in the town plan, in the City Plan of 2014, for example, that we expect and propose to have around 200 additional parks over the coming 20-year horizon, Madam Chairman. That’s not going to come from fresh air. That will come from us developing these parks through the use of private property. That is part of the deal, if you like, in terms of, as our city grows in population, that we continue towards creating the open spaces that we need. It’s part of our vision, having a 40% green and open space cover in our city.

So, Madam Chairman, nobody likes to do these things, but we do it. So, to the question of, are we being just and fair, I would have to say, Madam Chairman, we take every step along the way to achieve that. Do we reach a point where people always get the outcome that they ask for, Councillor JOHNSTON? Absolutely not, absolutely not. Because most people, to that question, would say ‘well, don’t resume me’. But the reality is, and Councillor SUTTON referred to it, when you are in Administration, there are times when you have to make tough decisions—not nice decisions, not decisions you inherently want to make, but you make them in the belief that they are the right thing for the future residents of our city.

Such was the decision when the South East Freeway was put in. Such was the decision when the South East Busway was put in. Madam Chairman, not nice decisions, but right decisions, for the mobility of our city.



- 28 -


Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to clarify, because this was important. In the papers today, we’re being told that, of the 21 resumptions, that no objections were received from those residents. That’s what’s outlined in item four in the Council papers. The LORD MAYOR has just said, as I understood it, that those 21 people are actually opposed to the resumptions.


Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: So, Madam Chairman, I’d just like to clarify, are the 21 people who I’m told in the report agree to this, did they oppose the resumptions?

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I’m sure the LORD MAYOR will get to it if you listen carefully and you read the report.


Chairman: Don’t answer back when I’m speaking.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, Councillor COOPER covered those points very clearly. So you’ve got to listen in this place. That’s, you know, the one thing that thing I say to everybody, if you want to learn something about Council, listen in this place. It’s served me well over the years, I know that. Because you remember stuff.

Madam Chairman, the reality is that there are formal objections as well, and you have to read the report in accordance with that. Madam Chairman, nobody jumps out there and says, ‘I’d like my house to be resumed.’ The world doesn’t work that way, as we know.

But we are fair, and can I just say that today, legislation also governs that fence in the way in which things are done, the way in which people do get a fair and reasonable compensation in relation to their property, the way they are given a cost evaluation, legal costs which, Madam Chairman, if you go back to the times when the South East Freeway was built, for example, none of these provisions were around, and people were badly dealt with at that time, in terms of resumption. Today we have a much fairer system, but again I repeat, it is never nice to have to undertake a resumption, either partial or in total of someone’s property.

Madam Chairman, today Councillor SRI has essentially said that it is his view that Wynnum Road should be reduced to one lane in each direction for general traffic. I find that extraordinary to suggest that that road could function in a safe way and, Madam Chairman, in a way which would be—



Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.

LORD MAYOR: Oh no, you’re not, Councillor SRI.



LORD MAYOR: You can, but you go back and read what you said in Hansard during the week. I listened very carefully—again, about listening, Madam Chairman. I listened very carefully to what was said, and what you said was that you were proposing to use the existing lanes there, to use one of those lanes on each side for buses, potentially for a T2, but, Madam Chairman, that reduces Wynnum Road to one lane in each direction for general traffic. That is the outcome of the proposition you have put on the floor of this Chamber today.

I find that an extraordinary, unrealistic proposition, and it’s, Madam Chairman, just not one which a functioning city could deal with in any way. You would


- 29 -

have a revolution and a riot. I know the Greens like revolution, Madam Chairman. Nothing better than a good revolution, but, Madam Chairman, it would not be pretty for Councillor SRI, were that to come to pass sometime in the future.

Madam Chairman, just to the question of the survey, I can’t today—and I will happily get this—I can’t give the number of responses that we had to the survey. It’s like all of these things, though, we do—and I guess you all as Ward Councillors do your own surveys in your wards. You put out something and you might only get a proportionate response back. You can’t force people to vote on your surveys. You can’t force people to vote at elections, even though it’s compulsory. Madam Chairman, the reality is, though, that of the responses that we got, and everyone had a fair opportunity to respond, every suburb that we sought a vote in, voted in a majority to support open to all traffic.

The worst result—and I use that in the sense of the lowest result—was in the case of East Brisbane, where 51% voted open to all traffic, 49% voted for bus lanes only. This was in terms of the additional lane, one lane in each direction. But you know, it ranged from there right through to—I’ll just go through a few of the suburbs here, Madam Chairman, in no particular order.

Balmoral was 60% open to all traffic; 71 in Bulimba; 73% in Cannon Hill; 64% in Hawthorne; 75% in Hemmant; Lota was 66%; Manly 66%; Manly West 72%; Morningside—which was another one on the low side, was 56%; Murarrie was 77%; Norman Park at 69%; Seven Hills at 69%; Tingalpa at 72%; Wakeley at 74%; Wynnum at 69%; and Wynnum West at 69%. So there were some pretty substantial percentages in terms of that response. Over all, it came in at 68% in support of open to all traffic, 32% bus lanes only.

Madam Chairman, the only other matter that I wanted to raise was in relation to this issue of the expenses associated with the Asia Pacific Cities Summit. More broadly, Councillor SUTTON in her dissertation, got a little bit off the recommendation of today, but was talking about drawing people out on terms of costs. What you’re seeing, Madam Chairman, is the cost that will be incurred as the expense of my travel. What it does not say in that report, last week or two weeks ago, whenever, and today, is that, Madam Chairman, in terms of the business mission, business delegates pay a premium, and that premium means that what you’re seeing publicly in terms of what the costs of my travel will be, will be, in reality, substantially less, because a proportion of the business delegates’ fees go to paying for that, not the ratepayers of Brisbane.

So that is something that’s not understood, or may if it is understood, it’s obviously not in political interest for it to be understood—


Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: But that is, Madam Chairman, how we work. So I often, as Councillor SUTTON suggests, I will come back and report on the successes of the business mission.


LORD MAYOR: But up front—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!

LORD MAYOR: —up front, Madam Chairman, before taking into account any successes, the delegates pay some of the costs associated with that travel as part of the premium of having the LORD MAYOR with them to open the doors and the opportunities for business in those cities where we go. Madam Chairman, I am happy to move the report.

Chairman: I will put item—sorry, Councillor SRI, you claim misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes, just on that point that the LORD MAYOR made, I’m at pains to emphasise that, yes, I do support only having one general traffic lane along that stretch of Lytton Road, but what I’m saying is that the other lane should be a peak hour transit lane. So I’m not calling for a bus lane—


- 30 -

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you’ve made your point, thank you.

Councillor SRI: Okay, sure, yes, I just wanted to emphasise and clarify that.


I will now put items A and B.

Clauses A and B put

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

Chairman: I will now put item E.

Clause E put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clause E of the report of the Establishment and Coordination 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: 20 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

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

ADJOURNMENT:427/2016-17

At that time, 4.03pm, 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 4.05pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: We will now move to items C and D of the Establishment and Coordination Report for debate and voting.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much Madam Chairman. Firstly item C which is the City West neighbourhood plan.

Madam Chairman, the submissions before us today is the response to submissions following the statutory notification period. Council undertook public notification on the neighbourhood from 22 October to 2 December last year. During this period Council received 47 submissions on the draft neighbourhood plan.

The draft neighbourhood plan focuses on three key renewal precincts as well as recognising the significant character residential area and its importance to Brisbane. The neighbourhood plan focuses on the redevelopment potential of the site adjoining the Normanby Hotel. Any future redevelopment of this site would need to include publically accessible open site, a mix of uses, and cross-site pedestrian crossings.


- 31 -

Following the submissions, the draft neighbourhood plan now includes additional provisions for applicants to provide an urban context report. The urban context report requires the applicant to demonstrate how the application responds to the context and showcases a subtropical building design, in line with the New World City Design Guide.

Similar to the Bulimba neighbourhood plan, the City West neighbourhood plan includes provisions for any future development of the Department of Defence site, should ownership change. Future development of this site will activate the space, allow for public accessible spaces, and reuse and restore significant heritage buildings on the site.

Following feedback during the notification period, the neighbourhood plan includes increased provisions regarding heritage protection, including reference to the Burra Charter, as well as specifying only 16% of the site is capable of any redevelopment, as well as tighter provisions around maximum height, with six storeys only allowable to the southern corner of the site, adjoining the rail line.

The third key renewal area is Caxton Street, the sections of Petrie Terrace, with the neighbourhood plan allowing for an increase in mixed use development within the area to activate the daytime economy within that area. Other key outcomes of the neighbourhood plan include increased protection of approximately 400 character homes within the plan area. As this area has significant topography issues, and historically small lots, the area has been rezoned from character infill to character.

The draft neighbourhood plan also includes additional provisions for pre-1946 houses, restricting demolition unless structurally unsound. In addition, the pre-1911 houses within the plan area cannot be relocated, and can only be demolished if structurally unsound. The City West plan area is one of our earlier suburbs, with the style of subdivision and development playing a key role in the evolution of Brisbane, making the plan area unique and warranting an additional protection. Madam Chairman, following the Council today, the neighbourhood plan will be sent to the State for endorsement to progress to adoption.

The other one, item D, is minor amendments. Madam Chairman, the submission before us today is minor and administrative amendments to the Brisbane City Plan. As this Chamber would be aware, minor amendments are changes to the City Plan that include correcting things like spelling errors, updating terminology, and formatting changes that do not change the intent or policy of the City Plan. These minor amendment changes can even extend to updating mapping to reflect recent development approvals, to which we have, Madam Chairman, on an ongoing basis, really.

The minor amendment package before us today includes a number of changes to reflect changes that have been made by the State Government. This includes a change to include two lots in the Enoggera Reservoir into the local government area. There are a series of amendments to reflect this change, including zonings, and strategic framework, to reflect the new map.

The State Government recently announced that Herston Quarter is a priority development area, so that’s another change. As such, the minor amendments before us today propose to reflect that in our planning scheme, as priority development areas are exempt from our planning scheme. There are also road corridor updates to reflect the State Government mapping changes, to refine all State-controlled roads, including rail in the Transport noise corridor overlay mapping.

Finally we have a series of updates to reflect recent changes such as the removal of reference to banana bars—


LORD MAYOR: —reference-consistent standards on stormwater, drainage and water quality.



- 32 -

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, the minor amendments do not need to go—

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: —through the same process as the major amendments. Instead, following Council’s endorsement, the minor amendments are gazetted and effective. This particular package of minor amendments, Madam Chairman, will be effective from 24 March. So, Madam Chairman, I should at this point sit down and hand over to the bananas in pyjamas opposite.


Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in relation to item C, the City West neighbourhood plan, look, we won’t be supporting this item today. Once again the LNP has squibbed on the potential this plan had to include provision for transformational projects that would impact on how our city moves, particularly in terms of pedestrian and cycle connectivity. This is an opportunity lost.

We are also concerned that the heritage provisions are not strong enough. Finally there are a number of proposed park upgrades requested and imagined by residents who submitted to the plan, and I call on the local Councillor to disclose which, if any, of these he will pursue through his Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund.

In relation to the minor amendments, or should I say the latest group of minor amendments at item D, today we see the LNP move to fix a further 169 mistakes in the LNP’s City Plan 2014. It corrects spelling and grammatical errors, cross-referencing mistakes, and straight out factual inaccuracies. Significantly it alters the City Plan to make it consistent with DA approvals, DA approvals that are no doubt inconsistent with the current parameters of the City Plan. It removes redundant terms and fixes incorrect tables and mapping areas.

These mistakes are in addition to the 77 corrected in August 2016, and the 210 mistakes they needed to fix up in September 2015. It also doesn’t include the additional 4,480 flood mapping areas they were forced to correct, so we’re up to almost 5,000 mistakes since City Plan 2014 was introduced.

Now, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor SIMMONDS can dress it up any way they like, but the fact is this is a list of 169 mistakes picked up in the City Plan that this Administration has been forced to correct. This shows the tardiness of the Administration, and their approach to town planning, and they stand condemned for it.


Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Sorry for the confusion, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item C which is the City West neighbourhood plan. Listening to Councillor CUMMING before, I think he was talking to item C, standing for confused, because I had no idea what he was talking about in regards to this plan.

Madam Chairman, this plan is actually quite important for the local Petrie Terrace area. So when you think of where we are, it’s the area between Hale Street and Countess Street, and it’s one of the oldest and most important areas of our city. Petrie Terrace’s history, Madam Chairman, goes back as far as formalising the subdivision of blocks. It goes back to 1864. There are still examples there today of that earlier residential dwellings.

It includes also the Victoria Barracks, also established in 1864, and became the headquarters of the Queensland Military in the later years, from 1885 onwards. Madam Chairman, of course within that also is Caxton Street, Suncorp—there are so many landmarks within the precinct that are reflective of the history and the culture and diversity of what Brisbane is from its earliest inceptions.


- 33 -

So this neighbourhood plan goes a long way, a very long way, in protecting and enhancing that history and culture and identity. As the LORD MAYOR said, when you’ve got significant homes of such historical value within that precinct, you want to provide them with as much protection as the law allows, and we have done that through this plan. We have increased our character residential rating from infill, from CR2 to CR1, with character residential.

As the LORD MAYOR said, it’s almost 400 homes, which is effectively every house within that precinct. That’s an enormous achievement for that local area, and it is something that I know as the local Councillor, that the residents strongly support. In all of my dealings with the terrace, whether it be development, whether it be the Normanby, whether it be dealing with just beautification of local streets, it has always been the issue of protecting those original cottages, and making sure that we enhance and protect the character of an inner city suburb such as Petrie Terrace.

Also, Madam Chairman, when you look at the opportunities available, Caxton Street is a vibrant part of our nightlife community. It has a number of key entertainment venues, recognised by all of us, and it’s important to be able to provide them with the certainty that that will continue, but also to provide them with opportunities as a growing city, as a growing market of nightlife and diversity, that they have the opportunity to do that, but within the confines of Caxton Street, and that’s an important note to make.

When you look at Victoria Barracks, Madam Chairman, and its significant history—I’ve had the great privilege of being able to be invited to a recent history launch of the Vietnam War, and there are significant landmarks, inspiring landmarks, within that Barracks that I was able to see. The Officers’ Mess was built in 1864. It’s still there, in its original state, maintained by the Army. There are so many different buildings that were built during different periods of wars that Australia attended, but also in the growth of Australia as a nation, that are reflected within that precinct.

Madam Chairman, this neighbourhood plan goes towards protecting those assets, but also enhancing as well, Madam Chairman. We’ve seen the enormous benefit that came out of the Police Barracks, the work that was done by previous administrations to reinvigorate that precinct, to turn it into a commercially active precinct, but still respecting and protecting its environmental values. That was clearly reflected in the comments that the LORD MAYOR has made.

Yes, there are opportunities within the Barracks precinct, but they, of course, Madam Chairman, reflective of what is already there, and all of the different criteria and the heritage overlays that are already in place.

So, Madam Chairman, when you look at the draft plan, it is clearly a reflection of the enormous amount of work that has gone in by officers, and the enormous amount of feedback that local residents have provided within that process. It has gone a long way towards finding that balance between increased residential and business growth, coupled with addressing the concerns and priorities of local residents within that process.

Importantly also, Madam Chairman, when we look at 1911 protection—and there has been significant debate in this Chamber around that issue—and both sides of the Chamber agree that being able to enhance and protect those 19 and recognise those pre-1911 homes and placing them on the register, goes a long way to protecting them, and this plan does that. There are 10 pre-1911 sites in mixed use areas that are now recognised within this plan, and there’s one heritage site that’s also protected.

And examples of that pre-1911, Madam Chairman, are not only residential, but also in some of the commercial precincts, when you go along Latrobe Terrace, when you look at Brisbane Arts Theatre, there are components of that building, there are some components that are modern, but there are also important components of that building that are also 1911, that are now being protected as part of that process.


- 34 -

Now, all of these things are of enormous value and benefit to this neighbourhood plan. Importantly, also, when we look at the planning criteria now around the Barracks, and the Normanby, as the LORD MAYOR was saying, there are new criteria that must be assessed there about open space, about activation, and all of these things are important factors in the growth of that precinct, and making sure that as local residents there, they get the full benefit of that.

Madam Chairman, as the local Councillor, I’ve always supported residents within the Paddington Ward about park enhancements, and always will. I myself am very excited at the opportunity of looking at Hardgrave Park and treating it more as a forgotten space as it currently is, and looking at it as how we can activate and treat that place as somewhere that residents would like to come and use, whether it be for community benefit, or whether it just be socially, or whether it just be to take that moment in an open space in a green field area.

So, Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with residents in respect of those opportunities. I certainly look forward to this plan progressing, now that it’s going for a State interest check. I want to acknowledge the work that the officers have done over a significant period of time in this space, and importantly also, all of those local residents within the Petrie Terrace precinct that have given so much of their time—that is the consultative committee, but also those residents that made submissions because of their passion and commitment, which I think has been reflected in this plan today.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I’d certainly like to clarify where in here it says we’re removing the banana bars, because I’m not clear in the amendment package—


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, yes, do you know which number? Anyway, I’ll get on with my comments on items—on what are we, C and D, I think, and I’d like to start with the City West neighbourhood plan in the first instance. I am one of the 37 properly made submitters to this plan, and I was asked to speak on behalf of veterans in my area who are members and also volunteers at the Army Museum located at the Barracks. They were extremely concerned that Council’s plan allows high rise, mixed use development—and mixed use development around the Barracks, that they believe will detract from the areas of significant military history and cultural significance to our city.

As we’ve heard from Councillor MATIC, the Barracks were established in 1864 by the first Governor of Queensland, Sir George Bowen, and they have been a significant part of every major conflict since then, including the Boer War and, most recently, through to Afghanistan. The Barracks were the administrative headquarters for the Army for over a century, from 1885 to 1992.

Now I think, disrespectfully, Council described this site as under-utilised, which the veterans found extremely offensive. These people have served their country, and they feel a strong sense of connection to the Barracks, and many of them are now volunteers who provide a valuable public service to our community.

The suggestion I had, which I thought was an excellent one, was that the Barracks precinct should be treated akin to the historic Sydney Rocks precinct, to ensure the cultural fabric and tourist potential of the area was not destroyed by inappropriate or over-development. The protection of the heritage values of this—the Victoria Barracks should be a key consideration in the neighbourhood plan, and obviously that reflects more generally, a desire by residents to see open spaces protected, heritage buildings protected, and heritage trails to be established.

The veterans said that they would support revitalisation of the Barracks and an adaptive re-use that does not impact on its heritage status and structures. They do not support high rise development within the precinct and around the precinct, and on the major frontages as was proposed. And, should the


- 35 -

Federal Government dispose of the site in future, they believe very strongly that it should be retained in public ownership by Council as parkland, restored and re-used, taking into account the significant heritage listed buildings on the site, and should be used for community purposes.

Now, in response to all of that in this, basically we’ve got Council saying, ‘Oh, we didn’t mean to offend anybody’. Well, thanks so much, I appreciate that’s the response to my submission, but it did, it really did. I am very disappointed that this Council didn’t think about the significance of that site to our community prior to putting out the strategy. What I note in the response to the documents is, what Council has done in response does not go far enough. It’s saying that there will be a master plan done before there’s any re-use of that area, and that Council—and I’m not sure exactly how they’re going to be doing this—but that Council will specify that—there will be a re-use of those Army Barracks and the heritage buildings for public purposes.

Now if this is sold off to some developer, they can build whatever they want on it. They can put in an impact assessable DA, they can convert it to commercial and use it for whatever purpose they want, and I guarantee this Council will roll over and let them do it. I’m watching that process go on right now where this Council and the State Government agreed that heritage buildings at the Yeerongpilly TOD (Transit Oriented Development) site would be protected for community re-use, and now Council and the State Government have agreed that it will be for commercial use, not community. Now, that’s disgusting and disgraceful.

So I’ve got no confidence that the platitudes in this document are going to do justice to the concerns that the residents and the veterans have raised with me during this process. So I’m really, really disappointed. And in looking at it again, we see that here is—and that’s my specific comments on that. It’s a very important issue to them.

In looking more broadly at the neighbourhood plan, I see yet again more generally, that residents’ views are being ignored. They have made very specific suggestions about what they need in their area with respect to infrastructure, and this Council is again ignoring it—ignoring it. I really do not understand why we’re even bothering any more with neighbourhood planning. It’s become a purely political, top down process, where local communities and local representatives get no say at all, and I think that is disgraceful.

So in my view this Administration has got this neighbourhood plan wrong, and in the end it’s saying things that it knows it cannot enforce in the plan down the track. So I still remain extremely concerned for those veterans who’ve raised those issues with me about the Victoria Barracks. If this Council is not going to retain that site, or seek to retain it from the Federal Government, we are at the mercy of whatever developers want, and for sure they’re going to want density on that site.

Secondly, just with respect to the City Plan amendments, I’m completely opposed to just about everything in here except a couple of little things. So unfortunately I’m going to have to vote for it, because the little things actually need to be done.

One is correcting a mistake that Jane Prentice wrote to Council back in 2004. When it wasn’t done, the residents wrote to me and I wrote to Council back in 2011. The changes didn’t get made at that point. The residents followed up with me again about eight weeks ago, and I asked what’s going on, why haven’t these changes been made? Despite promises in writing from the Divisional Managers at the time that these changes would be done, they weren’t done.

So, as it turns out in the document that I read on Friday, they’ve put it in here. Now, Madam Chairman, Council didn’t bother responding to me until today to tell me that the change was actually going to happen, and even then Councillor SIMMONDS has sent me a mealy-mouth little letter that doesn’t provide any dates or timeframes, and, Madam Chairman, that’s not good enough. That is not good enough.


- 36 -

If the Divisional Manager writes to someone six years ago saying we’re going to do it, and it’s not done, they have every right to be concerned with the actions of this Council. So, despite the fact that I’m opposed to a number of things in here, and the LORD MAYOR says these are just minor technical amendments, well, not what I’ve read in here. So, for example, there’s major changes to stormwater planting, fire retention, in particular, the fire retention basins.

So Council is actually doubling the timeframe that a developer needs to replant and to put trees down in fire retention basins, from 12 months to 24 months. So, an extra 12 months for a developer to get their act together. That’s what’s in there. That’s not little in my view. I would be extremely concerned that we’re allowing developers extra time, 12 months should be plenty of time to actually get your house in order and get the necessary trees planted.

Now I’m also concerned that somehow banana bars have been slipped in here. That’s hardly something that should be just put in here, and I am extremely concerned that they’ve put it in, and I genuinely cannot tell where it is.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, well, I can’t tell—it doesn’t actually say it in there, as far as I can see, and I would appreciate someone telling me how it is represented in this document, because what’s going on in here is that this Administration says these are minor changes—what did the LORD MAYOR say? Correcting mistakes, changing a few letters here and there. That’s not what’s going on in these plans.

As I said, when you read things like item 51, about stormwater drainage, where we’re giving developers an extra 12 months to carry out their obligations, that’s a concern to me. Twelve months is already long enough to get it right, why do they need 24 months?

So, I don’t think it’s a small thing, LORD MAYOR, when you make changes like that. I don’t support banana bars being removed. Nine years I’ve been a Councillor, and not once has anybody come to me and said there’s a problem with banana bars, not once. So I certainly, you know, think that there’s some real problems what’s in City Plan, but because this Administration, after 13 years, has finally got their act together to fix up the mapping mistake in Dudley Street, Sherwood, I have to vote for this.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Further debate?

Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on items C and D. Perhaps if I can deal with item D first, if that’s alright by the Chamber, in relation to the minor amendment package.

So, firstly in relation to what the package is, well, it’s not as Councillor CUMMING would have this Chamber believe. It is in fact a suite of amendments that covers a number of things, all of them deemed minor. Not deemed minor by us, deemed minor by the Sustainable Planning Act and the State Government. So any comments from Councillor JOHNSTON, the Independent Councillor, about the changes being minor is simply false. We could not do that under the Sustainable Planning Act.

What we have here, of these amendments, 73 of them are zoning amendments to recognise parks and drainage reserves to Council, so—then we have 53 amendments in relation to changes to the local government area. These changes are split across the framework mapping, the PIP (Priority Infrastructure Plan), the overlay maps. We have 18 overlay map title changes for Streetscape hierarchy. We have 57 changes to reflect the changes to the Transport noise corridor overlay mapping, 58 text and figure amendments, and 34 changes to the Brisbane standard drawings, notably to reflect the banana bars.

So this is what the DEPUTY MAYOR has previously announced in this Chamber, in his Committee. There have been discussions on it, petitions about it, and while Councillor JOHNSTON claims not to be able to find it, it is in fact


- 37 -

referenced 34 times within the package. One of these days I will come in to find that those opposite have read the material, and I truly—I will be shocked to death.


Councillor SIMMONDS: To their—

Chairman: Point of order—order! Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: I know—

Chairman: Order!

Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor SIMMONDS is misleading the Chamber. Banana bars are not referenced at all in the amendments that are before us today.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I think Councillor SIMMONDS has researched and confirmed, as the relevant Chairman, that there is the referencing.

So, Councillor SIMMONDS, would you like to continue.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Just then, Madam Chairman, if you could point me to the section in the amendments, which are at Attachment B, where it says banana bars are being removed, I would be greatly appreciative. If you believe they’re in there, Madam Chairman, you should be able to point me to the section.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I believe Councillor SIMMONDS has outlined the position in relation to those references, and I’m—


Chairman: Don’t speak over me, Councillor JOHNSTON.

I am sure Councillor SIMMONDS might be in a position to enlighten you a little bit further.


Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. In fact, it is Councillor JOHNSTON who’s misleading the Chamber by claiming that it’s not in this package. In fact, it’s her who is abusing the Standing Orders to raise spurious points of orders again and again and again. For someone who likes process so much, she is appalling at it.

In relation to—oh, so my point was this, Madam Chairman, that in fact, these are not errors, these are changes that have to be made to keep the planning scheme up to date. We make no apologies for the fact that a planning scheme needs to be kept up to date. This is a very important document for our city, and when it isn’t up to date, then we have outcomes which we do not intend in our city, and which perhaps are not desirable. Therefore it is incumbent upon this Administration to ensure that this document is kept up to date, and we do not apologise for it.

The fact that we are keeping it up to date, with changes as I have said, to the Streetscape hierarchy and the Transport noise corridor, and the changes to the actual change to the local government area—so that’s not something that we’ve just come up with off the top of our head—is in stark contrast to Labor’s history on this particular matter.

We know that when they brought down their own City Plan, it was very shortly thereafter that the then Lord Mayor had to stand up and say, and I quote, ‘Council adopted the Brisbane City Plan 2000. In the six months since its adoption, the development industry and Council officers have raised a number of interpretation and implementation issues. Furthermore, several drafting inconsistencies have been identified’, said the then mayor. In fact, those


- 38 -

inconsistencies were the fact that there are 207 buildings that they forgot to include in their City Plan 2000, and a further 128 commercial character buildings which they also forgot to include in their mapping.

So you see the distinction between the changes that this Administration brings forward, and simply the items that the Labor Party forgot, and were madly scrambling six months after their City Plan was put into place, to address the concerns of obviously residents in the development industry. Hey, at least they fessed up for it.

In relation then to item C, the City West neighbourhood plan, well again, Madam Chairman, the Labor Councillors do my head in on this stuff. So here they are standing in this place—we saw Councillor CUMMING stand up in this place and say that the Labor Party could not support this plan because we didn't go far enough to protect the heritage within the Victoria Barracks site—correct me if I got that wrong but that was my understanding of what he said—when in fact we have tightened it in this particular iteration following community feedback. In fact they voted for it last time it came through the Chamber.

They voted for it last time it came through this Chamber, and yet here when we're actually tightening the requirements, they've changed their positon. So we have them against it in the first iteration, in the first State interest check, then we had them for it, and now we've got them against it again. Once again, they are incapable of holding a consistent position.

I swear they just go into the party room every Tuesday and go right, which one of you five—whose turn is it to make up our policy today, who wants a guernsey, who wants to be for, or against it, so that everyone—it's all very democratic with their comrades over there. Everybody gets a—they get to share all the decision-making around, but someone at some point is going to have to lead that team and get them onto a consistent position.

Well I assure the Independent Councillor, Councillor ADAMS will not be leading the Labor Party any time soon, but good interjection. What a cracker.

Madam Chairman, in relation to what we actually have done, is we've heard the feedback from local residents. We've even, I might add, we've actually heard the feedback from the local State Member—and here's what he had to say—Dr Steven Miles—before he left—sorry, the soon to be departed State Member, such is his connection to the local area. He suddenly had an epiphany that his real heart lies elsewhere, but this is what he said in his submission: “Often the best way to preserve heritage sites is for them to be repurposed in a way that maintains key features while also ensuring ongoing use”.

Well great, that's exactly what this plan does, and in this particular instance—not very often, but in this particular instance we agree. If we had the opportunity through redevelopment to actually showcase these buildings and reuse them, we will have a much better opportunity to open them up to the community to allow everybody to enjoy them.

Let me just read you some of the code that we have put in place for this particular location of Victoria Barracks, because it absolutely is important. It's important to the city, it's important to us as an Administration. We absolutely recognise the community's connection to it, and what we'd ideally like to see—if the Federal Government does ever dispose of this site, we'd like to see it repurposed in a way that allows the community greater access to the site.

So here's what we put in the code, that it must facilitate adaptive—and I'm reading word for word—must “facilitate adaptive reuse of heritage buildings for the appropriate uses that promote public access and enjoyment”.

It “adheres to best practice heritage conservation consistent with the Burra Charter 2013 that conserves, respect and retains the built, landscape and archaeological significance of the place”.

It “limits the maximum total site cover of new buildings to 16% of the precinct site area”—so we've been very clear about the percentage that we consider appropriate.


- 39 -

It “restricts new buildings of up to 6 storeys to the southern corner of the precinct to join in the railway line”. It “locates only low-rise buildings in other parts of the precinct of a scale and height commensurate with the existing heritage buildings”.

It “provides a minimum 35% of the precinct’s site area as publicly accessible space, including but not limited to, the plazas indicated on Figure a and Blackall Street”.

Finally, “contributes to a high quality public realm with a strong pedestrian focus through subtropical landscaping, streetscape improvements and passive surveillance within and adjoining the precinct”.

So you can see there that on this particular precinct we've taken a very hard look at it. We've taken the feedback on from residents, and while those specific code elements weren't there in the first iteration, we have now quantified them, qualified them, put them in writing in black and white, so that if the Federal Government does go to dispose of this site, everybody understands what is expected of them. That's the appropriate way to do it.

In terms of the other further heritage aspects of this particular plan, as the LORD MAYOR has already pointed out, there are a significant number of homes covered by the Traditional building character overlay, including those which are pre-1911. As we are all aware, the Traditional building character overlay contains provisions to protect pre-1911 houses, just as if they were in the Pre-1911 house overlay.

But in particular on this specific neighbourhood plan we have gone even further, and restricted those pre-1911 homes even further, so they cannot be relocated offsite, as they can be in other areas of the city, but only actioned if they are not structurally sound. So that's some very specific requirements just for this particular plan.

So I think there are some really good improvements that we've made as a result of community feedback. We thank the community very much for the role they have played helping us ensure the best outcome for this particular neighbourhood plan. I thank very much the local Councillor, Councillor MATIC, for his hard work on the plan, and communicating with residents, and to the officers for all the hard work that they've done.

Ultimately we've achieved a very good balance between the renewal that might happen in places likes the Normanby precinct and the old Sunny Queen Eggs site, ensuring that any redevelopment of the Victoria Barracks, if it's disposed of by the Federal Government, appropriately manages those historical components, and reuses them so that the community can enjoy them.

Finally—

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS your time has expired.

Councillor SIMMONDS: —and finally protected heritage and character. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON?

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to both of the remaining items, C and D in the report, the City West neighbourhood plan and the minor and administrative amendments to the City Plan.

So starting first with the City West plan, if you ever want to see what an exercise in not listening to the community looks like, you only have to look at the neighbourhood planning process in Brisbane City Council.

Once, a million, zillion years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the Administration won an award for neighbourhood planning. That was just the template. They like to tell us that, but that was just the template. That was when they got all the bureaucrats together and did an over-inflated bureaucracy, that all the communication experts externally—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON to the report please.


- 40 -

Councillor SUTTON: —externally thought was great, because they had never seen such an allocation into a PR exercise, as what this neighbourhood planning process was.

But the devil is always in the detail when it comes to these things, and what you see with City West neighbourhood plan is that there were 47 submissions lodged in the public submission process, a period, and about 94 issues in total across those 47 submissions were raised.

So how many changes do you reckon the Administration made to those 94 recommendations? Anyone want to take a stab in the dark? Can anyone take—


Councillor SUTTON: Yes, almost Councillor JOHNSTON, I'll give you that. Madam Chair, it was around about six—six in total, out of the 94 issues that had been raised.

One of the key changes, I'll give the Administration that, is around this performance outcome four, in relation to the Victoria Barracks, because they didn't have any of it in the original iterations. You've just heard Councillor SIMMONDS acknowledge that himself in his speech.

Madam Chair, I guess the thing that jumps out about that to me and what the Leader of the Opposition was indicating, is that all of the ‘protections’, in inverted commas, for the Victoria Barracks, are performance solutions, performance outcomes.

There is not one single acceptable solution—acceptable outcome in the detail of the plan. Now for those people who might not understand city planning in this place—and there are some—the acceptable outcomes is where you actually get some detail about the exact parameters that Council is expecting.

The performance outcomes is when they can't actually meet those more specific acceptable outcomes, and then they try it on in the arguments that they have. That is how you get this Administration approving 27 storeys at Toowong when the height limit says 15. That was a performance outcome. That's what you get. That's what you get. Toowong Towers, the chandeliers, 15 storey height limit, where this Administration approves three towers of 27 and 29 stories. That's what you get.

So I say to the people interested in the City West neighbourhood plan, the residents of the City West neighbourhood plan, this offers you very little protection when it comes to the redevelopment of the Victoria Barracks.

In his introductory comments, the LORD MAYOR said it's like the Bulimba Barracks. Madam Chair, it's not like the Bulimba Barracks. It is not anything like the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan because you know why? The Bulimba Barracks Master Plan and the amendment that we've just seen in here has four pages of acceptable outcomes—that's with performance outcomes—four pages, comprehensive detail, protections designed to put in place and to guide the way that site redevelops. That's the difference.

I also look forward to seeing Councillor MATIC when the 12 storey development applications come in for the Normanby site, standing up and publicly supporting them after voting for this today, because we all know how quickly he went to water the last time there was a DA on the Normanby Hotel. On the Normanby site, we all know how quickly he went to water on that and he had to get the respective Chairpersons to fix that for him in the context of a campaign that was being run against him in the last election.


Councillor SUTTON: Yes, that's exactly right. Madam Chair, so just to reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition said, we won't be supporting this item today. We do also think that it was an opportunity lost in terms of making sure that we had—I mean this is a strategically positioned part of the city. Obviously as people have acknowledged it's one of the oldest parts of the city, but we had the opportunity to maybe put some grounds into the Victoria Barracks section, in terms of making sure that


- 41 -

there were some key transformational projects that could be accommodated in any redevelopment. We've lost that opportunity here today.

We remain concerned, as I said, about the heritage aspects of the Victoria Barracks, and the fact that this Administration has opted to put no acceptable outcomes to guide future development of the site in further detail. So that is why we will be voting against it.

In terms of the minor amendments package, I really love Councillor SIMMONDS' spin on this. I really love it. As I mentioned earlier today, back to the mean and tricky Libs of the 1990s, because he talks about ‘oh when Labor amended the City Plan 2000 they were all mistakes’. They were all mistakes apparently, but when the LNP does it oh it's just keeping the plan up-to-date.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order Councillor SIMMONDS?

Councillor SIMMONDS: I claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: It's just keeping the plan up-to-date. Well, Madam Chair, I refer Councillor SIMMONDS to his own document that's an attachment to this item today. I refer him to—I don't know, let's start with point four. The correction is spelling and grammatical error. The second dot point five corrects a factual matter; dot point 11 corrects a factual matter; 13 clarifies a factual matter; 15—various sections it applies to, spelling and grammatical errors; 19—mapping refinement; 21 corrects a cross-reference; 22 corrects a cross-reference; 26 corrects a factual reference; 33—flipping over a few more pages—typographical errors throughout the planning scheme policy.

This document, his own document—this is not an Opposition document. This is his own document. I encourage some of the LNP backbenchers to actually pick it up and read it. Madam Chair, this document outlines—the 169 mistakes that this LNP Administration is bringing to this Council today.

That is on top of the 77 mistakes that they had to correct in August. That is in addition to the 210 mistakes they needed to fix up in September 2015, barely 12 months after the City Plan came into legal effect. Then we can't forget the 4,480 flood mapping errors that saw more people living on top of hills, have their houses put in a flood zone. Madam Chair, that is 4,936 mistakes.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order against you—

Councillor SUTTON: This Administration—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS?

Councillor SIMMONDS: There's nothing to do with flood mapping in this particular document.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SUTTON I do remind you that this is about the City West neighbourhood plan and the minor administrative amendments to the City Plan.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, if you will, I was just setting context about the previous minor amendments that have come into this Council Chamber since the City Plan became operational in 2014. Just to reiterate, that was 4,936 errors that they have had to correct since City Plan became operational.

Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Madam Chairman, will Councillor SUTTON take a question?


- 42 -

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON will you take a question—

Councillor JOHNSTON please resume your seat—

Councillor SUTTON will you take a question?

Councillor SUTTON: Look, Madam Chair, Councillor MURPHY is one of my favourite Councillors in this place from the other side of the Chamber—

Chairman: The answer is yes or no.

Councillor SUTTON: —but unfortunately no.

Chairman: No, thank you.

Councillor SUTTON: He's laughing now, Madam Chair, but he doesn't realise that's just the kiss of death. Sorry, Councillor MURPHY.

Madam Chair—I just—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON your time has expired.

Further debate?

Oh sorry, misrepresentation Councillor SIMMONDS?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Councillor SUTTON claimed that I said all the changes they made to their City Plan were errors. Not true. What I was doing is quoting their own Labor Lord Mayor who said the changes to their City Plan were errors.


Further debate? No further debate?

DEPUTY MAYOR do you want to respond on behalf of the LORD MAYOR for right of reply?

I will now put item C.

Clause C put

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

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

AYES: 18 - The 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, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

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

Chairman: I will now put item D.

Clause D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, 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 Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


- 43 -

AYES: 18 - The 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, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, and Jonathan SRI.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 Councillor 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, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.

A WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE STAGE 1 – PRIVATE PROPERTY RESUMPTIONS112/20/216/115-01, 112/20/216/115-02, 112/20/216/115-03

428/2016-171. The Executive Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.

2. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1 Project has been designed to increase traffic capacity, and improve road safety and active transport connectivity. This project will widen Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge from four to six lanes to provide an additional lane for both inbound and outbound traffic. Refer to Concept Plan at Attachment B (submitted on file).

3. It is not possible to facilitate the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1 Project within the existing road corridor. It will therefore be necessary to acquire private land (listed in Attachments C and D, submitted on file, and shown in the plans in Attachment E, submitted on file), under the provisions of the Queensland Government’s Acquisition of Land Act 1967.

4. On 26 July 2016, the Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, approved the issuing of Notices of Intention to Resume to acquire land required for the project. Council issued those notices on 12 August 2016. No objections were received from the private land owners in Attachment C (submitted on file).

5. Two written objections were received from property owners as set out in Attachment D (submitted on file). One objector requested to be heard in support of the objection and was subsequently heard by Council’s Resumption Delegate. Council responded to the objections and the Delegate’s Report and provided an opportunity for the objectors to respond to Council’s responses to their objections. A further response was received. That response, together with the objections, the Delegate’s Reports and Council’s responses, are set out in Attachment F (submitted on file). As part of the objection response, the following three books were submitted:• Chasing our History Stories from Mowbraytown and East Brisbane, (2nd Ed.) by Justeen and

Geraint Gregory• East Brisbane Croquet Club 100 Years, by Judy Gale Rechner• East Brisbane State School Centenary 1899 – 1999.

6. The Project Manager for the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1 Project has reviewed these books and advised that they provide an insight into the history of the East Brisbane area, formerly Mowbraytown, over the past 130 years. While these books provide an historic account of the area, it is considered that there is no direct relevance to the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 1 Project or that objection. These books are available for viewing on request.


- 44 -

7. In addition to the resumption of private land, it will be necessary to reconfigure Council freehold land as set out at Attachment G (submitted on file) and shown on plans at Attachment H (submitted on file), and dedicate part of the land as road.

8. Upon completion of the formal resumption process, all interests in the resumed land are converted to a right to claim compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Negotiations concerning compensation will occur concurrent to the formal resumption process.

9. The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO RESUME PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE STAGE 1 PROJECT

1. As:

(i) on 12 August 2016, Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, issued Notices of Intention to Resume the privately-owned land set out and identified in Attachment C (submitted on file) to this recommendation

(ii) no objection in writing was received to those notices from the owners described in Attachment C (submitted on file),

then Council is of the opinion that:

(i) the land described in Attachment C (submitted on file), Column A, is required for road purposes

(ii) the land described in Attachment C (submitted on file), Column B, is required as additional land within the meaning of section 13(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967

(iii) the land described in Attachment C (submitted on file), Column C, is required incidental to road purposes within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967

(iv) it is necessary to take the said land.

2. As:

(i) on 12 August 2016, Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, issued Notices of Intention to Resume the privately-owned land set out and identified in Attachment D (submitted on file) to this recommendation

(ii) objections in writing were received from owners described in Attachment D (submitted on file)

(iii) Council has duly considered those objections and the Delegate’s Reports and made recommendations for the treatment of those objections as set out in Attachment F (submitted on file),


- 45 -

then Council is of the opinion that:

(i) the land described in Attachment D (submitted on file), Column A is required for road purposes

(ii) the land described in Attachment D (submitted on file), Column B is required as additional land within the meaning of section 13(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967

(iii) it is necessary to take the said land.

3. Council approves City Legal making the required application for the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Mines for the taking of those lands and registered interests under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.

4. Council approves:

(i) that the Council freehold land described in Attachment G (submitted on file), be opened as road in accordance with the plans at Attachment H (submitted on file)

(ii) the clearing of improvements on the land described in Attachment G (submitted on file) and its dedication as road.

ADOPTED

B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE ST LUCIA GOLF LINKS PRO SHOP 165/830/179/389

429/2016-1711. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

12. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 21 February 2017.

13. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required lease arrangements.

Purpose

14. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves entering into a lease with Hillstone St Lucia Pty Ltd, in relation to the Lease and Operation of the Golf Pro Shop at the St Lucia Golf Links, located at Carawa Street, St Lucia, for a period of 13 years.

Background/operational impact

15. The Golf Pro Shop lease at the St Lucia Golf Links involves the lessee managing the public usage of the golf course on behalf of Council. The operator provides staff in the shop to take bookings and organise rounds for the players and groups. The lessee may retain up to 10% of green fees paid by players, with the remainder paid to Council.

16. The operator also provides other ancillary services such as selling golf equipment and merchandise, running golf lessons for patrons of all levels and providing golf carts for rental. The lessee is expected to pay a percentage of this revenue from ancillary services to Council as rent.

17. The term of the lease was specified to allow alignment with the existing food and beverage lease at the venue. This will enable a consolidated market approach for future leases at the St Lucia Golf Links.


- 46 -

18. In this tender, potential operators were also given the opportunity to offer to invest capital in new activities and services to benefit patrons such as golf teaching facilities and other complementary infrastructure.

19. The initial round of tenders closed on the 24 June 2016. The tenders were subsequently reviewed, shortlisted, and after a series of negotiations with the shortlisted tenderers, it was decided that the capital improvement items listed in each of the tender submissions were of a scale and scope that could potentially adversely impact the current amenity of the venue. It was determined that more guidance be provided to each of the parties who tendered for the venue and for them to modify their offers accordingly (more specific detail of the modification is provided in section 4.3).

Summary of responses

20.

Name Address and ABN/ACNNon-price score

[out of 10]

Net Present Value (NPV) for Proposed Lease Term (ex GST)

Value for Money (VFM) Index**

Recommended TendererHillstone St Lucia Pty Ltd (Hillstone)

Carawa StreetSt Lucia Qld 4067ACN: 010 709 341ABN: 49 010 709 341

8.05 $16,124,007 1,298

Proposals Not RecommendedGolf World’s Pro Shop Pty Ltd(Golf World)

19 Radley Street Virginia Qld 4014ACN: 009 885 705ABN: 56 009 885 705

7.95 $15,182,644 1,207

AP Leisure Pty Ltd(AP Leisure)

5 Boundary StreetFortitude Valley Qld 4006ACN: 161 736 330ABN: 74 921 316 454

7.85 $14,285,046 1,121

Rhino Golf Pty Ltd(Rhino Golf)

5 Kannella GroveKarana Downs Qld 4306ACN: 151 785 125ABN: 60 151 785 125

6.40 $14,397,537 921

Golf Central Pty Ltd(Golf Central)

40 The Circuit, SkygateBrisbane Airport Qld 4008ACN: 158 546 751ABN: 84 158 546 751

Tender withdrawn

**VFM is calculated by multiplying the non-price score with the NPV and normalised by 100,000

21. HillstoneThe recommended lessee (Hillstone) is the existing lessee of the café and function areas at the St Lucia Golf Course. The Hillstone hundred acre bar and function areas have over 200,000 customers per year, which includes providing food and beverage services to the golfers using the course.

22. Hillstone have been involved at the course since 1988 and have made significant improvements to the facilities and services over that time period. They operate a high quality venue, have a positive relationship with Council, have contributed financially to the facility and the local community, and have a large and loyal customer base.

23. The proposal from Hillstone includes $740,000 of capital improvement work which will be undertaken shortly after the commencement of the new lease arrangement. The improvement items listed in the proposal include expansion of the existing golf buggy shed (which will accommodate an additional 25 buggies), improvements to the public amenity block, closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras on the first and tenth tees, weatherproofing the void between the pro shop building and hundred acre bar, replacement and remodelling of the retaining wall supporting the putting green, the provision of golf simulators and refurbishing the pro shop building to include additional facilities to support golfers.


- 47 -

24. The work associated with the golf buggy shed, amenities and the replacement of the retaining wall is work that Council would need to fund as part of the current asset management agreement. The inclusion of this offer, directly funds an asset Council would otherwise be required to maintain.

25. Hillstone have committed to pay 6.5% of gross revenue for all sales associated with the operation of the pro shop. The proposal also includes retaining 6.5% of green fee revenue.

26. The NPV for the lease term for the proposal from Hillstone is $16,124,007.

27. In their proposal, Hillstone demonstrated that they have the required personnel, with relevant golf industry experience, to be able to manage the operations of the golf course. They also showed a good understanding of the industry and the expectations of golf course patrons in their submission. The evaluation panel assessed Hillstone as having the expertise and longevity at the venue to ensure that a transition of the golf related services will cause minimal disruption to patrons.

28. Hillstone have requested a mortgage to be placed over the lease so that funding can be accessed to complete some of the proposed capital improvements. This was considered to be an acceptable risk and will be subject to the satisfaction of the Manager, Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services, and the Chief Legal Counsel, City Legal, City Administration and Governance.

29. Golf WorldGolf World is the incumbent lessee and has held the lease at the St Lucia Golf Links Pro Shop for 27 years. Golf World’s proposal was very strong due to key relationships within the golf industry. The financial offering submitted in the proposal included approximately $450,000 in capital expenditure which included expansion to the buggy storage shed, CCTV, a pro shop upgrade to accommodate golf studios and simulators and all weather golf bays to be constructed on the golf course.

30. Golf World also offered to pay 5% of other gross revenue as rent, 20% of golf simulator revenue as rent and would retain 7.5% of green fees to manage golf on the course.

31. The NPV for the lease term for the proposal from Golf World is $15,182,644.

32. AP LeisureAP Leisure submitted a proposal and although they have considerable experience in the industry (including the Victoria Park Golf Complex), their financial offer was not comparative to Hillstone and Golf World. They offered $450,000 in capital expenditure which included pro shop refurbishment, an upgrade of the golf buggy shed, CCTV cameras and free public Wi-Fi (which Hillstone currently provide at the site). AP Leisure also offered to pay 5% of gross revenue as rent, and would retain 10% of green fees to manage the golf course.

33. The NPV for the lease term for the proposal from AP Leisure is $14,285,046.

34. Rhino GolfThe proposal submitted by Rhino Golf was not as competitive in NPV terms as the other offers and the company does not have the same industry experience as the other tenderers. They offered $295,000 in capital expenditure which included some minor pro shop improvements, golf cart enclosure upgrade, CCTV cameras, solar initiatives and an annual contribution to build more pathways on the golf course. Rhino Golf also offered to pay 6% of gross revenue as rent, and would retain 10% of green fees to manage golf on the course.

35. The NPV for the lease term for the proposal from Rhino Golf is $14,397,537.

36. Golf CentralGolf Central is the current operator of the Brisbane Airport Golf Facility and has a strong background in the industry. The initial proposal submitted was of a strong nature but did not have the same level of commercial return to Council of the proposals presented by Hillstone and Golf World.

37. Golf Central decided to withdraw from the tender process for the St Lucia Golf Links pro shop once the information regarding the modification of the tenders was presented.


- 48 -

Evaluation of responses

38. Evaluation Criteria(a) Essential criteria:

- Provide required RFP tender deliverable attachments.- Meets essential requirements stated in the specification and draft lease, including:

(i) terms of lease(ii) operational hours and duration(iii) accessibility for general public and key user groups(iv) green fee prices to be determined by Council (v) minimum maintenance expectations(vi) financial responsibility for outgoings(vii) the sale of golf memberships will not be considered.

(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:Criteria Group

Individual Criteria Weighting

Tenderer’s Competency Total 45%

Previous experience in the golf industry i.e. golf course operation/management, service/program provision

15%

Previous experience in operating multi-purpose facilities such as golf driving ranges

Previous experience in operating other supplementary sport and recreational services such as health and fitness facilities, gyms, merchandise, food and beverage services and professional coaching

Experience in business managementQuality of key personnel, qualifications, achievement and experience of the key service delivery personnel

15%

References and letters supporting the tenderers’ competency and ability

15%

Service QualityTotal 40%

Golf industry trends/best practice and local catchment understanding (demographic analysis, competitor analysis, opportunities etc.)

10%

Management approach to public leisure provision, sport and recreation service provision, staffing and supervision, Workplace Health and Safety, marketing and promotional strategies

15%

Quality and range of services 15%Capital ImprovementsTotal 10%

Community benefits of additional improvements 5%Strategic alignment of the proposed additional improvements

5%

ComplianceTotal 5%

Degree the proponent agrees to the key commercial and operational requirements

5%

Total 100%

(c) Price Model:Evaluation Criteria

Definition

Comparative Price

A comparative return on the lease will be derived by calculating the NPV (NPV being the total revenue to Council over the term of the lease) of the tender submission.

The NPV will be calculated using: rental/subsidy offer in the tender total operating costs to Council residual value of additional improvements proposed in the tender at

the end of the proposed lease term (where applicable).


- 49 -

39. Summarise any modification/clarification of tenders undertaken: The Evaluation Team sought clarification from all tenderers on the following items contained within their tender submissions during the first round of submissions (prior to modification):- length of lease- detailed concepts of quotes and capital improvements- confirmation of percentage rent amount/s- timeframes for the delivery of capital improvement items- confirmation of operational hours- confirmation of golf programs- confirmation of maintenance responsibilities during the term of the lease- funding strategy for capital items- public access and existing key user groups.

A modification was issued to tenderers on 2 December 2016, based on the following.- Maximum lease term of 13 years commencing from 1 July 2017.- All five initial tenderers were offered the opportunity to modify their offer.- The type and scope for capital improvement initiatives was such that green space will not be

impacted and no consideration will be given to items that require a development application that is likely to trigger the need for more car parking at the venue.

- The closing date for the modification was 20 January 2017.

40. Initial evaluation: The offers were initially assessed to establish if they met Council’s essential requirements. Several of the companies initially submitted alternative tenders for terms of between 20 and 30 years. The evaluation panel considered these offers but made the decision to keep to the original term. The panel did not consider that the additional value of these offers warranted the longer terms requested.

41. Short listing and additional stages: During the first round of tenders AP Leisure and Rhino Golf were not shortlisted as they were not as commercially competitive as the other three tenders submitted. As both companies demonstrated sufficient experience and had the ability to operate a golf course pro shop to an acceptable level, they were given the option to resubmit their tender during the modification process.

42. No further shortlisting was undertaken once the modified tender submissions were received, as the commercial terms of the recommended tenderer were clearly more advantageous than the other offers.

Recommended tenderer (most advantageous outcome for Council)

43. Most advantageous:The recommended tenderer is Hillstone. The reasons being the tenderer:- achieved the highest VFM index, the highest non-price score and provided the best

commercial outcome to Council- rental offer is of the highest return over the term of the lease- capital improvement infrastructure is complementary to the golf course- the lessee reduces the capital expenditure contribution by Council.

44. Tenderers not recommended:Golf World is not recommended. The reasons being the tenderer:- achieved a lower VFM index- rental offer is of a lower return over the term of the lease - capital improvement items are not as extensive as the offer of the recommended tenderer.AP Leisure is not recommended. The reasons being the tenderer:- achieved a much lower VFM index- rental offer is of a lower return over the term of the lease - capital improvement items are minimal in scope and value.Rhino Golf is not recommended. The reasons being the tenderer:- achieved a much lower VFM index- rental offer is of a lower return over the term of the lease - capital improvement items are minimal in scope and cost.Golf Central withdrew their tender for the facility.

45. Risks associated with this lease (including mitigation strategies):


- 50 -

The risk of changing the incumbent lessee is mitigated or minimised based on the following:- the recommended lessee has 27 years of experience at the St Lucia Golf Links- the recommended lessee has indicated that they will retain key staff currently working in the

facility, along with the support of a recognised golf industry consultant- Council will maintain a presence at the venue before, during and after the handover- there are no memberships allowed at the venue- it is expected that having a single lessee working at the venue will enhance the customer

experience and will see growth in corporate and social golfing programs.

Arrangement proposed

46.

Lease type: Standard Commercial Lease

All non-compliances with lease conditions and specifications resolved?

Yes

Term of lease: 13 years

Price basis: Lessee to retain 6.5% of revenue from green fees i.e. Council to receive 93.5% of revenue from green fees.

6.5% of all gross revenue from other services and goods sold from the venue paid to Council as rent.

Price variation: Not applicable

Commencement date of Arrangement:

1 July 2017

Lease preparation: Prepared by City Legal, City Administration and Governance

Records Manager reference number(s) for the finalised arrangement:

165/830/179/389

Revenue and contribution

47. The lessee to retain 6.5% of revenue from green fees (Council revenue approximately $950,000 per annum) and 6.5% of all gross revenue from other services and goods sold from the venue (estimated at approximately $210,000 per annum).

48. The lessee to provide a capital improvement contribution of $740,000 consisting of:- expansion of the existing buggy storage shed- improvements to the public amenities block- CCTV cameras - weatherproofing the void between the hundred acre bar and pro shop building- replacement and remodelling the retaining wall supporting the practice putting green- provision of golf simulators- refreshing the pro shop interior to include additional facilities to support golfers.

49. Based on the current lease arrangement it is clear that the proposed new arrangement is advantageous to Council based on the following table:

Current Lease Proposed Lease

Green fees retained by lessee 10% 6.5%

Green fees received by Council 90% 93.5%

Rent paid to Council for other goods and services 5% 6.5%

Capital improvement contribution Nil $740,000


- 51 -

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

51. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES:

(1) ENTERING INTO A LEASE WITH HILLSTONE ST LUCIA PTY LTD, IN RELATION TO THE LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE PRO SHOP LOCATED AT THE ST LUCIA GOLF LINKS, CARAWA STREET, ST LUCIA, ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:- RETENTION OF 6.5% OF GREEN FEE REVENUE PER ANNUM, PLUS

RENT OF 6.5% OF GROSS REVENUE PAYABLE TO COUNCIL PER ANNUM ON GOODS AND SERVICES PROVIDED FROM THE PRO SHOP

- A LEASE TERM OF 13 YEARS- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTION OF $740,000.

(2) THAT COUNCIL CONSENTS TO HILLSTONE ST LUCIA PTY LTD, ENTERING INTO A MORTGAGE OF THE LEASE OF THE ST LUCIA GOLF LINKS, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS SATISFACTORY TO THE MANAGER, ASSET MANAGEMENT, BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, CITY LEGAL, CITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE.

(3) MANAGER, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND VENUES, LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, BE AUTHORISED TO BE COUNCIL’S REPRESENTATIVE AND EMPOWERED TO EXECUTE AND MANAGE THE LEASE ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF.

ADOPTED

C CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN152/160/516/401

430/2016-1752. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

53. At its meeting of 10 February 2015, Council resolved to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) to include the City West neighbourhood plan (the neighbourhood plan) and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment). On 7 June 2016, Council, having received the Minister’s confirmation of State interests on 25 May 2015, resolved to send the proposed amendment to the Minister and to request a State interest review and agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment. By letter dated 9 October 2016, the Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, advised that public consultation may proceed (Attachment B, submitted on file).

54. Public consultation on the proposed amendment was carried out from 21 October to 2 December 2016 in accordance with the requirements of Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline). Council received 47 submissions (including 36 properly-made submissions) (the submissions). The key issues raised in the submissions related to the following.- Support for the protection and promotion of the area’s heritage and character, particularly

protection of the character residential areas between Hale Street and Petrie Terrace.- Objection to redevelopment of the Victoria Barracks site, raising particular concern about

heritage buildings and other significant site elements.- Support for the sensitive redevelopment of the Victoria Barracks site that protects and

adaptively reuses heritage buildings and spaces.- Mixed support for, and concern about, the new Mixed use zone along Caxton Street and

Petrie Terrace, including concern that heritage and character buildings will not be sufficiently protected.

- Mixed support for, and concern about, increased heights and a mix of uses in the Normanby Renewal precinct and Victoria Barracks Renewal precinct. This included requests for both


- 52 -

additional and reduced height and concern about the impacts of redevelopment on heritage and character.

- Discussion about the intermittent pattern of Character residential zoning between Hale Street and Petrie Terrace.

- Concerns that increased densities would exacerbate traffic and parking issues.- Requests for improved streetscapes, pedestrian and cycle access and public open spaces.- Other specific requests for amendments to the neighbourhood plan, including site-specific

zoning requests, requests to amend planning provisions for specific areas and requests for mapping amendments to the neighbourhood plan.

55. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including descriptions of how the matters raised 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, submitted on file). These changes are not significantly different to the version on which Council carried out public consultation.

56. As growth and network planning for supporting infrastructure are proposed to be included in the first amendment to Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), it is not proposed to proceed with the previously foreshadowed interim LGIP amendment at this time.

57. The Guideline requires that, should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, that the Minister be provided with the summary of matters raised in the submissions and that the Minister be requested to provide approval to adopt the proposed amendment.

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

59. RECOMMENDATION:

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


DRAFT RESOLUTION TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

1. As Council:

(i) at the meeting of 10 February 2015, decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) to include the City West neighbourhood plan and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment)

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

then Council:

(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 the matters raised in the submissions have been dealt with (Attachment C, submitted on file) and has made changes to the proposed amendment (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

(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


- 53 -

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.

2. As Council:

(i) at its meeting of 10 February 2015, decided to amend City Plan to make an interim Local Government Infrastructure Plan amendment to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan in Part 4 of City Plan (the interim LGIP amendment)

(ii) has now reviewed City Plan and identified that the interim LGIP amendment is not required,

then Council:

(i) decides not to proceed with the interim LGIP amendment.ADOPTED

D MINOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE C 152/160/1218/69

431/2016-1760. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

61. Council is committed to facilitating economic growth and maintaining prosperity in Brisbane through sustainable development. To achieve this, Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) needs to be robust and resilient, reflecting changes in legislation and ensuring that Council’s neighbourhood planning processes are affected. City Plan also requires amendment from time to time in response to community and industry experiences from development assessment outcomes.

62. Council proposes to make minor and administrative amendments (the proposed amendment) to City Plan that will aim to advance the following objectives.- Maintain the currency of City Plan by updating infrastructure standards, reflecting

amendments to the State Planning Policy and recent development approvals and incorporating land recently assimilated into the Brisbane local government area.

- Improve the effectiveness and usability of City Plan by amending typographical errors, undertaking mapping refinements, enhancing the format and presentation of City Plan and removing redundant and outdated terms.

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

64. The process for amending City Plan is set out in Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) made under section 117 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

65. Should Council resolve to approve the proposed amendment, it is proposed that the amended City Plan will take effect from 24 March 2017.


67. RECOMMENDATION:

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


- 54 -


DRAFT RESOLUTION TO DECIDE TO MAKE MINOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014

As Council:

(i) pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, decides to make minor and administrative amendments to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan)

(ii) pursuant to Step 3.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, has prepared the proposed amendments as set out in Attachment C (submitted on file) (the proposed amendment)

(iii) pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 3.3.2 of the Guideline, decides to make minor and administrative amendments to planning scheme policies contained in Schedule 6 of City Plan (the proposed planning scheme policy amendments)

(iv) pursuant to Step 2.1 of Stage 1 of Part 3.3.2 of the Guideline, has prepared the proposed planning scheme policy amendments as set out in Attachment C (submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) pursuant to Step 9.4(a) of Stage 4 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, adopts the proposed amendment

(ii) pursuant to Step 5.1(a) of Stage 3 of Part 3.3.2 of the Guideline, adopts the proposed planning scheme policy amendments

(iii) directs that notice of the adoption of:

(a) the proposed amendment be given in accordance with Steps 9A.5 and 9.6 of Stage 4 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline

(b) the proposed planning scheme policy amendments be given in accordance with Steps 5A.2 and 5.3(a) of Stage 3 of Part 3.3.2 of the Guideline.

ADOPTED

E OVERSEAS TRAVEL – 2017 LORD MAYORAL BUSINESS MISSION TO THE 2017 ASIA PACIFIC CITIES SUMMIT (2017APCS) & MAYORS’ FORUM IN DAEJEON, SOUTH KOREA164/855/554/50

432/2016-1768. The Divisional Manager, City Administration and Governance, provided the information below.

69. It is proposed that Councillor Krista Adams travel to Daejeon, South Korea from 9-13 September 2017 to attend the 2017 Asia Pacific Cities Summit (2017APCS) & Mayors’ Forum.

70. The Asia Pacific Cities Summit (APCS) & Mayors’ Forum is an event initiated by Council. It was first held in 1996 and has been held biennially since 1999, the venue alternating between the City of Brisbane and cities awarded to host the event in the Asia Pacific region. Brisbane’s sister city, Daejeon, won the right to host the 2017APCS. The event will be held from Sunday 10 September 2017 to Wednesday 13 September 2017. The visit to Daejeon is also significant as this year commemorates the 15th anniversary of the sister city relationship with Daejeon.


- 55 -

71. The APCS drives economic growth for Brisbane, South East Queensland, Queensland and the wider Asia Pacific region. The APCS has become one of the region’s premier business and civic forums. In recent years the APCS has been used as a springboard for businesses and global cities to gain entry into the rapidly growing Asia Pacific markets.

72. Under the theme ‘Shaping the Future of the Asia Pacific’, the 2017APCS will focus on business growth, trade, investment and economic outcomes for participating delegates and sponsors. Attendees will gain access to a wide range of international business and civic leaders and experience a diverse program including tailor made business matching and presentations from internationally recognised leaders.

73. Councillor Krista Adams will be attending the 2017APCS in her capacity as the Chairman of the 2017APCS Steering Committee.

74. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward and Leader of the Opposition (or his nominated representative), was formally invited to attend the 2017APCS and has subsequently declined this invitation.

75. Airfares and accommodation costs from Sunday 10 September 2017 to Wednesday 13 September 2017 are being borne by Daejeon Metropolitan City.


77. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCILLOR KRISTA ADAMS, CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN OF THE 2017APCS STEERING COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL TO DAEJEON, SOUTH KOREA FROM 9-13 SEPTEMBER 2017 TO ATTEND THE 2017 ASIA PACIFIC CITIES SUMMIT (2017APCS) & MAYORS’ FORUM, AT AN ESTIMATED COST TO COUNCIL OF $1,600.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. We had an interesting Committee meeting this morning, but I have one question, why is it that Labor Councillors want me gone so badly?

Councillor CASSIDY this morning wanted me to go down to Sydney, and this afternoon Councillor SUTTON wanted to send me overseas. Look I don't know about you but when the Opposition has someone that's not performing generally you want them to stay there. You want them to stay there. That's why we love Councillor CUMMING being the Leader of the Opposition, and we loved Councillor SUTTON being the Leader of the Opposition—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —We loved it. We wanted them to stay.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON you have a point of order?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I believe that's an adverse reflection on Councillor ADAMS. I believe that's an adverse reflection on Councillor ADAMS who is being sent overseas and I believe the DEPUTY MAYOR should withdraw it.


- 56 -

Chairman: I don't believe that that was a reflection in any way on Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR please continue.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, Adele, yes—now Councillor SUTTON she is such a party political animal that she can't help but having a crack. She's champing at the bit to have a crack, and we heard her get up in this place last Tuesday to do just that.

She had to have a crack. She was wearing her fangirl t-shirt and she had a crack, and then just a few days later on Friday obviously things changed the situation a little bit. We all know what happened so I won't go into that. I thought well maybe Councillor SUTTON might be a bit more subdued today.

But, no, not to be deterred, Councillor SUTTON again jumped the gun and she had to have a crack. Today it was about something different altogether, but she couldn't help herself.

The crack was actually in relation to an interjection from Councillor JOHNSTON about some overseas travel for a business mission, and for those of you who, I don't know, don't recall or didn't hear that crack, Councillor JOHNSTON was shrieking out at the time, why isn't Councillor SCHRINNER going overseas with the LORD MAYOR, why is it a another Councillor.

You would expect that from Councillor JOHNSTON but then Councillor SUTTON decided to join the bandwagon. Councillor SUTTON had to jump on that bandwagon, and so she got herself into a full-blown conspiracy theory frenzy, and raised the issue about why was Councillor ADAMS travelling, and why not you.

I'll let you in on the worst kept secret in the City of Brisbane, and that is when the LORD MAYOR is away, the DEPUTY MAYOR has to stay here. Look I mean this is not a new thing. This is not a new thing. Who's going to be acting there?


Chairman: Point of order against you DEPUTY—Order!


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. The DEPUTY MAYOR is misleading the House. The City of Brisbane Act—sorry, the Chamber—the DEPUTY—the City of Brisbane Act actually makes provision for other Councillors to be Acting Lord Mayor if the LORD MAYOR is away.


Chairman: Order, order! Now that the Chamber is silent we will continue. Councillor JOHNSTON you're drawing a very long bow. I don't uphold your point of order.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I can just imagine Councillor JOHNSTON reading the City of Brisbane Act when she was a member of this team trying to work out ‘is there a way I can be Acting Lord Mayor one day? Yes, there is, that point there, please pick me’. You won't find this LORD MAYOR going away with his Deputy. He hasn't done it and he won't do it, because he expects me to be here and to be Acting Lord Mayor while he's away. That, as I said, is not a new thing, but Councillor SUTTON couldn't help herself, the big conspiracy theory came out. Will we hear that she's an anti-vaxxer? Will we hear that she's an anti-vaxxer?


Chairman: When the Chamber is silent—


Chairman: No, resume your seat.


- 57 -

There is a lot of noise in this Chamber and I could not hear the DEPUTY MAYOR when he was speaking just then, so you need to settle it down.

Councillor SUTTON, you have a point of order?

Councillor SUTTON: I actually do take offence to that statement, and I would like it withdrawn from the public record, and an apology please, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON would you like to specify which statement, because I had just finished speaking and I hope it's not one of my statements.

Councillor SUTTON: No, no, not yours. The absolutely insulting label that Councillor SCHRINNER just put on me that I was an anti-vaxxer.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR would you care to withdraw at request?

DEPUTY MAYOR: I am delighted to hear that she's not an anti-vaxxer. I am absolutely delighted because I also believe no jab, no play, and I have kept my own kids up with their vaccinations as well.

But look that wasn't the only conspiracy theory we heard from Councillor SUTTON. There was one more and it was a gem. Councillor SUTTON was like ‘oh isn't the DEPUTY MAYOR the LORD MAYOR's Representative for International Relations’? Why wasn't he going?

Well I haven't been in that position for quite some time. I'm not the LORD MAYOR's Representative for International Relations, and in fact I think it was only last night that Councillor ADAMS—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Would the DEPUTY MAYOR enlighten us as to when he was demoted from this position?

Chairman: That's not a point of order Councillor JOHNSTON and I have just told all of you in this Chamber to settle down.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. As I was saying, I am not the LORD MAYOR's Representative for International Relations or Multicultural Affairs, and I haven't been since probably about August or September last year.

It is very interesting. It is very interesting, because that time happened to coincide with the birth of our third child, and so I actually approached the LORD MAYOR and said I would like to step down for the time being from that role, so that I could give a little bit more time to my family and not be out every single night of the week.

The LORD MAYOR understood and that's why yesterday in the function that Councillor CUMMING was at, he introduced Councillor ADAMS as the LORD MAYOR's deputy for international relations and multicultural affairs.

So another conspiracy theory blown away. When is Councillor SUTTON going to stop? When is she going to stop?



Warning – Councillor Shayne SUTTONThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Shayne SUTTON 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 SUTTON 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.


- 58 -

Chairman: Councillor SRI I saw you rising to your feet. Do you have a point of order?

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to draw your attention to the disorderly conduct of many Councillors in this Chamber, and suggest that we move away from—

Chairman: Councillor SRI I don't need your suggestions—

Councillor SRI: Thanks.

Chairman: —as to how I need to chair this meeting. I have called all Councillors to order. There has been unruly behaviour on both sides and I have applied the rules equally to both.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Given past events in this Chamber I would have expected that Councillor SUTTON would have been supportive of my decision on family grounds on this matter. These kids are only young for a short period of time—


Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON I have just put you on a formal warning. Exercise some self-control please.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: As I was saying, these kids are only young for a short period of time and I don't want to miss all of it. I don't want to miss all of it. This job—and whether you're in Opposition, or you're in Administration—this job is very demanding on our time, and it's okay for me to have three roles—Councillor, Chairman and DEPUTY MAYOR—but it was a stretch too far to have four roles.

So the LORD MAYOR, being very reasonable, agreed it was the best decision going forward, and for the time being I'm not doing that role. It's as simple as that.

So Councillor SUTTON you can have a crack all you like, but seriously maybe you should think before you open your mouth on matters like this. Maybe you should hold fire—



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Now the DEPUTY MAYOR is being offensive in that last statement, because no one here knew what he is telling us because it wasn't announced. His explanation therefore—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: —his explanation—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON make your point of order quickly and succinctly.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, no one knew that these changes to the administrative arrangements had been made because they were never announced, and it is unreasonable and offensive to tell Councillor SUTTON to think, because she doesn't even know that they secretly made a change. That should be withdrawn.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON resume your seat.

Now Councillor JOHNSTON I don't know where you've been in relation to a number of functions, but I know that I have certainly been at a number of functions where Councillor ADAMS has been acknowledged by the LORD MAYOR as having responsibility for international relations.

Order!

—Councillor SUTTON you had a point of order?


- 59 -

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I was rising to make a similar point of order to Councillor JOHNSTON in that this matter, irrespective of the functions that this acknowledgement may have happened at, that has never been brought to this Chamber like the original appointment was—(a) that's a process thing generally I believe, but (b) to be treated and responded to in the way that Councillor SCHRINNER has, for him to make accusations against me that somehow I wasn't acknowledging and respecting his family arrangements when he knows—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: —he knows that I wouldn't have an issue with that.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, that is disgraceful.

Chairman: Order! Section 51 Meetings Local Law Councillor SUTTON—resume your seat please.

Councillor KING section 51 applies to you as well.

Now, in respect of the responsibility for international relations, it does not have to be brought to this Chamber. If you read your Meetings Local Law it is specifically the roles of Chairman and Deputy Chairman that come to this Chamber at the first meeting of Council after an election.

Now having responsibility for a special area of involvement for the LORD MAYOR is a non-Council requirement, so that is why it was not brought to the Chamber. If you read your Meetings Local Law you would understand that.

Now Councillor SUTTON you made certain comments in relation to why you thought the DEPUTY MAYOR had been removed from that role. You made assumptions, and the DEPUTY MAYOR was merely responding with a statement that maybe people should think before they open their mouths and make these statements.

Now we will continue, and we will all settle down. Thank you.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and right you are. This role was the Councillor assisting the LORD MAYOR for international relations and multicultural affairs. It's not an official Chairmanship and does not require Council approval.

As you pointed out, this has happened back in August or September last year, and I think it says a lot about the Labor Party's engagement with the multicultural community, and attendance at multicultural functions, that they haven't worked this out yet. Because it has been no secret and certainly there have been multiple functions where Councillor ADAMS has been acknowledged in that role.

So once again the point is Councillor SUTTON was trying to score some cheap political points, and she was dead wrong on many counts, and that is the simple point that I'm making.

Last week we had a presentation on the Brisbane Metro community consultation, and this consultation was particularly important given that it was a big part of the impetus for a change and an expansion of the project. There were a lot of people that got involved in that, and I'm pleased to say that in the period during April, we will be doing some more community consultation as well on the expanded Metro project. So stay tuned for details of where that will happen across the city.

Already there has been a lot of excitement about Metro, and how it's evolved and changed. As I've said in question time, the only ones who don't appear to be on board are the Australian Labor Party, who once again are just obsessed with trying to score a cheap political point.


- 60 -

This project is a good project, a cost-effective project. It is one that will effectively move large numbers of people and deal with important bottlenecks in the city's transport system. We know that at the moment, assets like the Busway are constrained and congested and they need a project to deal with that.

Now this is a State Government responsibility, but I don't see them standing up to deal with it. They've got enough on their plate with Cross River Rail. So we're stepping up to the plate, and we're committed to making sure that our public transport system works effectively, and increases its capacity and frequency along key routes like Metro 1 and Metro 2.

So it is an exciting project for the city and one that I look forward to talking more about, and also the communications and engagement with the community that will be coming up next month.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING?

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I refer to item A. Look, this is the Metro you have when you don't have a Metro. You just have to go to the dictionary to look at the definition of a metro: dictionary.com—the underground electric railway of various cities; vocabulary.com: an electric railway operating below the surface of the ground usually in a city; Macmillan: an underground railway system in a city; Collins: a metro—

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Councillor CUMMING: —is an underground railway system in some cities.

Madam Chairman, I don't want to be a monotonous—

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING stop, point of order.

Point of order, Councillor MURPHY?

Councillor MURPHY: Is Councillor CUMMING being serious here? Is this a serious debate?


Councillor MURPHY: Sorry, sorry.

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY that was not a point of order. If you had wanted to ask Councillor CUMMING a question and ask him if he was being serious then ask the point of order appropriately please.

Councillor CUMMING can you please—this is about the Metro consultation, not about the metro definition.

Councillor CUMMING: Well the word ‘metro’ appears on a number of occasions in the report, Madam Chairman, so I thought I should—

Chairman: Maybe the case. It's about the consultation, thank you.

Councillor CUMMING: —I thought I should define it. Madam Chair, sorry about that.

According to the report, 1,489 people engaged in the consultation, and 1,066 offered feedback. Now this is not much for a city of over 1.2 million people, but even so it's clear what the respondents told the LORD MAYOR he could do with his Metro.

Now a week ago the LORD MAYOR got up and effectively abandoned the previous Metro proposal, abandoned his multimillion dollar election promise, his centrepiece commitment hastily made in the heat of an election campaign, and he said it was no more.

So this new Metro plan isn't a Metro at all. Metro Mark II, despite all the song and dance at last year's Council election, just runs along the existing Busway and stops at existing stations. It's a new bus service, bigger buses.

We've already got bendy buses. ‘Just imagine a bendy bus with a bit tacked onto the end’. That's what's being proposed. They're not my words, Madam Chair. Steven Wardill from The Courier-Mail wrote that last weekend.


- 61 -

We know they're reluctant to admit it—the buses—because in a Python-esq interview on ABC Radio last week the DEPUTY MAYOR couldn't even bring himself to mention the B-word. Anyhow, sorry.

So this Metro report now has outlined new plans which are nothing like the Metro that the LORD MAYOR took to the residents 12 months ago. In fact, you'd be safe in saying you've got no mandate for this particular system. It's something that needs to be considered entirely afresh.


Councillor CUMMING: But residents were asked to comment on plans to build a subway—

Chairman: Just a moment please Councillor CUMMING.

Point of order, Councillor SRI?

Councillor SRI: Would Councillor CUMMING take a question?

Chairman: Through the Chair please.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Councillor SRI, I—

Chairman: Proceed, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks. Through you, Madam Chair, a couple of months ago I put the question to the Labor Party that if your concerns about the original Metro project were taken on board, and the LNP had the good grace to reconsider their position on this project, that you would have the good grace not to make cheap political attacks about it. I just wanted to know whether—


Councillor SRI: No don't—don't—

Chairman: Order! Councillor SRI is asking a question.

Please be succinct Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Sorry, yes. Now I too have my concerns about this project but I think we can all be mature enough not to engage in high political attacks, and I say that to both sides. Please don't take the bait—

Chairman: No, no, Councillor SRI, stop. Councillor SRI you were asking a question. You need to direct the—

Councillor SRI: Sure.

Chairman: —specific question to Councillor CUMMING, not go into a diatribe.

Councillor SRI: Sure, sorry. Thanks, Madam Chair. So my specific question to Councillor CUMMING is do you remember that commitment you gave to take changes with good grace?

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING?

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, we are—


Councillor CUMMING: Yes, that's right. Councillor CASSIDY reminds me that we said we'd work with them if they work with us and which they haven't done at all. They've come up with something entirely new, but we will consider it on its—we're looking forward to the further consultation. We are looking forward to considering on its merits and making constructive comments, whether they be positive or negative as to the final project. So thank you.

So what we've ended up with is big bendy buses being put on existing Busways along two lines instead of one, but one thing they've done which is good—Councillor SRI you'll be pleased to hear me say this—that they've picked up our suggestion for a University of Queensland route.


- 62 -

So for all the froth and bubble, all the grandstanding in this Chamber for the past year that the Metro is vital for the future of public transport in the city and it's going to happen no matter what, so all the residents of Brisbane have to show for the LORD MAYOR's grand vision for public transport in Brisbane is big bendy buses and it's costing $1 billion.

Now the LORD MAYOR must release the full Metro business case for public scrutiny because this latest incarnation looks nothing like the plan he took to the last election. Brisbane ratepayers are being asked to snuff up $1 billion for this project and this Administration must commit to releasing the full Metro business case so that it can be scrutinised.

We all remember how the LORD MAYOR was equally reluctant to fully disclose the business case for the $650 million Kingsford Smith Drive project. This business case alone is costing nearly $2 million to produce. Brisbane residents have the right to see this full document so they can see for themselves if the project is going to add up. If he wants the people of Brisbane to support the Metro project, the LORD MAYOR must commit to full disclosure of the business case. Thank you.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes, just on this topic, I just note that I share those concerns about the small consultation numbers regarding the initial consultation process for this project, and I note that there will be further consultation. I appreciate that, and I ask the DEPUTY MAYOR just to consider sending out a specific letter to all residents within the affected corridor.

I know that's quite a big burden and a big request to make, but given the scale of this project, given how significant it will be for consultations going forward, maybe we could find a way of saying it to all residents within 300 metres of the proposed—to all residents within 500 metres of the proposed route.

I realise a lot of residents are going to get that letter, that that's a big footprint to be consulting through, but if we're serious about doing this properly we need to cast the consultation net wide. I don't think enough residents have been made available of consultations—processes regarding this project to date, or with other similar large projects.

I think you'd probably agree with me the Administration wants to do this right and wants to consult as widely as possible, and I don't think you're going to hit enough people unless you actually go to the effort of sending out a written letter. I stress that the questions should be open-ended. They should present multiple options and alternatives. They should give people sufficient facts to make informed decisions and provide informed comment. But again I'm glad you're consulting further. The consultation you've done so far hasn't been enough.

I'd also just like to note—it's a small thing, but in your initial remarks you were at pains to emphasise that this project is cost-effective, holds a lot of benefits for the city, et cetera, et cetera—but I understand that the business case hasn't yet been completed. To say that a project is cost-effective before you have that data confirmed is perhaps pre-empting the process a little bit.

I know that was probably just a general statement that you were fairly confident it will be cost-effective, but given that this is such a highly politicised issue and we want to make sure that this project is well supported by the community and is actually going to help the city, I think it's important not to make those mistakes of pre-empting the business case.

I'd also ask from the DEPUTY MAYOR a clear commitment that if the business case doesn't stack up on this, that you'll have the good grace to not push through with a project if it turns out that it's not going to make sense in terms of value for money for the city.




- 63 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the Metro community consultation process.

I make no apology for standing up and publicly disputing the pathetic way in which this Administration is going about talking about what is supposed to be this Council's signature infrastructure project.

Now when this matter came to the Chamber last year in the budget I said the following: ‘Let me be clear, the Metro is possibly the stupidest idea, apart from broadband in the sewers, that this Administration has ever come up with’. I believe Councillor SUTTON then interjected with ‘CityCycles too’ and I said, ‘yes, CityCycles too’.

There's so many problems with it. Honestly the reason the LORD MAYOR has given us for wanting to do the Metro and I quote: ‘the only reason that we're doing it is because something needs to be done’.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I remind you that this report is in relation to the Committee presentation on the Brisbane Metro community consultation, not about what you said in the budget last year. This is about the community consultation for the Metro project.

I remind you of section 50 of the Meetings Local Laws of digression. You need to come back to the report.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, at that Council meeting we approved the money that is funding this consultation before us today. Now my concerns back then are exactly the same as they are today. That is this Council, at that time, had initiated a secret bus review looking at how—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I have just given you a direction to come back to the report.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman—

Chairman: Bus reviews are not the Metro consultation. The Chairman of each portfolio area has the capacity to speak about all things in relation to their portfolio. You and other Councillors do not.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Alright. I'll come at it in a different way, Madam Chairman. I'll refer you to paragraph seven in the report. That says, ‘feedback initiated that construction impacts were anticipated to cause significant frustration to the public. Bus users express strong concerns as how existing services may be impacted. There were strong negative reactions’ et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, Madam Chairman, I want to know how we are going to deal with the impacts and changes to the bus network when this Metro is delivered. That's what I want to know. That's been my concern from day one, that we are going to find bus routes radically changed to plug into some new Metro, and we don't know what those changes are going to be. So the consultation in my view is massively and woefully inadequate.

Now the other thing that I don't understand Madam Chairman, is why this Administration cannot simply say that this is now a bus project, not a light rail or a rail project. I don't understand that in any way, shape or form. They've opened themselves up to this criticism because they have failed to be upfront, honest, and relatable to the people of Brisbane about bringing back big banana buses to Brisbane streets.

I think you'd find DEPUTY MAYOR—through you, Madam Chairman—that the residents of Brisbane might actually support you if you were upfront with them about this, instead of trying to avoid talking about it in simple language.

Making glossy photos, hiding the wheels so people can't see. I mean this kind of stuff is beneath this Administration and it's beneath you quite frankly. Be upfront with the residents of Brisbane City Council. Tell them what you're going to do. We need to properly understand the impacts on the existing networks, on the existing Busway, where the new stations are, and what the costs will be.


- 64 -

I'd love to know—I'd love to know how much of the potentially $1 billion is going into infrastructure, i.e. the new station underneath the Cultural Centre. How many corners have to be fixed so the big banana buses can get around the bends? I'd like to know these things.

Do we hear them? No. We get obfuscation from this DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR who can't even admit they're changing their project to buses. It's not a good way to start a major infrastructure program, so let's be upfront with our community. Let's outline what this is going to be. How many of these big bendy buses are you going to buy, how much of it's related to infrastructure, and how are the existing bus network and bus routes going to be impacted by this, because that's what concerns me the most.

Are all the people in Darra going to be routed across to Eight Mile Plains and then told to get on a bus to the city? I don't know. I don't know. That's what was in the last plan. Not that specifically, but the fact that these people—this Administration wanted to push people across the city, make them change buses and then into the city. That's exactly what was in the last version of the plan.

Is that still the case? Is that still the case? How many bus routes are going to be redirected to this Metro? That's what I'd like to know and I that—Councillor BOURKE can laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh. Of course it has no real impact on him, but I don't want to find out, Madam Chairman, that buses in my area in the southern suburbs are being re-routed away from their most direct and efficient way to the places that our community needs to go around the hospital precinct. So I'd like clarification.

The next lot of consultation, if it's based on the glossy brochures you've put out to date, is woefully inadequate. So those are three things I want to know, what's the infrastructure cost, what's the scope of the infrastructure changes that we're making, and (3) what are the impacts on our existing bus networks and routes? Because our community need to understand the whole picture. Not just a glossy image of some fancy looking bus that's pretending to be a rail line, which it's not.

Chairman: Councillor WINES?

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak to the report before us this evening, and let me begin by saying that there is a genuine shortcoming on the public transport infrastructure in this city that is blowing out travel times for south-siders in particular.

There is a need to make a reliable mass transit system for the city that people can depend on, and they can't—that won't see their trips blow out during the peak, as we see many days of the week particularly for those in the eastern, southern and outer-southern suburbs of the city. The Brisbane Metro system is the best response to dealing with those, for the most effective cost.

Now after what we've heard from the Opposition Councillors, you'd think that this report was just a series of criticisms, but I'd like to draw the room to paragraph six, sentence two. The residents express that they are very supportive of the project, but they want the Metro to be stage one.

Right, so people on the south-side recognise that it is a project that's necessary to make their lives better, to make their experience as a public transport user better. However, they were concerned about the limited length of the route. Well concerns allayed friends, the route is far, far longer. It's now 21 kilometres.

Feedback indicated that construction impacts were anticipated to cause significant frustration to the public. Well this new proposal doesn't have any of those huge impacts on the public through the construction phase. This is a much more—a version that will deal with those concerns put forward by people.

We've heard today and most weeks that apparently we, in the majority in this place, don't listen to what the public says, yet here—paragraphs six and seven, and the outcome put forward by the DEPUTY MAYOR and this Administration—clearly indicates that we not only have listened, but acted and responded to


- 65 -

the wishes of the public to bring these things into line, to have an expanded system with a less severe construction program.

Now I think that while so much criticism has been levelled at this, the fact is we've gone to places where people who will benefit most from this project live, and will continue to work with people. Everyone in this room knows that you can't get people to—that it is very difficult to get people to engage with the government generally.

We're working hard to get people to engage, we are listening to people, and we're changing the project in line with what people have said to us, and have said at our community consultations.

For many years the LNP in this place was criticised that it couldn't build CLEM7, that it couldn't build the Go Between Bridge, and it couldn't build Legacy Way. Well we can go for a drive on all those three things today. Now we're being criticised that we can't deliver this. Well I think that our record shows that we have an excellent capacity to deliver large projects for mass benefit of the people of Brisbane, and I look forward to one day riding on the Brisbane Metro system.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. It looks like those LNP Councillors opposite have gone completely bananas in this place today, and it's incredible to see the DEPUTY MAYOR has finally be able to say the B-word today in this Chamber. He couldn't utter that B-word on the radio last week, he couldn't quite say it. He came up with all sorts of explanations to what these vehicles will be, no tracks, no fixed lines, rubber tyred transportation vehicles.

Well today he confirmed that they are in fact buses, banana buses.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I did no such thing.

Chairman: Were you claiming misrepresentation?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: They are banana buses, Madam Chair, and Councillor SCHRINNER at least said they were buses. I accept that. He hasn't quite—he hasn't quite come the full journey yet to admitting that they are in fact big banana buses, the double banana buses, but this Metro which was consulted about in the report here today, has been completely and utterly scrapped by the LNP, and it was doomed from day one.

It was announced in haste during the last election campaign because the LNP were running scared. It was a thought bubble without a plan or a hope of being delivered at all.

Labor Councillors warned the Administration that their so-called Metro wouldn't work. Public transport experts warned that it wouldn't work. Most importantly and evidently here, that is displayed in this report in black and white, is that punters knew it wouldn't work, and that's been the overwhelming—that's been the overwhelming feedback that the so-called Metro, that Graham QUIRK and Adrian SCHRINNER took to the last election, would not and could not work.

But as we've heard, the DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR have previously over the last 12 months said ‘we will deliver this thing. We will deliver this Metro, ye of little faith, we can do this’. Madam Chair, but as we see just last week, the whole project has been completely and utterly scrapped, dumped and chucked in the rubbish bin.

We were promised by the LORD MAYOR at the last election—the people of Brisbane were promised they would have a Paris-style underground subway.


- 66 -

This highly romantic notion of wonderful, fully-functioning underground Metro like Tokyo or Montreal or Paris or London, and what we get is banana buses.

When pressed about the type of vehicle of course in the past—over the past couple of months—the LORD MAYOR was completely and utterly unequivocal and he said this particularly on 15 June and I quote: “in relation to the Brisbane Metro, firstly please let me give you some basic information and dispel a few myths that were spoken by the ALP in March. The Brisbane Metro is not a bus. It runs on tracks just like the Paris Metro”. Madam Chair I think the tracks have gone missing—

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY I remind you—I remind you of section 50 of the Meetings Local Law. You are digressing, please come back to the report which is on the Brisbane Metro community consultation.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair, and the proposed Metro which I'm talking about was the thing that was consulted on with the community.

Madam Chair, the DEPUTY MAYOR, as we've heard on heaps and heaps of occasions in this place and out in the community, has also been unequivocal about what it was going to be. So the DEPUTY MAYOR said on 25 October: “well it is a Metro, just like the London Underground is a Metro, and the Tokyo Metro is a”—

Councillor COOPER: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, point of order against you.

Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: I would suggest it is not at all speaking to the report and he is in direct contravention of your direction, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, I understand where you were coming from. You are drawing a long bow. Please come back to the actual consultation program that we are talking about here.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes. Thanks, Madam Chair. So what was consulted on was a proposal taken to the last election about a Metro that ran on tracks, Madam Chair. What I am telling the Chamber here today and what I am quoting from, statements that were made in this Chamber on the public record, about what that system would be in black and white, Madam Chair. So the DEPUTY MAYOR said—and again I'm quoting from 25 October—about the type of system that was consulted on, specifically consulted on, Madam Chairman. He said, “Metro is usually light rail. Guess what, rubber-tyred Metro is light rail. It's the same thing, whether they have rubber tyres or steel wheels, it's still light rail as opposed to heavy rail.”


Councillor CASSIDY: Where are the rails, Madam Chair? So the DEPUTY MAYOR enlightened us a little bit more and this is the last quote I will give, Madam Chair. On 2 August the DEPUTY MAYOR said, “so essentially a project can be a metro if it is a high-frequency and high-capacity rail. Whether it's light rail or heavy rail.”

Madam Chair, as we know, what was proposed at the last election, which was, as the months have passed, changed here and there, but pretty unequivocally over the last year the LORD MAYOR and the DEPUTY MAYOR have said to the community it's going to be rail, turns out it's not at all, Madam Chair, which is the point that I was making earlier. The community knew this was a dud project, Madam Chair. They made that known loud and clear through the consultation.

When the LORD MAYOR was pressed around the capacity of his proposed Metro in this place and outside, he was all at sea, Madam Chair, about the figures. He wasn't sure whether it was going to be 9,000 an hour, or 18,000 an hour. He said, maybe at some stage in the future it could be 30,000 an hour, but certainly not with the amount of Metro trains that were being proposed to be bought, Madam Chair. The DEPUTY MAYOR admitted that he didn't


- 67 -

know where the Metro trains would be maintained or stabled. He thought maybe you could just leave them on the tracks overnight, Madam Chair.

Of course, that wasn't going to work. And one of the biggest concerns people had was the extremely limited route, Madam Chair, as we've heard Councillor WINES talk about there in the consultation. That was one of the biggest issues people raised. At that consultation, the engineers from the project team said quite openly to residents who asked them about it and to me, that they would love to be able to propose a different route, but unfortunately they couldn't, because the LORD MAYOR said this was the proposal, this is the system we're going with and we can't look at anything else.

He said in this Chamber that the route would not be changed to include parts of Labor's proposal, particularly linking UQ (University of Queensland) to the CBD, Madam Chair. He said, ‘no way. The people of Brisbane spoke. We will not do that’. Well, Madam Chair, he's doing it, lo and behold. So how things have changed, Madam Chair. It's wonderful to see the community has had a positive effect in making some significant changes to this dud project that was taken at the last election. As I have said, there's certainly a step in the right direction of what has been proposed, but I think it's important that the community is given the facts here.

It is not a metro. It is banana buses on the busway. Granted, they are a high capacity vehicle. They are not a metro.


Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes. Madam Chair, I rise to speak on the Brisbane Metro community—

Chairman: Sorry. Just before you go, DEPUTY MAYOR, you had misrepresentation before. Sorry.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman. Apparently I had suggested that Metro would be banana buses. I didn't say that, so clearly misrepresented.

Chairman: Sorry, Councillor STRUNK. Thank you.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I rise to speak about the Brisbane Metro community consultation report before us today. From the outset, let me first say that there are aspects of the report that are informative and will be useful in the revised Metro banana bus proposal. Now, I wouldn't like to belabour the fact that this report before us today is about a transport system totally different than the revised Metro outlined in section nine of the report.

It would not be unreasonable for Brisbane ratepayers to feel hoodwinked that the Metro that was promised in the 2016 election is not anything like the one proposed. This is clearly a broken promise—a broken election promise. The Metro community consultation report we have before us today is about the previous incarnation, which has now been abandoned by the Administration, at a large, still unknown cost to ratepayers.

What this report informs us is that the bus commuters want a quicker commute time, more frequency and little disruption, while the new system is being constructed. Madam Chair, looking at the various activities and results tabled in the report, I was surprised at the deficient number of people who responded, 1489, and the 1066 pieces of feedback. These were the sort of numbers that you would see from a one-off Galaxy or news poll, not what you would have expected from a four-week consultation period probably costing tens of thousands of dollars or more on this $1.5 billion plus project.

Reading through the activities and results table, there were a number of standout failures. Clearly the community information sessions and pop-up events were poorly attended, averaging 52 participants. The online communication was even worse, with only 54 emails, with as little as 60 community participants wanting to register for the project update. The most telling was the online survey, with 688 responses, with only 198 being bus patrons. Madam Chair, it's really hard


- 68 -

not to conclude that the Metro project community consultation process was either a cynical or poorly executed exercise.

Clearly, the bus commuters were not engaged in any meaningful way, as there were only eight, I repeat eight, participants that had in-depth interviews for this $1.5 billion plus project. Madam Chair, item 10 informs us that further community consultation is planned for April. I just hope that this consultation process engages far more stakeholders than the last. Madam Chair, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss item 9, the revised Metro project using banana buses. I am glad to see that this Administration has seen the sense in respect of not wanting to be in competition with Cross River Rail. We have to work with the Palaszczuk State Government and the Federal Government to improve and grow our public transport system and not play party politics, as some Councillors opposite love to do—I said some, not all.


Councillor STRUNK: I am also happy to see that the revised banana bus project will take up Labor's initiative to extend the network to the University of Queensland. Madam Chair, whilst I will agree that improving bus frequency and expanding the network with bi-articulated buses is a good thing, we also have to acknowledge that this mode of transport has been with us since 1920.

If we truly want to be called a first world city, we need to look at a better integrated system that is more responsive to the needs of residents outside the CBD and the inner city suburbs, unlike what happened in my ward and in others in 2013, when the LORD MAYOR cut bus services to the Richlands and Darra train stations. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Yes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this item as well, the presentation of the Brisbane Metro consultation and I want to pick up on some of the comments that Councillor CASSIDY has made then, because the Labor party have made the same mistake that they constantly make in this place. They compare our record to our own record, and they judge us to the level to which we hold ourselves. They never judge us to the level with which they performed when they were in government. Let's never forget that they built one piece of infrastructure when they were in government 20 years. And do you know what it was? It was the Coronation Drive Tidal Flow System. It was a complete failure. It was a total disaster and—


Chairman: Councillor—

Councillor MURPHY: —a little design change—

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY—

Councillor MURPHY: —when they were designing that one—

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY, I think you are digressing. Can you please come back. This is about the—

Councillor MURPHY: Well, Madam—

Chairman: —Metro consultation.

Councillor MURPHY: Sure, Madam Chair. At your direction, we just need a recap, and Councillor WINES covered off on it perfectly. Clem7, ICB (Inner City Bypass), we have a track record of delivering not only consultation, but actual design changes that make these projects work in real life, okay? You can drive on our CLEM7, you can drive on Legacy Way, you can go over the Go Between Bridge. Soon you'll be able to drive on our four-laned ICB both ways, the only other project that Labor delivered that we're already upgrading and redoing, because we have to. We’re doing Wynnum Road, we're doing Kingsford Smith Drive.


- 69 -

Madam Chairman, they did not deliver anything when they had the chance, okay? So it's just important to remind the Chamber that they hold us to a record with which they never held themselves. The only thing that they did when they were running buses in this city was let them catch on fire, so I have absolute faith in this Administration—

Councillor SRI: A point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SRI: I believe that last remark was potentially an act of disorder and I don't think it was constructive or—

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I don't uphold your point of order. There were fires on the buses in that era.

Councillor MURPHY: Madam Chairman, unfortunately the truth is not always constructive and Councillor SRI is aware, I'm sure. But, look, I have faith in this Administration to deliver this project in whatever eventual form that it takes. It's impossible to not recognise that the Labor State Government have forced our hand in a number of ways on this project, particularly with the stabling side of the Metro on the GoPrint site. That has been a very difficult challenge for Councillor SCHRINNER and his team to overcome. But they will overcome it. We will deliver a Metro and people will ride on it just like they do—

Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Would Councillor MURPHY take a question?

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY, will you take a question?

Councillor MURPHY: I'm always happy to take a question.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: In Councillor MURPHY's opinion, would the State Labor Government's conduct around the GoPrint site constitute what Councillor STRUNK called ‘heavy party politics’?

Councillor MURPHY: Well, Councillor WINES, I wouldn't necessarily say that, but, look, they have been known to sometimes interfere politically in Council matters to help out their colleagues opposite, so I wouldn't put it past them. But, anyway, we wear the big boy pants over here and we're happy to roll with the blows and make design changes as necessary.

So we will do that, and I think Councillor CASSIDY should have some of the warm milk that Councillor STRUNK has been drinking and take a far more bipartisan approach to this project, because Councillor STRUNK has it spot on, we need less party politics in this. We need more Councillors coming together to consult with their communities and to talk about the benefits the Brisbane Metro will bring all residents in time.

Chairman: Further debate, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this report presentation and I just—clearly I've hurt the DEPUTY MAYOR's feelings. Clearly he is hurting about all of the own-goals that he has inflicted upon himself in recent times. I guess, the Metro is another. I understand he's got a right to feel a little bit aggrieved about that, given that it was LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK that actually took it to the last election as such a well thought-out plan.

I guess it just speaks volumes to the affection that he has for Councillor SCHRINNER that he has lumped him with the dog of the project, that he saddled this Administration with in order to deliver. Poor old Councillor SCHRINNER, he has really been hung out to dry, since the election he has been talking about this Metro, this light rail Metro. If you go back through the statements he has been making all the way along at this project about ‘we are committed to this, we are going to deliver this’—‘it's a Metro if it's high-frequency and high-capacity rail’. 2 August. ‘It is a Metro, because


- 70 -

Metros are usually quote, unquote, light rail’. From the DEPUTY MAYOR on 25 October. ‘Whether it's rubber tyres or steel wheels, it’s still light rail’, quote, unquote.

Chairman: Come back to the—Councillor—

Councillor COOPER: A point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: I know that there seems to be a fascination with the DEPUTY MAYOR and we all think he's fantastic, but perhaps she could speak to the report.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, I do remind you that it is on the Brisbane Metro community consultation.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, because I guess what this report does talk about is it talks about the original design, and then it talks about the fact that there's a revised design.

I think that just as the public discussed the difference between the original design as part of the consultation process, and the Administration has since released its revised design, I think it's important in terms of the context of the debate to actually dwell on that a little bit, because we were accused of not having any plan for Brisbane's transport system, despite the fact that we released a really comprehensive light rail strategy in the lead up to the election and, you know what—you know what? Madam Chair, they've picked up the route. They've picked up the route and incorporated it into their—


Councillor SUTTON: —design, despite all the things that they told us was wrong with it, they have picked up our route, which we welcome, Madam Chair. We welcome that. But, Madam Chair, Councillor SCHRINNER needs to get over this whole thing that he's holding on to about his—this new revised plan not being a bus. Madam Chair, it's clearly a bus. As people have said, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and it walks like a duck—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, there's no ducks in this report.

Councillor SUTTON: —it's a duck. Yes, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON: But—

Chairman: Order! Just a moment, please, Councillor SUTTON. Just can you come back. It's about the Metro consultation.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, yes.

Chairman: I've given you a bit of leeway—

Councillor SUTTON: Yes.

Chairman: —with definitions of buses and—

Councillor SUTTON: Yes. Well—

Chairman: —reflections on the DEPUTY MAYOR. Can you please come back to the report.

Councillor SUTTON: I just think as part of this debate, it's important that we all come to this realisation and understanding that what we're doing in this place. What the Administration is doing in this place with the revised proposal, is not a light rail Metro. It is not a Metro. We can take this debate to be the cathartic exercise that it is and we can just hopefully land on a place where the DEPUTY MAYOR finally gets to have some peace and finally acknowledges that what he's proposing is an expansion of Brisbane's banana bus network, because that is what he is doing.

Madam Chair, I am sure when we go through the next round of consultation on this project, the people of Brisbane, who aren't stupid, will actually see this new


- 71 -

revised plan not as a Paris-style Metro, which was promised, but as what it actually is, and that is the extension of the banana bus network in Brisbane. I understand they're uncomfortable about that. I would be too if I had made the types of statements that they had made through the election and after it.

So, Madam Chair, just to get Councillor SCHRINNER a little bit more comfortable with this whole revised plan that he has announced and what it actually is, which is the introduction of new banana buses, I went out today and I got him some bananas to take home. I would like to present them to him this afternoon.

Councillor interjecting

Councillor SUTTON: He can do what he wants—banana muffins, banana bread. Maybe he can take that to the next round of consultation—can you take those over to Councillor SCHRINNER for me, Councillor CASSIDY. He can make whatever he wants. Perhaps he would like to take it to the next round of community consultations, so that when they're all sitting around having their cups of tea, they can all sit around eating their banana bread, drinking their tea and talking about the expansion of Brisbane's banana bus network.

Councillor JOHNSTON: A point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor JOHNSTON: I'm just seeking your permission to take a photo of that, because it would just be excellent, and I know I'm not allowed, so—

Chairman: No, no photos in the Chamber. Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON. Order!

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this as well. Madam Chair, it was interesting to hear the comments by Councillor MURPHY. He calls these changes, design changes. It's a design failure, Councillor MURPHY. You've ditched your plan. It's not in any way like it used to be. It's gone. It didn't work. People didn't like it. It didn't make sense. It's gone. It was a thought bubble that the LNP had during the election campaign. Madam Chair, the whole idea of what was put forward here was ridiculous. The people of Brisbane knew it.

The people of the south side knew it. It was really lovely to hear Councillor WINES say how great it is for the people of the south side. It was really good to hear he had so much concern for the people of south side, but what they were telling me, Councillor WINES, was that it wasn't integrated. It would mean that every day, if they were catching a bus into the city, they would have to take four buses into the city. Four buses into the city. That would mean that they would have to get off at Woolloongabba and then get on another bus to get into the city. How ridiculous is that?

All the research from overseas shows that if people have to change in transit, it puts them off doing the journey. They want the most direct, most convenient way of getting to the city. That's not what you're offering them. You were offering them a dud. You weren't offering them seamless connections.

Councillor COOPER: A point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: A point of order, Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: It's excruciating to have to point this out yet again to the ALP Councillors, but you can only speak to the report.


Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON, I don't need you shouting out.

Councillor GRIFFITHS, I know you're trying to talk about the consultation, how the initial iteration is, but this is about the consultation program and the process of the consultation.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, Madam Chair, and I am speaking about the consultation and the feedback that I received from residents of the south side in relation to this bus service,


- 72 -

because they were the people who were going to be impacted by this. It's disappointing that the LNP find it so threatening to actually hear this feedback. It's disappointing to hear how they hate feedback. Madam Chair—


Chairman: Councillor—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Madam Chair—

Chairman: Order, order!

Councillor GRIFFITHS: —hear them all.

Chairman: Order, order!


Chairman: Councillor WINES, this may be distressing for you that Councillor GRIFFITHS didn't listen to everything that you said in respect of listening to feedback, but it is Councillor GRIFFITHS' turn to have a say in this Chamber. We will hear him out.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. That's how democracy should work.


Councillor GRIFFITHS: It was interesting to think that this wasn't well planned. That is the feedback written here. It wasn't well integrated, that it was not going to be a seamless service, that we weren't concerned about how buses were going to integrate with rail. South siders knew that this wouldn't work. They knew it wouldn't work. They wanted a proper, and want a proper bus service that actually delivers them to the city faster, and delivers them to the university faster.

By the way, Councillor MURPHY, it was actually this side of the Chamber that approved and built the Green Bridge, which is one of the main pieces of infrastructure that you're going to use with your new service. I know that you conveniently forget that—


Councillor GRIFFITHS: —but that is an amazing piece of infrastructure that is used by so many people and which you want to build your new service on. Madam Chair, what we need is some common sense here. The LNP plan, is and was, and always has been a dud. It's been poorly thought out and it wouldn't work. The residents of Brisbane know that, the drivers of Brisbane know that and we all know that. It is a bus service, not a Metro service. Everyone knows that as well. So you can keep playing the game to the people of Brisbane and pretending it's a Metro, but it isn't. They know that. We've seen the LNP here make mistakes, constant mistakes, and they're happy to hold them up and be proud of their mistakes. This is a huge dud. This is a huge project that would never have got off the ground and residents, and we, knew that. Thanks, Madam Chair.


DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's not often that we see all non-Administration Councillors speak on a particular Committee report and so I certainly welcome the interest this one. It is appropriate that we had a lot of discussion about this one, because it is so important for the City of Brisbane going forward. Now, you can just imagine in the last week or so since we announced the changes to Metro the Opposition would have been kicking themselves—kicking themselves. I would love to be a fly on the wall in their caucus. They're, like, ‘damn it. It's a better project now’.

Like, ‘damn, what are we going to do? We've got to stop this. Everyone has been positive about it, even Robert Dow has been positive about it’. It was interesting that we just heard Councillor after Councillor slagging off the project, but there was a little bit of positive in there. Councillor CASSIDY, for example, spent nine and three-quarters minutes slagging the project and then at


- 73 -

the end said, ‘oh, it's a step in the right direction’. But what is it that they actually think? They are so obsessed—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —about banana buses, they can focus on nothing else.


DEPUTY MAYOR: We currently have banana buses on our network and they're generally used on the busway and they're based at the Garden City depot. It's interesting, because Labor is saying, oh, they're just banana buses but with an extra bit on the end. To this question there are two critical points—number one we haven't selected the vehicle yet. What we have done is put specifications on that vehicle, so the specifications are that it needs to carry at least 150 passengers.

That's obviously critical in moving large numbers of people effectively and beyond that there are a lot of questions that are yet to be answered, and there are a lot of different vehicles out there that are at least 150 passengers carrying capacity, but are very different solutions. There are hybrid vehicles out there, there's a whole range, if you look around the world, of different types of vehicles. Now, Steve Wardill from The Courier-Mail wrote an interesting article, which was obviously inspired by Councillor CASSIDY and his obsession with the Springfield monorail, but—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —the key point, and I think it was an important point that was mentioned in that article, is whether you would need a bus driver's licence or a train driver's licence to operate this vehicle. So I agree, that is actually a really good question. Guess what the answer is? Neither. Neither. The answer is this—there is no current type of licence that exists for the vehicles that we expect to be using on Metro. There is no licence. It's not a train. It's not a bus. There is no licence in place.


DEPUTY MAYOR: You're quite welcome to confirm this with your friends in the State Government, because the current bus driver's licence would not qualify a driver to operate this type of Metro vehicle. So there we go. There we go. It is a very good question. Now, I can tell you one thing, it's not going to take us 18 months to train our drivers, and we're not going to have a Metro rail fail. We are going to have the drivers in place to operate these vehicles on day one as promised, without the incompetence that seems to come with Labor governments operating these type of projects.

Now, Councillor CASSIDY loves to call things a thought bubble. It's one of his favourite terms. He called Metro a thought bubble and said in contrast we had this great proposal for light rail and Councillor SUTTON actually said it was a comprehensive plan for light rail. Well, let's have a look at what this plan was. It was a tram line which was nothing more than a few arrows on a map, which didn't make it clear which street the tram was going to operate down. There was no confirmed route. There was no stabling facility.

But here's the big one, they said that they would build this project with a funding contribution of 10%, and we're talking about a project of in excess of $1 billion here. So they were going to put in $100 million and magically this tram would appear. So that's their idea of a comprehensive project. So we know that when Labor criticises Metro, it is because they cannot think of a good idea themselves and they just have to attack with opposition for opposition's sake.

Now, in the time that Labor has been talking about, say, Cross River Rail, we have built CLEM7, we've built Go Between Bridge, we've built Legacy Way, we did the business case for Airport Link, and the State Government built that and by the time—I predict that by the time work starts on Cross River Rail, we will also have delivered KSD (Kingsford Smith Drive) and also the Inner City Bypass upgrade. So these are all the things we actually get on and do and, yet,


- 74 -

Labor is still talking about Cross River Rail. Now, I want Cross River Rail to happen. I really want it to happen.

There was a report released by the Federal Government and Infrastructure Australia last month, which talked about the National Priority List of Projects. Cross River Rail was one of the few projects listed in Queensland that the State Government had listed as a priority. But you know what it said at the bottom of that report? There's a section on every project which says next steps. In that next steps section it said the next step is to complete the Cross River Rail business case.

We've been hearing about this project so many times and there has been so many glossy brochures put out about it, one which literally took up my entire letterbox just recently, yet they haven't even finished their business case in the time it took for us to build Clem7, Go Between Bridge, Airport Link, Legacy Way, KSD, Inner City Bypass, they won't have even started the first shovel. So, look, I really want Cross River Rail to happen, but Labor has no credibility when it comes to infrastructure and no credibility when it comes to public transport.

They gave us the ‘Chariots of Fire’, the buses that caught fire when they were in administration. They had bus patronage of just 44 million trips a year. In a short period of time that grew to 76 million trips under this Administration. We've renewed the bus fleet. We now have the most modern bus fleet in the city. We have the Eleanor Schonell Bridge, which we built. We built. We have this great busway network that now needs to be taken to the next level and converted into a Metro. If the State Government won't do it, we will do it. We will do it.

But, Madam Chairman, the most profound contribution to this debate was Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI said Labor—I asked you the question, if this project was modified to address some of your concerns, will you support or will you attack it for political reasons? That was a good and legitimate question. Tonight, we know what the answer is. They spent all of their effort and time attacking it, yet at the end said, ‘oh, it's a step in the right direction’. What does that tell you? Are they really against Metro or are they just against the LNP?


DEPUTY MAYOR: That's the reality. That's the reality. They're just against the LNP and because they didn't think of it, they have to oppose it. I also appreciate Councillor SRI's comments on consultation and I would love to send more mail to people about this project. We would love to really bump up the consultation on this project. I think that is a good suggestion and we will certainly take that on board.


DEPUTY MAYOR: We have listened to the community on this project, and as a result it is a better project. It is a bigger project in terms of the service to the people of Brisbane, and more importantly it is also a more cost effective project.

Councillor SRI: A point of order, Madam Chair.


Councillor SRI: Will the DEPUTY MAYOR take a question?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

DEPUTY MAYOR: No.

Chairman: No.

DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like to continue?

DEPUTY MAYOR: When I talk about a cost effective project, this project will come in under the budget that we announced previously, and the current estimate, and it is an estimate—obviously we're awaiting the completion of the business case—is around $500 million under the budget. That is a positive thing, while still moving large numbers of people and extending to a greater area of the city.

Chairman: I will now put the report.


- 75 -

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.

Thereupon, Councillors Andrew WINES and Fiona KING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

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

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


ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Peter Cumming, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE METRO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

433/2016-171. Maree Kovacevic, Project Director, Brisbane Metro, Major Projects, City Projects Office,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane Metro community consultation. She provided the information below.

2. The community consultation program for the Brisbane Metro (Metro) project ran from 10 October through to 4 November 2016. The consultation program consisted of numerous initiatives including: media opportunities and release of a project video; citywide distribution of a second project newsletter; newspaper advertising; community information sessions; pop-up events; stakeholder reference group meetings; a 1800 information line, email and web site; and market research.

3. A total of 1,489 people responded and 1,066 pieces of feedback were included in the consultation. A breakdown of the reach of the initiatives is detailed in the table below:

Activity ResultsSix community information sessions 355 attendees, 144 pieces of feedbackSix pop-up events 275 interactionsProject 1800 enquiry line 22 calls receivedProject email address 54 emails receivedCorrespondence 15 letters to the Lord Mayor/CouncillorsProject webpage 10,789 unique page viewsRegistrations for project updates 220 (160 community, 60 industry)Project reference groups Five meetingsOnline survey 688 responses (490 residents, 198 bus users)Eight focus groups 72 participantsOn-bus in depth interviews Eight participants

4. Some of the key themes that came out of the feedback from consultation included strong support for additional and improved high-frequency public transport in Brisbane, and a high level of recognition of bus congestion issues particularly at the Cultural Centre Station, Melbourne Street portal, and within CBD streets. Feedback also included a desire for a more reliable network with ‘turn up and go’ services to more locations, more often, and interchange stations that allow for efficient, frequent and seamless connections (particularly outbound).


- 76 -

5. Other outcomes of the community consultation included feedback that the project should incorporate the need for integrated transport planning, and extending Metro services beyond the inner city. There were questions raised about bus operations and impacts to specific services, particularly during construction, as well as maintaining accessibility to all parts of the CBD.

6. The benefits of the Metro will only be realised if the connecting transport network is equally efficient and reliable. The residents expressed that they are very supportive of the project, but they want the Metro to be ‘stage one’, and there is an expectation that eventual expansion must be built into the project (e.g. another outer layer and more stations).

7. Feedback indicated that construction impacts were anticipated to cause significant frustration to the public. Bus users expressed a strong concern about how existing services may be impacted, and there was a strong negative reaction from both bus users and car drivers to the prospect of buses being ‘pushed’ off the Busway and back onto local roads. The expectation is that construction will occur largely after hours/in off-peak periods in order to minimise delays.

8. The Metro was positively received by residents, as it was seen to offer a fast, efficient, reliable, and modern transport experience, and residents can see the logic and potential cost-savings in repurposing existing infrastructure. However, questions did remain from residents around how the new Metro will integrate with the existing transport network, if the original planned route was extensive enough, and how the transport network can cope with the closure of the Busway during the construction period.

9. The revised Metro project has been announced, and it will respond to key community and stakeholder concerns. The Metro will provide high-frequency public transport to more people over an expanded network (21 kilometres rather than seven kilometres), with a larger number of stations and connection opportunities. The deletion of tracks minimises potential impacts on the Busway, reduces costs, and there is no conflict with Cross River Rail.

10. Further community consultation is planned for April 2017, and will include community information sessions and stakeholder meetings. Feedback from the consultation will inform the preliminary Business Case, which will be finalised in May 2017.

11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Kovacevic for her informative presentation.

12. 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 Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I think Infrastructure Committee is the best Committee in Council. So I know them's fighting words, aren't they, really? But I would like to—well, I could read the whole report. I had that suggested to me, word for word, because apparently that's the way some people debate in this Chamber. I think that's unprofessional. I have plenty of words to say though. So in terms of what we saw in Infrastructure Committee last week, we had a fantastic presentation which was—I was disappointed to say, we had a bit of a fracas in Committee this morning.

I was disappointed, because I was trying to respond to a query made to me by Councillor SUTTON saying that she wanted more time to general business, so I


- 77 -

was trying to make sure that we had adequate time for everyone to have their say. I thought we had a fantastic presentation at the Committee last week, because we talked about some new transport technology and things that are certainly pie in the sky, but some things that are practical and that Council should investigate into future. So transport is absolutely something that I think is essential to all of us.

We want to make sure that as we get around the city, it is safe, efficient and reliable, as well as of course supporting economic investment in our city. We saw things about smart street light poles, so the ability to actually have CCTV on these poles, which gives information about how people and traffic are both moving. We looked at enhanced traffic signs, another thing that we will be certainly considering in future. So traffic lights that operate during business hours and then switch to stop and give way signs outside of traffic. So they have two kinds of modes.

Essentially when there is traffic, they are utilised as a traffic light, but then they go to a more static type display for stop or give way outside of these sorts of types. These are certainly options that may be considered by us in future.

There's trials in other countries, particularly countries where they see a lot of heavy freight movement, where the vehicles travelling behind these large commercial vehicles aren't able to see the existing traffic signals, so they are opportunities to, if, say, for a very foggy environment or whatever, if there's any reduction in terms of visibility, these are things that they are certainly considering. Now, I have to sometimes steal a little bit of the DEPUTY MAYOR's thunder, we talked about enhancements to pavement, we looked at bicycle lanes with specific lights, so with fluorescent edges.

I know that he's very excited about these possibilities. Particularly we were talking about how this is an opportunity to delineate between the road and the pedestrian environment, and to certainly increase the safety for users, particularly pedestrian users. We talked about drones. Again, I feel that I am creeping into the DEPUTY MAYOR's area. He loves to talk about drones. We talked about how Uber and Airbus are looking at drones to carry freight.

So it might not be vehicles on the road, it might be vehicles travelling through our sky, our beautiful sky in Brisbane, delivering packages to people. There's also, I understand, in Dubai, where they are trialling taxi drones to carry passengers along pre-determined routes. So the future is pretty exciting. Yes, you will be, not your own personal jetpack, but you certainly will be looking to perhaps join the Jetsons in Dubai. So we're hearing that there is a trial this year in July, so if you haven't bookmarked it, bookmark the Dubai Roads and Transportation Agency website to keep up to date on that.

We also talked about other sorts of issues and we saw some videos which unfortunately, due to the video technology not cooperating with us—we saw some interesting different trials that are being conducted. In Germany, they have got a method of trying to make sure that pedestrians wait patiently at streetlights, to play a little game on the traffic signals of ping-pong, so that's kind of a fun way to encourage people to wait patiently and not to jaywalk.

We saw the red dancing man, where people are encouraged not to jaywalk by stopping to actually dance, and this is actually projected on the signalised crossings—so that it's a fun, interesting way to remind people that they are to wait patiently because the most dangerous place for pedestrians on our road network is actually at the pedestrian lights, which is an ironic sort of thing to note.

So I understand this has being trialled in Lisbon recently and is another thing that Council is very interested in pursuing. So we're working diligently on our transport plan. These sorts of new emerging technologies are options that we should be considering and certainly we want to make sure that everything we can do to make sure our city is safe and effective in terms of transport is considered.


- 78 -

We also had two petitions to Committee last week, I'm happy to respond to any commentary. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor SUTTON.

Seriatim - Clause C Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause C, PETITION – REQUESTING AN UPGRADE TO LYTTON ROAD IN BULIMBA, BALMORAL AND MORNINGSIDE, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to talk on this report and in particular item C.

Item C is a petition requesting an upgrade of Lytton Road across Bulimba, Balmoral and Morningside, particularly the scope that goes from the Oxford Street roundabout down to the Junction Road roundabout. This is a petition that I generated and that local residents were happy to support.

I would also like to publicly acknowledge the fact that Councillor COOPER allowed, when I got the original response back from the officers where I was asked about whether or not I would support the content, I pushed back saying it's not comprehensive enough and I'd like to thank Councillor COOPER for allowing me to ask, and allowing the officers to deliver, a more comprehensive petition response that we have here today, some four pages, as Councillor COOPER noted in the Committee last week.

The reason it's so long, Madam Chair, is that there are a lot of issues on Lytton Road at the moment. This is a road and the scope of the road that I was talking about, transitions from residential to industrial, that goes past the front edge of a local high school and has got a whole range of complexities in it, that makes it a difficult road and it's got a high volume of traffic. There have also been a number of accidents along this road, and the WebCrash data backs that up. This Council has previously considered a petition specifically on the intersection of Riverside Place and Lytton Road, requesting an intersection upgrade that was not the one that was generated by me, but also goes to show it's not just local residents who were concerned about this road, but it is also people who are travelling to this area for work purposes in the industrial areas to the north of the road.

I guess the petition itself listed a range of intersections. A couple of the ones I want to focus on in particular are the Lytton Road roundabout at the intersection of Junction Road, Lytton Road and Colmslie Road. That has got considerable constraints at the moment, and is a source of massive traffic congestion. We know from the travel analysis that was done in the lead up to the Bulimba Barracks master plan, that some 40% of trips in the am and pm peak being in and out of my suburbs, are actually going along Lytton Road. So it is a massive number of trips, it has a lot of carrying capacity and this intersection and this roundabout, in particular, needs to be upgraded, and needs to be upgraded in the short to medium-term future.

Moving back a little bit is the intersection of Col Gardner Drive and Lytton Road. This is the road, for those who may be interested, that leads out of the Colmslie Recreation Reserve where the boat ramp is, where the Colmslie Pool is, where the State Hockey Centre is. It is a heavily, heavily utilised reserve and as a result of that, in the cricket season we have heaps of cricket kids, in the hockey season we have heaps of hockey kids, we have the dragon boaters and the outriggers down there, plus we have people visiting the dog off-leash area, we have boaties that want to get their boat in the water and go out, we have a whole range of users on that site.

This is causing significant congestion, the fact that people leaving this reserve, sometimes the queues can be all the way down to the Colmslie pool, particularly on Saturday morning learn-to-swim day, or when there's just been a game finished with either the local cricket or the local hockey. That intersection needs to be improved. We actually had funding in the budget a couple of years to design an outcome to help improve it.


- 79 -

The officers in Deb Sketchley's area, Councillor COOPER, through you, Madam Chair, actually came back and said for the money it would take to achieve what we're trying to achieve, you could actually do traffic lights at this intersection and get a higher value for money proposition out of that. That is what I'm looking for, Madam Chair, and it's based on, she's not the one who gave it to me, but it was her area, I guess is what I'm saying. That is what I'm looking for. I'm looking for this Administration to prioritise these traffic lights.

Balmoral State High School, this is a point I mentioned in Committee yesterday, in this year's budget we have funded some design improvements, a corridor network study, to fund some design improvements along Thynne Road. The one thing that we really, really needed to find was a safe crossing point across Thynne Road, near the Lytton Road intersection for high school kids to cross the road safely. I have now been formally advised there is no design solution to that on Thynne Road. The only option is to design something in to an upgrade of the Lytton Road-Thynne Road intersection.

No child has been hit there yet, Madam Chair, but this I am saying right now, and you are on warning, this is a dangerous, dangerous place and a dangerous place for our children to be crossing the road to get to and from school. Again, I need to stress the importance of looking and improving the safety of that intersection, particularly for that, but also to manage the traffic around that area. I actually think this intersection is a candidate for black spot funding. It is not something that has been explored to date by this Administration, but I really believe that we should be looking at black spot funding for this particular intersection.

I don't know how much time is left, Madam Chair, but I don't want to run out of time without acknowledging the Administration's funding commitment this financial year to fund the intersection upgrade of Lytton, Thorpe and Apollo Street in Bulimba and Balmoral. That is a very, very welcome funding commitment. I am pleased that it is under construction at the moment, I thank the Administration for that, and have done so previously as well. That is a great start, but more needs to be done on this road corridor. I just ask Councillor COOPER to give it serious consideration as she's assessing what's in and out of the budget in her portfolio area over the coming months as the 2017-18 budget is finalised.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Just briefly in response, I think that Councillor SUTTON's comments send remarkably mixed messages when she did not support the recommendation of a petition that she had such a hand in writing. You know, honestly, if you want to make contributions to the petition process, then understood, but then if you choose not to support the petition, then it seems to rather defeat the purpose, does it not?

I also note that Councillor SUTTON was very quick to say that she does very much support the investment that she's getting, over $2 million, to upgrade this particular intersection, yet she does not support the recommendation of the petition which quite clearly talks about the fact that Council is delivering the traffic signals at Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection. So I am extremely disappointed. I think that Council absolutely is keen to try and respond to issues that have been raised by local residents, but I would say to Councillor SUTTON either support something or don't. You can't be half pregnant. You cannot sit on the fence without injuring yourself in ways that you couldn't possibly imagine. Because I think this is a good project, and I would suggest that if you lobby so hard to get that project, then you should wholeheartedly support it, because it is something that will be a good outcome for your community.

So very disappointed with that debate, it does not in any way, shape or form, give me any hope for the future. I despair.

Chairman: I will now put items A and B


- 80 -

Clauses A and B put

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

Chairman: I will now put item C.

Clause C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Kim Marx, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – NEW TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES: PRACTICAL OR PIE IN THE SKY?

434/2016-171. Brendan O’Keeffe, Principal Engineer, Policy and Strategy, Transport Planning and Strategy,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on new transport technologies. He provided the information below.

2. Emerging transport technologies are changing the way people move. These technologies aim to achieve safer and more efficient transport systems, improving the economic prosperity of cities. There is a vast range of technology options to choose from. Commonwealth and state governments, who set transport policies and standards for their use, may often find it challenging to keep up. Council may be able to assist governing organisations by assessing and trialling new and emerging technologies to help deliver a safe, efficient and reliable transport network.

3. ‘Smart’ street lights have the potential to monitor traffic flow, volumes and congestion, pedestrian and cyclist traffic, and parking availability. They can be modified to provide public Wi-Fi and high-speed internet access, or act as emergency call points. ‘Smart’ lights have capacity to monitor illegal activities and improve personal safety. They are also a sustainable option due to being solar powered.

4. Traffic signs can be enhanced with lighting used to improve high-risk crash locations by increasing visibility, especially at night. There may be opportunities to enhance a range of traffic signage across Brisbane to improve driver awareness.

5. Light-up pavement markings on bikeways, footpaths and roads can be installed to improve the delineation of traffic lanes and the edge of pavements. This technology may help in poorly lit areas, reducing the risk of crashes and injuries.

6. The introduction of crash avoidance technology for motorcyclists is improving road safety. For example, helmet-mounted displays is an emerging technology that projects information from a motorcycle’s instruments to a display inside the rider’s helmet, reducing the need to fully take their eyes off the road and look at their panel.

7. Unmanned aircraft (e.g. drones) may be used to attend emergency situations and allow communication with injured persons, or identify breakdowns and reduce their effects by delivering fuel or parts. They can potentially be deployed to notify motorists about traffic incidents or communicate with drivers whose behaviour is adversely affecting traffic (e.g. driving too slow in the right-hand lane on a highway). Unmanned aircraft may also provide another enforcement option to address speeding, hooning, and other traffic offences.


- 81 -

8. Hyperloop is a proposed mode of passenger and freight transportation that would propel a pod-like vehicle through a near-vacuum tube at faster speeds than an aeroplane. It is suggested that the vehicles would accelerate to cruising speed gradually using a linear electric motor and glide above their track using passive magnetic levitation or air bearings. The tubes could travel aboveground on columns or underground, eliminating the dangers of grade crossings. It is hoped that the system will be highly energy-efficient, quiet and autonomous. This technology may not be suitable for inner city areas, but may be a feasible transportation option between Australia’s major cities in the future.

9. Mr O’Keeffe discussed traffic signal enhancements, showing a photo of a set of pedestrian traffic signals in Ukraine. The traffic signal poles are fitted with LEDs which complement the existing signals. The entire traffic signal including the pole turns green when pedestrians are permitted to start crossing, then back to red when they aren’t permitted to cross.

10. The ‘traffic light stop sign’ concept turns the traffic lights off (or set to green) on the primary route during off-peak times (night time), while traffic on the low-volume side street is regulated by a ‘traffic light stop sign’, which comprises three flashing yellow lights integrated into a traditional STOP sign. Traffic entering from the side street has to stop and give-way to all traffic on the primary route, and is then allowed to proceed through. This could be a good extension to the Left Turn on Red trial, to reduce travel times during off-peak times (night time) and is likely to be something which is well received by the community. While this is legislated for in the Queensland Road Rules, it hasn't yet been trailed by Queensland councils or the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).

11. The way forward is for Council to continue to investigate emerging technologies and consider the potential for trials on Brisbane’s roads in conjunction with the Queensland Government.

12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr O’Keeffe for his informative presentation.

13. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITIONS – REQUESTING FOR A GREENSLOPES HOSPITAL RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT SCHEMECA16/993226 & CA16/1012532

435/2016-1714. Council received two petitions requesting Council install a Resident Parking Permit Scheme (RPPS) in

Nicholson Street, Headfort Street, Newdegate Street, Hunter Street and Denman Street, located around the Greenslopes Private Hospital. The first petition (CA16/993226) was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 December 2016, by Councillor Ian McKenzie, and received. The second petition (CA16/1012532) was received during the Summer Recess 2016-17.

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

16. The two petitions contain a total of 82 signatures, 67 from residents who live in Nicholson Street, Headfort Street, Newdegate Street, Hunter Street and Denman Street and 15 from residents who live in other streets located within the Brisbane City and Logan City Council area.

17. The petitioners are seeking the RPPS to restrict parking for visitors to a two-hour period between 8am and 4pm, Monday to Friday. The petition further requests that residents be provided with resident permit exemptions to give unrestricted parking access to streets around the hospital and that two visitor permits be provided per household.

18. Council has set guidelines for the implementation of a new RPPS area. The requirements are outlined below:- the precinct under consideration consists of low medium density or character residential

properties (zoned LMR or CR in the City Plan)


- 82 -

- availability of on-street parking spaces between the hours of 10am to 3pm on weekdays is severely limited (more than 80% of parking spaces occupied)

- an occupancy survey should be undertaken prior to any scheme being implemented- long-term parking is predominant where more than 60% of available spaces are occupied

long-term- parking demand is primarily generated by commuters (non-local) motorists- there is a demonstrated history of parking issues due to the parking demand through a search

of Council’s parking complaints register- an RPPS must be considered on an area-wide basis to ensure the parking demand isn’t simply

displaced to an adjacent residential street- community consultation should be undertaken with the Local Councillor with at least 60% of

residents supporting the proposed RPPS for it to proceed.

19. Council conducted a parking survey in local streets surrounding Greenslopes Private Hospital in February 2010 due to parking issues raised by local residents and was part of a wider parking study in conjunction with other parking surveys conducted around hospitals in Brisbane at the time. The parking survey conducted in 2010 was used to assess community support for Council to install a RPPS. Council did not progress the installation of a RPPS as consultation at the time showed that only 34% of residents wanted RPPS restrictions. Although 66% of residents did not support RPPS restrictions, Council has been actively monitoring parking in the area since the 2010 parking survey and has been addressing parking issues raised by local residents on a case-by-case basis.

20. Installing RPPS in the five streets nominated by the petitioners can potentially shift the parking demand to adjacent streets. Therefore, a parking utilisation assessment was conducted including streets in the wider area which the parking demand could impact. Attachment C (on file) forms a locality map of the area considered by the study outlined in red with the five streets nominated by the petitioners highlighted in blue. The parking utilisation assessment considered parking rates on five weekdays over an 11 month period, between 12 January 2016 and 15 December 2016. Attachment D (on file) shows a table outlining the parking occupancy rates.

21. Some of the individual streets did meet the requirement for a RPPS to be installed, though as the parking occupancy rates required under Council guidelines for consideration of a RPPS were not demonstrated for the total area considered in the parking utilisation assessment, it is not recommended to resurvey the local area at this time. Although Council is not implementing a RPPS, it will continue to work with local residents and Councillor Ian McKenzie, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward, to address parking concerns when they are reported.

22. During the parking utilisation assessment, Council also assessed the on-site public carparks located within the Greenslopes Private Hospital grounds. This assessment revealed the on-site public carparks were underutilised and had considerable capacity for on-site parking. As parking issues are still occurring around Greenslopes Private Hospital and in response to this petition, Council will write to Greenslopes Private Hospital and request they review their on-site parking arrangements, to encourage increased on-site parking use by hospital visitors, and further consider on-site parking as part of their master planning exercise.

23. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council has assessed the requirements for a RPPS and has determined the current parking occupancy rates do not meet Council’s guidelines for the implementation of a RPPS at this time. Council will continue to monitor parking occupancy rates around the Greenslopes Private Hospital and will implement minor or site specific changes to parking restrictions as required. Council will write to the hospital and request they review their on-site parking arrangements to increase on-site parking use by hospital visitors and that they further consider on-site parking as part of their master planning.

Consultation

24. Councillor Ian McKenzie, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

25. Accordingly, the Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

26. RECOMMENDATION:


- 83 -

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL HAS ASSESSED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT SCHEME (RPPS) AND HAS DETERMINED THE CURRENT PARKING OCCUPANCY RATES DO NOT MEET COUNCIL’S GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RPPS AT THIS TIME. COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR PARKING OCCUPANCY RATES AROUND THE GREENSLOPES PRIVATE HOSPITAL AND WILL IMPLEMENT MINOR OR SITE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS AS REQUIRED. COUNCIL WILL WRITE TO THE HOSPITAL AND REQUEST THEY REVIEW THEIR ON-SITE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS TO INCREASE ON-SITE PARKING USE BY HOSPITAL VISITORS AND THAT THEY FURTHER CONSIDER ON-SITE PARKING AS PART OF THEIR MASTER PLANNING.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/993226 & CA16/1012532

Thank you for your petition requesting Council install a Resident Parking Permit Scheme (RPPS) in Nicholson Street, Headfort Street, Newdegate Street, Hunter Street and Denman Street located around the Greenslopes Private Hospital.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by Council at its meeting held on (DATE). It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

Council has assessed the requirements for a Resident Parking Permit Scheme (RPPS) and has determined the current parking occupancy rates do not meet Council’s guidelines for the implementation of a RPPS at this time.

Council will continue to monitor parking occupancy rates around the Greenslopes Private Hospital and will implement minor or site specific changes to parking restrictions as required.

Council will write to the hospital and request they review their on-site parking arrangements to increase on-site parking use by hospital visitors and that they further consider on-site parking as part of their master planning.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr David Clarke, Senior Transport Network Operations Officer from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy on 07 3403 8888.

ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING AN UPGRADE TO LYTTON ROAD IN BULIMBA, BALMORAL AND MORNINGSIDECA16/867087

436/2016-1727. A petition from residents, requesting an upgrade to Lytton Road in Bulimba, Balmoral and

Morningside, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 25 October 2016, by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

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

29. The petition contains 248 signatures: 140 live in Bulimba, Balmoral or Morningside, 107 live in other suburbs in Brisbane and one lives in Victoria.

30. Council has committed approximately $115 million to the Wynnum Road corridor upgrade Stage 1, a critical project for the city which forms part of Council’s wider $1.3 billion plan to attack traffic congestion. This plan will see more than 90 road safety and congestion busting projects delivered from 2016 to 2020.


- 84 -

31. Stage 1 of the project will see the four lane stretch of Lytton Road from Latrobe Street to Canning Bridge widened to six lanes. The project will reduce travel times in this section of Lytton Road by approximately 50% in peak traffic periods, and improve public and active transport infrastructure by providing off-road cycle lanes and new indented bus bays, making travel to the CBD and eastern suburbs easier for commuters. It also addresses a number of safety concerns along Lytton Road such as widening the lanes, improving the Heidelberg Street intersection and removing unsafe right-turn bans into adjacent streets and properties. Construction is anticipated to start in early 2018 and be complete in 2020.

32. Council recently started developing the preliminary design for Stage 1b. This project will complement the works undertaken as part of Stage 1 by implementing interim measures to improve traffic efficiency and safety between Canning Bridge and Riding Road. Council is committed to future stages, however, the timing, scope and funding of future stages of the Wynnum Road corridor upgrade are yet to be confirmed.

33. Lytton Road between Oxford Street and Junction Road is a two-lane, three kilometre stretch of road with a 60 km/h speed limit, providing for vehicle movements through the three suburbs of Bulimba, Balmoral and Morningside. Attachment B, submitted on file, forms a locality map of the location. Approximately 2.1 kilometres of the northern side of Lytton Road and 1.2 kilometres of the southern side is zoned for light industrial under City Plan 2014. Due to the light industrial zoning, it is expected that a high number of commercial vehicles use Lytton Road. The Colmslie Reserve is also located within the light industrial zone to the north of Lytton Road. Attachment B shows the light industrial zone outlined in pink and the Colmslie Reserve outlined in dark green.

34. Between Oxford Street and Junction Road, the width of the Lytton Road corridor is approximately 20 metres. Due to Lytton Road being only a two-lane road and taking into account a lane width on a road of this type is required to be a minimum of 3.3 metres, Council is able to use the existing road reserve to enhance Lytton Road with a number of potential treatments to improve safety such as edge line markings, pedestrian refuge island crossing points and dedicated turning lanes. There are also on-road shared bicycle lanes of approximately two kilometres and on-road dedicated bicycle lanes of approximately one kilometre. This corridor will be upgraded when funding is made available prioritised against other city wide projects.

35. The current version of the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), located in Brisbane City Plan 2014, identifies the Lytton Road and Junction Road intersection for future upgrade. Delivery of this upgrade is also subject to future budget prioritisation, relative to other similar projects across the city.

36. Balmoral State High School is located at the intersection of Lytton Road and Thynne Road, Balmoral. Attachment C, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location. The petition raised a safety concern for Balmoral State High School students crossing Thynne Road and Lytton Road. It is likely that students crossing Thynne Road would be walking to homes located within and beyond the local school catchment area, north east of Balmoral State High School. Separate to this petition, Council has recently assessed the Thynne Road corridor for safety improvements. Preliminary investigations have revealed that the pedestrian crossing point, where Thynne Road meets Lytton Road adjacent to Balmoral State High School, is not a viable option for Council to upgrade due to existing steep grades, inadequate sight distances for pedestrians and no provision for kerb ramps or footpath connectivity. Investigation into a viable pedestrian crossing facility on Thynne Road near the intersection of Lytton Road is ongoing. Once the Thynne Road corridor assessment has been completed, Council will discuss this in further detail with Councillor Sutton, Local Councillor for Morningside Ward.

37. The petition also raised the concern for safety at the intersection of Taylor Street and Lytton Road, due to the approval of a warehouse facility at 153 Taylor Street, Bulimba. The development application for the warehouse facility was refused by Council. The developer contested Council’s decision on appeal through the Planning and Environment (P&E) Court, with final approval being granted by the P&E Court. Some key points in the traffic impact assessment report provided by the developer as part of their application are: that Taylor Street is a minor road and would be used as the primary site access road; the site design does not preclude staff walking or cycling to the site; the site will have less than 200 high turnover parking spaces.

38. Council is aware of rat running issues in the side streets that link to Taylor Street from Lytton Road. Council has listed the location for Local Area Traffic Management subject to future budget prioritisation, relative to other similar projects across the city. Once the warehouse facility is built and


- 85 -

in operation, Council will monitor the Taylor Street and Lytton Road intersection for capacity and safety.

39. Just prior to 2009, to improve pedestrian safety, pedestrian splitter islands were installed at the intersections of Thynne Road, Taylor Street, Bexley Avenue and Aloomba Street, where they intersect with Lytton Road. A pedestrian refuge island was also installed on Lytton Road near the intersection with Taylor Street. Aerial imagery also confirms a pedestrian refuge island was installed on Lytton Road, close to the intersection with Thynne Road, prior to 2001. Splitter islands and pedestrian refuge islands assist pedestrians with crossing a street as they reduce crossing distance and allow for a staged crossing where pedestrians only need to negotiate a single direction traffic flow at a time.

40. The northern side of Lytton Road across from Balmoral State High School is zoned light industrial. As there are no local shops that students would use in the vicinity, it is likely students crossing Lytton Road here would only be doing so for the purpose of catching the inbound bus service. As shown in Attachment C, there is an inbound bus stop located approximately 200 metres north of Balmoral State High School. Taking into account the previous installation of the pedestrian splitter islands and the pedestrian refuge island, the safest route to the inbound bus stop at this location would require students to cross Thynne Road, Fifth Avenue and Lytton Road.

41. It should be noted that the closest inbound bus stop is not the bus stop located approximately 200 metres to the north of Balmoral State High School but the inbound bus stop located on Walkers Drive. This inbound bus stop is approximately 70 metres from Balmoral State High School and has a signalised pedestrian crossing to regulate the safe crossing of Thynne Road. There is also an outbound bus stop located on the opposite side of Walkers Drive.

42. The outbound bus routes service the Apollo Road ferry terminal located in Bulimba, approximately 2.5 kilometres to the north east of Balmoral State High School. It could be expected that some students may catch the bus to their homes along this route, though there is no requirement to cross Lytton Road to catch these outbound bus services.

43. Separate to this petition and due to a safety issue raised with crossing Lytton Road by Balmoral State High School, with school students walking to the Council swimming pool and sporting facilities located at the Colmslie Recreation Reserve, Council investigated if safety improvements could be made. There is currently a sealed footpath between Balmoral State High School and Colmslie Recreation Reserve, with a walking distance of approximately 1,200 metres. There is a pedestrian refuge located within 40 metres of the Colmslie Recreation Reserve entrance road, Col Gardener Drive. Walking between Colmslie Recreation Reserve and Balmoral State High School should be able to be accomplished safely if due care is taken. Council has investigated installing traffic signals at the intersection of Col Gardener Drive and Lytton Road and as such, the intersection has been listed for upgrade, subject to future budget prioritisation, relative to other similar projects across the city.

44. The petitioners’ primary concern is that residential development proposed by the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan (BBMP) will increase road congestion and safety issues on Lytton Road. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location with the main BBMP location that is adjacent to Lytton Road outlined in light green.

45. A traffic model was used to analyse the impact of various development scenarios on key intersections on Lytton Road and Wynnum Road, to assist Council with developing the road network within the BBMP. An independent review conducted by Metis Consultants in April 2016 confirmed that Council’s model was developed to the appropriate industry standards.

46. The traffic modelling determined that the BBMP development is unlikely to have significant impacts on the broader external road network and will not solely trigger or bring forward any upgrades to Wynnum Road or Lytton Road.

47. The traffic modelling has however determined the BBMP development may result in the need for traffic signals to be installed at the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection and an alteration of the Lytton Road and Baldwin Street intersection to a left-in/left-out configuration. Attachment D, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location.


- 86 -

48. Council’s 2016-17 budget has therefore allocated $2,249,000 to signalise the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection to provide pedestrian and cyclist movements and access to the local area. The upgrade of this intersection and the conversion of the Lytton Road and Baldwin Street intersection, to a left-in/left-out configuration is scheduled to be completed within the 2016-17 financial year.

49. The petition also requested for Perrin Creek Bridge to be widened and for bike facilities to be provided along Lytton Road. As Lytton Road is mapped as a primary bike route in the Brisbane City Plan 2014, Council’s long term plan is to provide bike facilities along its full length, subject to funding availability and prioritisation. Perrin Creek Bridge is approximately 20 metres long and eight metres wide. The outbound side of Lytton Road narrows at Perrin Creek Bridge for approximately 75 metres. The inbound side of Lytton Road narrows for approximately 60 metres though there is the option here for cyclists to use a separate footpath to cross Perrin Creek Bridge. To raise awareness for cyclists and motorists crossing Perrin Creek Bridge, Council will install ‘Share the Road’ signage on the approaches to Perrin Creek Bridge.

50. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council has allocated funding to install traffic signals at the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection and to alter the Lytton Road and Baldwin Street intersection to a left-in/left-out configuration, to be completed within the 2016-17 financial year. Council will install ‘Share the Road’ signage on the approaches to Perrin Creek Bridge, to raise awareness for cyclists and motorists crossing Perrin Creek Bridge. The intersections at Col Gardner Drive and Lytton Road and also Junction Road and Lytton Road will be upgraded when funding becomes available prioritised against other city wide projects. Council will continue to investigate options for a pedestrian crossing on Thynne Road as part of the Thynne Road corridor assessment.

Consultation

51. Councillor Shane Sutton, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

52. Accordingly, the Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed with Councillors Steve Griffiths and Shayne Sutton dissenting.

53. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL HAS ALLOCATED FUNDING TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE LYTTON ROAD, APOLLO ROAD AND THORPE STREET INTERSECTION AND ALTER THE LYTTON ROAD AND BALDWIN STREET INTERSECTION TO A LEFT-IN/LEFT-OUT CONFIGURATION, TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE 2016-17 FINANCIAL YEAR. COUNCIL WILL INSTALL ‘SHARE THE ROAD’ SIGNAGE ON THE APPROACHES TO PERRIN CREEK BRIDGE, TO RAISE AWARENESS FOR CYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS CROSSING PERRIN CREEK BRIDGE. THE INTERSECTIONS AT COL GARDNER DRIVE AND LYTTON ROAD AND ALSO JUNCTION ROAD AND LYTTON ROAD WILL BE UPGRADED WHEN FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE PRIORITISED AGAINST OTHER CITY WIDE PROJECTS. COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE OPTIONS FOR A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON THYNNE ROAD AS PART OF THE THYNNE ROAD CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/867087

Thank you for your petition requesting Council upgrade Lytton Road between Oxford Street and Junction Road to reduce congestion and improve safety.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by Council at its meeting held on (DATE). It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.


- 87 -

Council has allocated funding to install traffic signals at the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection and alter the Lytton Road and Baldwin Street intersection to a left-in/left-out configuration, to be completed within the 2016-17 financial year.

Council will install ‘Share the Road’ signage on the approaches to Perrin Creek Bridge, to raise awareness for cyclists and motorists crossing Perrin Creek Bridge.

Bike facilities will be upgraded on Lytton Road between Junction Road and Oxford Street, the Lytton Road and Junction Road intersection will be upgraded and the intersection of Col Gardner Drive and Lytton Road will be upgraded when funding becomes available prioritised against other city wide projects.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Damian Burke, Senior Transport Planner from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy on 3403 8888.

ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I speak briefly to the report, I just wanted to make some comments regarding aged care, age and retirement care living in this city. As this Chamber is aware, this Administration has done significant work in order to put together a package to aid retirement and aged care in the city. We know the scale of the challenge. Over the last few years, on average, we've only seen 1,000 new rooms approved and built. What we need is in the order of some 3,600 every year, and every year that we don't meet that target, we fall further and further behind and we fall further and further behind in our obligations to the ageing residents of this city.

So that's why this Administration put in place an incentive package, on 1 September it was announced, which involved a number of things from changes to the codes within the City Plan, all the way through to dedicated assessment managers, streamlined DA processes and a reduction in infrastructure charges. Those incentives that we were able to implement immediately, this Administration moved very swiftly to, and I am delighted to inform the Chamber that since 1 September, when the initiative package commenced, we have seen 13 retirement and aged care applications approved, the most recent of which was approved by a Council delegate this morning for the Banchory Court at Carindale residential and retirement care facility.

This is a development proposed by Aveo and comprises of 417 independent living units across six apartment buildings, and a 115 bed residential care facility with communal areas, gardens and dining facilities for residents within walking distance of local public transport as well. It also features its own medical centre, a coffee shop and more than 500 parking spaces, as well as a landscaped pedestrian link around the site. It will be developed over six stages. This, of course, is in the DEPUTY MAYOR's ward. Thank you very much, DEPUTY MAYOR, for your support of retirement and aged care living.

This takes the total number of beds that have been approved by this Administration since the incentive announcement to over 2,000, 2,040 beds to be exact, in just six months. This is an outstanding effort. There are still 13 applications that we have in the system for retirement and aged care that are currently being assessed by Council officers, with a further 2,369 beds.


- 88 -

So we have done an awful lot and the incentive package is working, but we would like to do more and we can do more, because of course part of the incentive package was the changes to the code, which we anticipated would facilitate more applications under the City Plan 2014. As you will remember, it was announced in early September the code changes, they came to this Chamber in November, just two months later and we sent them up to the State Government where, unfortunately, they have sat for four months, four months, Madam Chairman, they have been sitting up there. This is a package that received almost universal support from the industry. We even had, at one time, the Labor Councillors supporting it, and yet it has sat on Jackie Trad's desk for the last four months. This is deeply, deeply disappointing.

As I said, the challenge in relation to this issue of retirement and aged care living is significant, and the longer we continue to fall behind, the harder it will be to keep up and meet our obligations to the ageing residents of this city. So I would call on the Minister for Planning, I call on the Labor Councillors opposite to talk to the people within their party and allow us to get on with the job of providing for an aged population with Brisbane. It's what we want to do, it's what we prepared the package in order to do and all we ask is for the State Government to get out of the way and take a little bit less time than four months—


Councillor SIMMONDS: Well I heard from Councillor GRIFFITHS the comment that we're playing politics and it is extraordinary, extraordinary—


Councillor SIMMONDS: Extraordinary from a group of Councillors who first supported—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I actually didn't make that statement.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, Madam Chairman, that's an extraordinary statement because he did.


Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, I think Councillor STRUNK is identifying himself, so I do uphold Councillor GRIFFITHS' point of order, so the record can be corrected.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, that's fine, I take Councillor GRIFFITHS at his word. Then it's extraordinary that Councillor STRUNK would have the gall to say that we are playing politics with this issue when we have consistently had a position, we've gone out to the community, we've expressed that position, we've fought hard for it, we've created a package, we brought it to this Chamber, we debated it. The only people who have changed their particular position on this issue is the Labor Councillors because they originally supported this and then when it all got a bit hard, when 37 people signed a petition against a three-storey proposal in a five-storey area—



Councillor SUTTON: Councillor SIMMONDS is misleading the Chamber. When this aged care package came to Council, yes we supported it, but we supported it going out for consultation and I was very clear in my remarks that that was not an indication of our support of the final package.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, that's not a correct point of order.

Councillor SUTTON: Well I think he's—

Chairman: If you want to claim misrepresentation, you have to do that appropriately.



- 89 -

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and doesn't that just go to prove the point that Councillor COOPER was just making, about how they're addicted to weasel words, how they're addicted to sitting on the fence, how they're addicted to having a bob each way on virtually every issue that comes to this Chamber. How can you possibly stand in front of your communities, Labor Councillors and defend the fact that you are not supporting to provide more retirement and aged care stock for this city when we need more than 3,600 new accommodations every year?


Councillor SIMMONDS: It's fine for Councillor CASSIDY to say rubbish, because he is, of course, the one that led them astray when he couldn't even bring himself to support a three-storey application in a five-storey zone. I mean he is the very definition of spineless and weak, isn't he, when it comes to this particular issue.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, would you like to rephrase that please?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Certainly, Madam Chairman, his behaviour is the very definition of what we have come to expect from the left and from the Labor party on this, and on other particular issues. So, Madam Chairman, I again get back to my point which is to call on the Minister to release this package. There aren't any great State interests which should be troubling her, this is an easy one to spit out, so let's get on with it. Let's get on with allowing this Administration to go out to the people and justify our decision to support retirement and aged care. If the Labor Party wants to hide behind us, well then that's their prerogative, I suppose.

In terms of the Committee report that we had last week, we had a presentation from the Plumbing Services Group. They conduct over 55,000 inspections annually, so the team do an almighty job when it comes to this. They took us through some new trends around these pod constructions that are being used for both bathrooms and kitchens, and I appreciate the Committee's interest in those particular aspects of it. I'd like to thank Paula, the Manager of the Plumbing Services and her team and all the officers who do a great job in this particular section, often the unsung heroes, they don't get a lot of publicity, but they deserve it for the huge amount of work that they churn through every year.


Councillor SIMMONDS, nothing further?

I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Angela Owen, Jonathan Sri and Shayne Sutton.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLUMBING SERVICES GROUP

437/2016-171. Paula Sundholm, Plumbing Services Manager, Plumbing Services Group, Development Services,

City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Development Services – Plumbing Services Group. She provided the information below.

2. The Plumbing Services Group (PSG) transitioned from Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) to Development Services in 2013. PSG has 54 staff, 27 of whom are Plumbing Inspectors, who each perform between 11 to 13 inspections per day. In addition, four Plumbing Investigators look into


- 90 -

complaints that vary from sewerage overflow, odour complaints, illegal plumbing connections etc. At any given time, there are approximately 120 open investigations. The officers are pre-dominantly field-based, and they complete computer tasks at their home offices. Supervisors and support staff are located at the South Regional Business Centre.

3. The objective of PSG is to ensure that private plumbing installed in Brisbane operates effectively and complies with the relevant Queensland Plumbing Legislation. The work that PSG does ensures that Brisbane continues to have a safe drinking water and wastewater system which contributes to maintaining a safe, liveable and enjoyable city.

4. The work scope of PSG covers the following:- assessment of residential/commercial plumbing applications- inspection of private plumbing works through to compliance - PlumbSMART (launched on 1 July 2014 for fast-track approval of domestic plumbing

applications, reduces time frames from twenty to two business days)- handling complaints, investigations, enforcement- drainage plan requests- maintain State registers (backflow, onsite sewerage facility)- Notifiable Works audit programme- solicitor searches.

5. PSG’s work volumes have steadily increased since 2012. The group currently performs approximately 55,000 plumbing inspections per year. In 2013, the State Government moved some plumbing work to self-certification (Notifiable Work). PSG audits five per cent of all Notifiable Work on behalf of the State Government which identifies a 50 per cent non˗compliance rate.

6. Over the past five years, commercial applications have steadily increased from 2,337 to 3,847 and domestic applications (including PlumbSMART) have increased from 2,324 to 3,926.

7. Over the past year, PSG has noted the increased use of bathroom pods in residential development sites. Bathroom pods are pre-fabricated completely finished bathroom modules. They are constructed in a warehouse, transported to the construction site and craned into place. The associated services are then connected on-site.

8. PSG’s focus for the future includes: - developing a set of advice conditions to be applied on the development application for

properties on combined drains and in unsewered areas - preparing for the new Plumbing and Drainage Act which is currently under consultation – the

anticipated release date is 1 July 2018 or earlier – under the new act, timeframes for domestic and commercial applications will significantly reduce and there may be an increase in Notifiable Works schedules and new requirements for Council to take an auditing role for septic systems

- process efficiencies – following customer feedback, the fees and charges schedule for 2017-18 have been simplified

- mobile computing – working with Council’s Information Services Branch to develop a mobile computing strategy that will enable officer’s immediate connectivity to Council systems to access data and update records in the field

- investigate opportunities for PSG to play a greater role in ensuring compliance.

9. Among the awards that the branch has received, it was recognised in the 2016 Australian Business Awards in the Business Excellence category and Plumbing Inspector, Carlie Low was awarded the 2016 Queensland Building and Construction Commission’s Queensland Women in Plumbing and Gas Award for the lead role she plays in mentoring women coming into the plumbing industry.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Sundholm for her informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:



- 91 -

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 7 March 2017, be adopted.


Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just like to talk to the Committee report, so item A before us, the Committee presentation last week on the Coorparoo Creek Park, because I believe this is a great example of the outcome that comes from having a plan and then carrying it out. The Coorparoo Creek Park, about which we had a presentation last week, development of a new park between Barnes Avenue and the Old Cleveland Road, was first identified in the Eastern Corridor neighbourhood plan and it showed a proposed footprint for the park and outline for key objectives, including a focal point which came through very clearly in the presentation, about the need for integrated water management and providing for not just open space and for accommodating pedestrian cycle linkages, but in particular making sure that there was an interface between the development in the area and the natural environment of the Noman Creek catchment.

So this was defined in the first of three priority precincts within the Norman Creek Master Plan which came out in 2012, the master plan for 2012 through to 2031, and with a focus on healthy ecosystems, the issues of living in Brisbane's climate, designing neighbourhood with water in mind, while also facilitating development connecting communities, strengthening the community connections to activities and services within the catchment, as well as providing for recreation and activities, so improving accessibility and diversity of open space in an area where the community is growing.

So this is a good example of getting the balance right between the needs of a city, rehabilitating areas that have been degraded through past industrial use. I think that came through very clearly in the presentation that the Council officer gave to us about the outcome in the park, because it included aerial photographs of where we were in October 2013, and where we were in December 2016, showing the consequence of the resumption of a property, industrial property, which was built over the waterway and is now part of both a park and a waterway corridor, working as a detention basin.

So the park, the Coorparoo Creek Park, shows a lot of work under the ground, which may not be immediately visible to people who now visit that particular area because it shows grass banks down to a waterway, but the photos taken during the process of developing and providing for the outcomes that we now see shows what's gone in under the ground and is providing for both a waterway catchment coming down through the Coorparoo Creek as part of the Norman Creek catchment, and also providing for that interface which was originally envisaged when the Normal Creek vision first came out.

So I think this is a great example of delivering on those objectives, defining the vision, setting what the objectives are, and then providing the budget for delivery of those projects, and then seeing them right through to fruition. I think when we see neighbourhood plans come through this place and they have visionary statements, it's a great opportunity, looking at the delivery of a project like this, to show what we can do. This is why we have neighbourhood planning processes, this is why we scope ahead about what we want in our parks, it's why we scope ahead about how we accommodate the issues relating to development issues and recreational issues, as well providing for drainage issues.

So this is a practical example of what you can achieve when you set your heart on this path, and it's a great example of delivery by this Administration of its vision for a clean, green and sustainable city.



- 92 -

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thanks, Madam Chair. This is not a report I'd usually enter the debate in, but I've had some information to hand recently and I wanted to make sure that Councillor McLACHLAN was aware of it. I've been advised that there are an increasing number of complaints by local residents living around this park about mosquitoes and cane toads, and that they are getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of action by Council in terms of the pest management strategies being implemented around this area, particularly on the mosquito front. I wanted just to make sure that Councillor McLACHLAN was aware of it. Obviously this is something that you would normally expect the local Councillor to do, but given the local Councillor contacted the State Member's office to actually ask for them to deal with the mosquitoes.


Councillor SUTTON: I wasn't quite sure if he's aware about what is a Councillor responsibility and what is a State responsibility. So on behalf, again, of the residents of Coorparoo, go ahead Councillor McKENZIE, go back to your office, through you, Madam Chair, and ask your staff. I just wasn't sure whether or not—the local Councillor is aware that this is actually a problem that he needs to address. So on behalf of residents of Coorparoo again, I'd just like to raise that with Councillor McLACHLAN and ask for him to investigate it and take any necessary steps that he feels are appropriate to bring that pest management in that particular area under control.


Councillor McKENZIE.

Councillor McKENZIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, I'd like to reiterate some of the words that Councillor McLACHLAN said. This is a landmark park in this city. I agree with him and when I was first elected back in 2008 and I sat on the Eastern Corridor neighbourhood plan, this was completely astounding that this could happen in an area so close to the city, a marvellous foresight to produce this park, and it has many other applications apart from the obvious ones, which Councillor McLACHLAN outlined about flood mitigation and also community.

Just on the flood mitigation area, a point that's not generally noted, and I've got no scientific evidence for this, but a lot of evidence of, in the heights of Coorparoo, it's an old suburb and there are some blockages with the waterway there. Now I'm advised that this will assist in the movement of water down from the heights of Coorparoo. It certainly won't inhibit it and that will provide an advantage for my residents up there. There were a number of acquisitions of properties there and most of these properties spent a bit of time under water over the years, so that was a good thing. It opens up the public space and provides a corridor.

Now one of the most important things as we all know of the developments around Coorparoo, this will provide a wonderful green space, an open area for residents who live around this area. Morley Street Bridge has been redeveloped, and of course it will provide a walkway through to the railway station at Coorparoo, and also a throughput for the bikeway into the city.

Now as far as those issues concerning the mosquitoes and cane toads are involved, I've spoken to numerous people about this development that live around there and I've personally received no complaints about that. But I will certainly put this on my agenda and I will make sure that I will attend to any issues that arise in this area.

So in closing, Madam Chairman, wonderful operation, great foresight and we'll see this park flourish in years to come. Thank you, Councillor.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Just briefly on this item, I would like to congratulate Councillor McLACHLAN and the other Council officers who have worked


- 93 -

together to make this project happen. Obviously it has some minor concerns and I could nit-pick. I'm not 100% happy with it, but on balance I think it's a good thing and I support the broader intention and strategy of responding to flooding this way, by bringing creeks to the surface and by acquiring land in flood plains. So well done on that, but I urge you to push ahead, don’t delay, there is much more of this catchment to deal with and there are further steps of that Norman Creek vision that shouldn't be postponed or ignored and I trust you'll get to them in a timely manner and I look forward to working with you on that.

In particular, I'd just note related directly to this catchment is our concern about the rubbish trap that's still not fixed and maybe that's something that you're probably already aware of and I trust you'll get on to that as well. Since I wasn't able to be at that Committee meeting, I'd appreciate the opportunity of a briefing about this project from one of the relevant Council officers, and perhaps they could tell me about what's next and whether a similar strategy will be applied to the next stretch of creek just over the border. Maybe they could give me a briefing on that sometime soon, if you can advise your officers to get in touch with my office, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on this matter, Madam Chairman. What the report leaves out is that this was a $26 million project of which half of it went to buying back the land from the industrial owners. Madam Chairman, my only comment I've got on this is it is just delightful to see what this Administration will do to desperately try and prop up a marginal LNP ward.


Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.


Chairman: Order!

Councillor McLACHLAN: I'll respond to the meaningful contributions to this debate, which doesn't include that last observation of Councillor JOHNSTON, which can be treated with the contempt that her comments usually deserve. So Councillor SUTTON, I'm surprised that you put your head up above the parapets on mosquitoes. We know what the ALP approach is to mosquito control is—


Councillor McLACHLAN: Releasing Gambusia into the waterways at Normal Creek, that's the ALP approach to mosquito control, release an illegal fish into the waterways, okay, we know what their strategy is, that's fine. Councillor McKENZIE, thank you for your contribution and Councillor SRI, yes, thank you for your observations, I know you've got a passion for this particular waterway that's shared by the Administration. We'll make sure that you're appraised of all future actions in the Norman Creek catchment. Thank you.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Steven Huang, Nicole Johnston and Andrew Wines.


- 94 -

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COORPAROO CREEK PARK

438/2016-171. Michelle Seward, Senior Project Manager, Major Projects, Major Projects and Asset Coordination,

Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an overview on Coorparoo Creek Park and share the project achievements to date. She provided the information below.

2. The aim of the project was to create a connected and open space network that provided a pedestrian and cyclists pathway linking the waterway corridor and open space areas in the park to the Coorparoo centre and public transport nodes.

3. The scope of the project was demonstrated with the help of an aerial image, including downstream works connecting Barnes Avenue through to The Common. This serves to connect the Coorparoo Creek Corridor to The Common, activating this space. The works included channel widening, upgrade to the Morley Street Bridge, and revegetation and mangrove restoration.

4. The Coorparoo Creek Park Stage 1 included development of a new park between Barnes Avenue and Old Cleveland Road.

5. Coorparoo Creek Park was first identified in the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan. The local plan showed the proposed footprint of the park and provided an outline for key objectives, including being a focal point for integrated water cycle management, providing a range of urban open space experiences, accommodating pedestrian and cycle linkages, and providing an interface between development and the natural environment of Norman Creek Catchment.

6. The park was also defined as the first of three priority precincts within the Norman Creek Master Plan 2012-31, because it delivers upon the four primary goals, including:- healthy ecosystem – connecting catchment ecosystems and ensuring water remains healthy as

it enters and moves through a catchment- living with Brisbane’s climate – designing the neighbourhood with water in mind whilst also

facilitating development- connecting communities – strengthening the community connections to activities and services

within the catchment- recreation and activity – improving accessibility and diversity of open space in an area where

the community is growing.

7. The Coorparoo Square entertainment precinct is also in development, consisting of apartments, dining and entertainment facilities.

8. The benefits of the Coorparoo Creek park project include creating and activating the inner-city open space, creation of multi-purpose parkland and a pathway for pedestrians and cyclists, providing the foundation for a green corridor, and flood management to support development.

9. The park is less than 15 minutes from the CBD. With the extension of the busway to Langlands Park, significant redevelopment at Coorparoo Junction is expected over the long term. Coorparoo Creek Park will support this growth and the revitalisation of the area by providing 1.6 hectares more open space for workers and residents. It is reconnecting the community to the lost waterway and natural environment.

10. Images of the Coorparoo Creek Park project were displayed, indicating the change to the landscape, with a light industry area replaced by a bike route and pathway, extension of the open space and opening-up of the lost waterway.

11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Seward for her informative presentation.

12. RECOMMENDATION:



- 95 -

ADJOURNMENT:439/2016-17

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 locked.

Council stood adjourned at 7.06pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. There are two items on the report that I'd like to discuss. The first being the Committee presentation, which was Fleet Solutions, SAP Reporting and Insight. It was actually a most informative presentation given by the Manager of Fleet Solutions, who's done an exemplary job within that branch, and seen tremendous outcomes in the level of customer service and satisfaction.

The presentation that she provided in regards to SAP was quite insightful, in that it was a most instrumental software package in that journey for her and her team. When we think of management tools generally, the introduction of SAP was something new and innovative that Council undertook. Certainly the process of engagement by officers and the evolution of that tool by them to actually modify and to make it something practical within their branch, within the respective different branches, I think has been quite an extraordinary process.

The presentation clearly showed that the utilisation of SAP within Fleet Services has been extraordinary. It went into quite a lot of detail about its initial use, the issues initially—just with any process when you're transitioning to new software, the tutorials, the education, and the general obvious questions of why, when we've been doing it this way for so long. All of those things clearly showed through the presentation that when you bring something in like this, it's a gradual process. You have to take people on a journey.

As part of that, you need to be able to answer those basic questions of why—well why not? What can we do to improve on what we deliver? There were perfect examples within the presentation, just simple things like the officers getting around from Fleet Services to service vehicles in different branches, in different areas of the city, rather than the vehicles coming to them—it was easier for the officers to get in in their own cars and travel out. There was a graph that showed the process undertaken by three different teams to go out and service vehicles, and heavy machinery and plants.

It was like a spaghetti trail of these people going around. It was more based on when the job was logged rather than any logical process. But then with the introduction of SAP and its evolution, the graph clearly showed just straight lines, literally, of three points of connection for each team, rather than this spaghetti trail across the whole city. What did it do? It improved efficiency, it reduced cost and it provided the team with the ability to more effectively get to where they needed to in a reduced time, to provide a better outcome.

So the presentation also went into the assessment of expenditure in time and resources, so that it's got to a point now with the Manager, that she can make those assessments off her desktop for the next financial year and beyond, based on all of the data that's being introduced. This, for her, was an enormous time-saving measure, because prior to SAP, it was being done manually, or it


- 96 -

was being done through an older system that didn't provide the connectivity. Because the output of information is only as good as the information going in.

So with the evolution of SAP and that collaboration and engagement by those different teams and individual officers undertaking that work, she's able to get a very clear picture of where the priorities are, where there needs to be more allocation of resources, and where the savings are. So that provides a more efficient process for her to then go into the LMERC (Lord Mayor’s Expenditure Review Committee) process and then get the outcomes that she's actually realistically needing.

So on top of that then was the level of engagement and collaboration by the mechanics individually and collaboratively as teams. So it's quite interesting to see that when you're taking people on a journey with new software packages, that when you get past the initial stumbling block of disinterest, to then begrudgingly getting involved, to then an actual proactive process of putting the data in, and becoming more proficient in just using the tablet or other devices, to be able to do that.

So that you've got teams of people now not treating it as a chore, but just seeing it as business as usual. So for me, being able to see that from that particular branch of SAP was most informative—for all of us there in the Committee. It just clearly goes to show that these processes are absolutely vital and that as an organisation, we need to stay on top of that.

So, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the officers for the presentation, for their ongoing work, and I really want to acknowledge the tremendous improvements and outcomes that Fleet Services have been able to achieve.

Madam Chairman, there's a second item, and that is a petition requesting that Council remove a leopard tree at 67 Esther Street, Deagon, in Councillor CASSIDY's ward. The petition was asking for the removal of the tree for a number of reasons. But importantly, as part of this process, tree removal is never easy and every case is different and every situation is different. Certainly you're getting officers working on a daily basis to try and resolve these issues.

As a city, we have a commitment to a clean, green and sustainable Brisbane. We want to make sure that we've got the necessary tree cover within our city to address heat issues, to address carbon emissions, to address the issues of biodiversity, and also as a subtropical city it's important to maintain that level of tree cover around our city. So it's always a balance between those conflicting needs of maintaining the trees, but also dealing with localised issues for them.

But it's good to see within this petition that the officers have been able to achieve the necessary outcome based on the needs of residents but looking at not only the removal, but importantly the replacement, that's been undertaken in this. So generally, I think overall it's been a good outcome for residents and for officers in this process by meeting those needs, but also meeting the needs of Council as a whole. Thank you.



Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I'll just speak on item B, the petition requesting that the leopard tree be removed from Esther Street, Deagon. I probably won't need to take as long as Councillor MATIC has in explaining this—he's done such a wonderful job over the last 10 minutes in doing so. But I support the recommendation put forward by the Council officers, which is a result of a petition that was tabled in this Chamber late last year. The resident at 63 Esther Street had requested a couple of times over the last few years for this tree to be removed, while also wanting a replacement planted there, because this tree had posed significant problems over the last few years.

So it's great to be able to achieve that outcome, working with the residents in Esther Street there. I know that resident, in talking to her over the last couple of


- 97 -

weeks, she's very excited to hear that this is coming to the Chamber and she's looking forward to working with Council to identify a suitable replacement tree, and I know will care for that tree. Thank you.

Chairman: Any further debate?

Councillor MATIC?


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 Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Ian McKenzie, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FLEET SOLUTIONS SAP REPORTING AND INSIGHT

440/2016-171. Kay Sullivan, Manager, Fleet Solutions, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting

to provide an update on Fleet Solutions SAP Reporting and Insight. She provided the information below.

2. Fleet Solutions supports Council’s strategy, policies and planning in the following areas:- asset management- purchasing, disposals and auctions- service, maintenance and repairs- fleet hire- car pool management.

3. SAP has played a crucial role in enabling Fleet Services to deliver engaging customer service and value for money. Initial issues and resistance to SAP among Fleet Solutions staff were identified and Fleet Solutions adopted a systematic approach to eliminate these obstacles. Among these measures were engagement, communication, education and training. Fleet Solutions helped its team see the benefits of SAP over the previous paper job cards. The use of styluses, shortcut function keys, naming conventions, and customisation of screens of mobile devices have helped staff with using SAP.

4. Fleet Solutions is now utilising SAP to achieve efficiencies and business objectives and it has eliminated stand-alone, single-point sensitivity. Some business improvements since the adoption of SAP include:- reduction of weekly mobile errors saving 14 hours of work per week- raising work orders for all work (needing more than 10 minutes) recovering $720,000 per year- scheduling of minor plant servicing has been reduced from one Full Time Equivalent

(FTE) to one hour per week- work planning and forecasting can be done for 12 months.

5. Fleet Solutions’ continuous improvement into the future includes exploring Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags and expanded GPS tracking, automation using SAP standard jobs with work instructions and spare parts, voice recognition and data entry shortcuts, barcoding for spare parts, expanded capacity planning, and condition-based maintenance.

6. Screenshots of the SAP dashboard and reports were shown to the Committee.

7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Sullivan for her informative presentation.

8. RECOMMENDATION:


- 98 -


B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE A LEOPARD TREE AT 63 ESTHER STREET, DEAGONCA16/928182

441/2016-179. A petition requesting the removal of a leopard tree on Esther Street, Deagon was presented to the

meeting of Council held on 8 November 2016, by Councillor Jared Cassidy.

10. The Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, supplied the following information.

11. The petition contains 67 signatures; additionally, Council had received a number of requests to have this tree removed.

12. The tree has been pruned on a number of occasions to reduce seed and leaf drop.

13. The petition raises concern that the tree is a danger when mowing, that the seeds and leaves need cleaning up daily, and clogs the house gutters, that the seed pods will hit pedestrians when falling from the tree or cause a slip hazard on the ground. The petitioner considers the tree to be a danger in a storm if the tree fell.

14. The Regional Coordinator Arboriculture from Asset Services North Region inspected the tree on 17 November 2016, and found the tree to be in good structural condition, with a large percentage of the tree overhanging the property. It was reported the leopard tree is the only one of this species growing in the street.

15. The officer spoke to the resident by phone to discuss their concerns and was advised they would be happy to have a replacement tree planted on the footpath should Council decide to remove the tree.

16. In view of the drastic pruning Council would need to undertake to prune the tree from the property, to alleviate seed and leaf drop and subsequent on-going maintenance, it would be appropriate to remove the tree.

17. It is recommended that Council remove the leopard tree at 63 Esther Street, Deagon and plant a suitable replacement tree in the street.

Consultation

18. Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, was consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

19. As the petitioners have requested the removal of the tree, they will be happy with the recommendation.

20. Accordingly, the Executive Manager therefore recommends as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

21. RECOMMENDATION:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER, ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL REMOVE THE LEOPARD TREE AND PLANT A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT TREE IN THE STREET.


- 99 -

Attachment ADraft response

Petition Reference: CA16/928182

Thank you for your petition requesting Council remove the leopard tree at 63 Esther Street, Deagon.

Council has completed an on-site investigation at 63 Esther Street, Deagon and considered your request.

I am pleased to advise that Council will remove the leopard tree and plant a suitable replacement tree in the street.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Graham Bridge, Regional Coordinator Arboriculture, Asset Services North Region, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, in the interests of brevity, I'll only speak for nine and a half minutes tonight.

So we had a Committee presentation last week for our Committee around unique venues. It was presented by the Manager for Venues and Facilities in Brisbane City Council. It was a detailed presentation around some of the more interesting venues that residents are able to access or use across the city, that are either of historical value or uniqueness in terms of their construction, Madam Chairman.

So the number of locations, I'm just going to raffle through them so that people can get an understanding of some of the different types of locations across the city. So we had a discussion around the Spring Hill Reservoirs, we also had a discussion around the Spring Hill Baths, which of course was one of our first pools that was built in the city. There was talk around the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium, which many in this Chamber would remember fondly from school visits when we were much younger, tracking out there to Mount Coot-tha to attend the planetarium for one of their fantastic shows.

There was talk around Riverstage as well, that I know that just about everyone in this Chamber would have attended one event or another at Riverstage. For me, it was Joseph and His Technicolour Dream Coat. I remember seeing at Riverstage back in the 1980s, Madam Chairman. We also talked about the Richard Randall Art Studio which is now located at Mount Coot-tha Botanic Gardens, and home to a number of fantastic art displays.

We also talked about the changes that we're doing in terms of the venue hire fees, bringing that into the Committee hall portfolio of venues, Madam Chairman. We also had a look at some of the cemeteries across the city. Of course, we have a number of historical cemeteries, so Bald Hills Cemetery, Balmoral Cemetery, Brookfield Cemetery, Cedar Creek Cemetery, Lutwyche Cemetery, Moggill Cemetery, Nundah Cemetery, South Brisbane Cemetery and of course Toowong Cemetery, Madam Chairman. So there was a lot of discussion around the cemeteries.


- 100 -

We also then talked about this building that we're in today, Brisbane City Hall, which we all know, Madam Chairman—the story of very well. We talked about the fantastic facility that this provides for community groups and for the residents of Brisbane. We also talked about the Powerhouse, Madam Chairman, the home of arts and culture for Brisbane residents and the fantastic role that the Powerhouse plays in not only telling the story of Brisbane, but also promoting Brisbane artists and the creative community in general.


Nothing further?


Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UNIQUE VENUES

442/2016-171. Kent Stroud, Manager, Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended

the meeting to provide a presentation on unique venues. He provided the information below.

2. The Spring Hill Reservoirs, the first of which was built in 1871, and the second in 1882, are two underground water storage facilities located beside the Old Windmill on Wickham Terrace, Spring Hill. They provided water to what is now Brisbane City until 1962 and remain heritage listed. They were restored in 2009 as part of Queensland’s 150th anniversary celebrations and became an event space in 2014. This event space is currently booked for 200 days in 2017.

3. The Spring Hill Baths (the Baths) was built in 1886 and is said to be the oldest surviving pool in the Southern Hemisphere. James Hipwood, who was the Mayor of Brisbane at the time, built the Baths for the city. Originally the baths were only open to men, but a year after they opened women were allowed in, but at separate times from men.

4. This heritage-listed swimming pool was Brisbane’s first in-ground pool and showcases old-world charm with classic changing rooms and grandstand seating. The Baths feature a 25-metre indoor heated pool and kiosk.

5. The Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium (the Planetarium) was established by Council in 1978. Located within the Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha, the Planetarium is home to the Cosmic Skydome, a projection dome that is 12.5 metres in diameter. More than 65,000 patrons attended shows held at the Planetarium in 2015-16.

6. One of the unique activities held at the Planetarium was a live two-hour linkup with six other facilities in the United States of America, Europe and Africa, orchestrated by the American Museum of Natural History in New York City for coverage and interaction during the first ever fly-by of dwarf planet Pluto by NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft. The planetariums involved had full two-way question and answer capability via a control centre set up at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.


- 101 -

7. The Riverstage, the iconic and unique outdoor entertainment venue, is located on the Brisbane River in the heart of the City Botanic Gardens, and has a 9,500-person event capacity and is available for hire for music events, corporate functions, private events and community events. The Riverstage has hosted acclaimed local, national and international acts.

8. Music events at the Riverstage have included sold-out shows by Ed Sheeran, Vance Joy, Florence and the Machine, and Mumford and Sons. Community and corporate events have included the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols and fun runs such as the Brisbane Marathon and Mater Little Miracles 5-kilometre Walk.

9. The Richard Randall Art Studio, a federation-style cottage studio, was purpose-built for prominent local artist Richard Randall in 1900 by his father, George, an immigration agent. The studio was originally located at 72 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane; however, demolition was threatened by the Queensland Government in 1988. The studio was saved and moved 300 metres away by Council, and was added to the Queensland Heritage Register in 1992. The studio moved to its current home at the Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha in 2007, where it is now a venue for hire for full-day events, including exhibitions and workshops.

10. The first cemetery of Brisbane that was of an area of sufficient size to be termed a cemetery was situated on a portion of land bounded by Eagle Terrace, Skew Street, Saul Street and Upper Roma Street, on the outskirts of the then small town in 1840.

11. Some historic cemeteries of Brisbane are now unique venues. Events held at the historic cemeteries include ghost tours, movie nights, weddings and historic digs. Council maintains nine historic cemeteries including:- Bald Hills Cemetery (also known as Sandgate Cemetery)- Balmoral Cemetery (also known as Bulimba or Morningside Cemetery)- Brookfield Cemetery- Cedar Creek Cemetery- Lutwyche Cemetery- Moggill Cemetery- Nundah Cemetery (also known as German Station Cemetery)- South Brisbane Cemetery (also known as Dutton Park Cemetery)- Toowong Cemetery.

12. Brisbane City Hall, built in 1928, was refurbished in 2009 along with the King George Square event space, now collectively known as the City Hall precinct. The copper dome over the main auditorium is the largest in Australia at 31 metres in diameter. The dome is supported by a brick base that allows the interior of the main auditorium to be unobscured by columns. The City Hall precinct is another unique venue that hosts events including markets, food truck stalls, Winter Wonderland and pop-up art exhibitions.

13. Brisbane Powerhouse (the Powerhouse) was built in 1927 as part of the growing need for powerhouses for Brisbane’s trams. The Powerhouse began operations in 1928 and was decommissioned in 1971. It was renovated and reopened as a modern entertainment hub in 2000 and refurbished in 2006. More than 700,000 visitors a year see more 1,250 performances at the Powerhouse, which has a year-round program featuring events across music, comedy, writers and ideas, dance, film, visual arts, digital arts, theatre and musical theatre.

14. The Powerhouse’s two main stage theatres seat up to 740 and 200 people respectively, and three additional venues seat between 80 and 180 each. The Powerhouse features gallery spaces, two restaurants and bars, corporate facilities and a river view of the Brisbane River. The 2015-16 event highlights at the Powerhouse included the World Theatre Festival, the Australian Performing Arts Market and the Brisbane Comedy Festival.

15. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Stroud for his

informative presentation.

16. RECOMMENDATION:



- 102 -

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of that Committee held on 7 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise, it's been a long afternoon.

Last week we had a presentation in Committee on Brisbane Innovate, and it's the first year that we held the Brisbane Innovate day, which was our open process that we are aiming to use the collective wisdom of the individuals, businesses, entrepreneurs, students, academics, and everybody in Brisbane to help us come up with innovative ways that we can do business better with people in Brisbane, and for people of Brisbane.

So the event was held on 19 October in City Hall. It was attended by over 300 people, and for a first-time event, it was hugely successful. We had a fantastic opening speech by the keynote speaker, Associate Professor Mia Woodruff who is doing specialties in biofabrication. So her work, actually using 3D printers to create ears for young children who are deaf and are born without ears or need the canal to actually get the sound into the new technology they're using to hear, was absolutely moving. Amazing and moving. Replicating bones from people from stem cells, to replace serious injuries in breaks or genetic disorders as well, it was absolutely fantastic.

We had a few other speakers, and then a panel, and then in the afternoon had roundtable discussions, just to generate some ideas around three topics that we thought were important to the people of Brisbane. One was ‘Our Accessible and Connected City’, so talking about multi-modal integrated journey experiences, and ‘Our Smart and Prosperous City’, which is about data and customer contact and opportunities, and the need for service intervention.

Then the third category was ‘Our New World City’. So we really are talking about ways that we can actually get more of a digital concierge service, so people coming into Brisbane or doing business in Brisbane, how they can access all the information that we have in Brisbane to actually be tailored to what they're looking for. Whether it's for work or for play as well.

So we had 48 innovation submissions received from that list, we have shortlisted proposals and we have one in each category, which are very, very exciting, so I look forward to coming back to the Chamber, to expand on the opportunities with that.

But the next step also is to continue our discussions with the existing proponents of those other 48, even if they weren't shortlisted, to see whether they go into the formal innovation proposals process that we have in Council, and of course, planning for our next Brisbane Innovate, because it was such a huge success. I commend the report to the Chamber.


Nothing further?


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:


- 103 -

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON BRISBANE INNOVATE

443/2016-171. Cat Matson, Chief Digital Officer, Brisbane Marketing, attended the meeting to provide an update on

Brisbane Innovate. She provided the information below.

2. Brisbane Innovate was an open innovation process that used the collective wisdom of individuals, businesses, entrepreneurs, students, academics and Council representatives to solve problems.

3. The event was held on 19 October 2016 at City Hall, and was attended by over 300 people. Officially opened by the Lord Mayor, the event was chaired by Councillor Krista Adams and the keynote speaker was Associate Professor Mia Woodruff from the Herston Biofabrication Institute, Queensland University of Technology. This was followed by a panel discussion on ‘bringing innovation to cities’, and round table discussions to generate ideas around the themes that support Council's Brisbane Vision 2031.

4. Three final challenge categories were presented:Challenge category 1: Our Accessible, Connected CityCouncil wants to find a solution that delivers a predictive personalised multi-modal integrated journey experience that provides Brisbane travellers with choice around their preferred journey options.

5. Challenge category 2: Our Smart Prosperous CityCouncil wants to find a solution that utilises the insight from Council data and customer contact to predict opportunities and the need for service intervention, and/or guide strategies for customer service channels of the future, using conversational commerce, artificial intelligence, machine learning or similar tools.

6. Challenge category 3: Our New World CityCouncil wants to find a solution that provides an innovative Brisbane digital 'concierge' service that will provide information to businesses, residents and visitors by ingesting, integrating and disseminating Brisbane information from multiple data sets and various sources.

7. Forty-eight innovation submissions were received and the shortlisted proposals are now in progress. The proposal for Category 1 is a smart transportation app providing guidance and assistance to the visually impaired using Bluetooth enabled audio notifications. The proposal for Category 2 aims to deploy computer vision and machine learning algorithms to analyse existing Brisbane City Council CCTV cameras to monitor, record and analyse traffic and pedestrian movements. Lastly, the proposal for Category 3 is a platform that contains layers of data consumable by anyone looking at leveraging the rich data that Council collects. Combines structured and unstructured data, analytics function and deployed by Dimension Data’s Customer 360 platform. Four additional proposals are still being discussed.

8. Next steps - Digital Brisbane is continuing discussions with the existing proponents, coordinating some meet-up events, and another Brisbane Innovate event is in the planning stages.

9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Matson for her informative presentation.

10. RECOMMENDATION:


CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – ROAD SAFETY:(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)


- 104 -

444/2016-17The Chairman of Council (Councillor Angela OWEN) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the Notified Motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor GRIFFITHS, that—

I move the that

In item 2.3.3.1 Roads Network Resurfacing of the 2016-17 Council Budget, Council transfers $400,000 of the $1,415,000 allocated for resurfacing of Fairfield Rd, Yeerongpilly to 2.3.2.2 Improve Local Transport Networks to undertake construction of road and pedestrian safety projects near Graceville State School at Acacia St and Richardson St, Corinda State School at Pratten St and Cliveden Ave and Christ The King at Randolph St/Addison Rd, Graceville.

Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: I have some concern about the competence of the motion and I'd like to seek some guidance, as Acacia Street does not occur in that location but an Acacia Avenue, and that ‘I move the that’ doesn't make sense, it should really say ‘I move that’. Can I please have a ruling?

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor WINES. As the notified motions are unedited, they are put in the agenda exactly as the clerks receive them, Councillor JOHNSTON, I do concur with Councillor WINES that the first line that says, ‘I move the that’, is not correct English and it also has the question that there could have been something omitted somewhere. Also as—Councillor JOHNSTON, do not speak when I am speaking.

Acacia Street, I take it that that is in Graceville—well, the location in Graceville, there is no Acacia Street in Graceville, it is Acacia Avenue. So therefore, I uphold Councillor WINES' concerns that the motion in its current form is not competent.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor WINES, you have a point of order?

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT TO NOTIFIED MOTION:445/2016-17

It was moved by Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING that the Notified Motion be amended by the removal and insertion of such words so that the motion would read as follows:

I move that

In item 2.3.3.1 Roads Network Resurfacing of the 2016-17 Council Budget, Council transfers $400,000 of the $1,415,000 allocated for resurfacing of Fairfield Rd, Yeerongpilly to 2.3.2.2 Improve Local Transport Networks to undertake construction of road and pedestrian safety projects near Graceville State School at Acacia Ave and Richardson St, Corinda State School at Pratten St and Cliveden Ave and Christ The King at Randolph St/Addison Rd, Graceville.


Chairman: No, Councillor JOHNSTON, when one point of order is on the floor, I deal with that, then I deal with another one. An amendment has been moved by Councillor WINES and seconded by Councillor KING, that the motion be—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON, I have told you, be quiet when I am speaking, section 51 of the Meetings Local Law.


- 105 -

Now Councillor WINES has proposed an amendment that brings the motion back into competency in ‘the that’ first line makes sense, and the correct location is identified and, because you cannot have an incorrect location in a motion. This was something that Councillor SUTTON encountered a while ago and we did exactly the same thing at that point. In the interest of permitting debate, there was an amendment passed.

So, Councillor WINES, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Councillor WINES: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman, I—



Councillor JOHNSTON: At this stage, I haven't been able to move the motion, it's my understanding you just declared it invalid, I haven't spoken to the motion—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and you cannot amend a motion prior to it being moved.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON. Order! Do not speak when I am speaking.

Councillor JOHNSTON, you got up and moved the motion and Councillor GRIFFITHS stood on his feet and seconded it. It was immediately after the motion was moved and seconded that Councillor WINES rose on a point of order to seek my ruling on the competency of the motion, as it had been moved and as it had been listed on the agenda as a Notified Motion.

Therefore, I do not uphold your point of order.

Councillor WINES, to the amendment, please.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear, have you made a ruling that this is a valid motion?

Chairman: Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON, because I clearly said that Councillor WINES’ amendments bring the motion into competency.

Councillor WINES, to the amendment to the motion.

Councillor JOHNSTON: So point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear. Last week you, without telling anybody in this place, changed the words in a Notified Motion put to this Chamber without advising anybody, doing it on your own, and I would like to know, Madam Chairman, why—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, there was no notified motion last week. Resume your seat. Councillor JOHNSTON, resume your seat.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, there was, Madam Chairman. Councillor SUTTON was wrongly referred to as the Councillor—and they changed it, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, resume your seat.

Councillor JOHNSTON: I would like to know why I am not able to move my motion in a normal way and speak to my motion.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your motion in the form that it was listed as a Notified Motion on the agenda was incompetent because it contained within it a location that does not exist. Councillor WINES has sought my ruling, and he has put forward an amendment to allow the motion to be debated in a competent form.

Councillor WINES, to the amendment, please.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman.


- 106 -

The motion is quite simple. It is merely to bring the motion as notified into competence so that we can continue with the debate this evening.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor WINES.

Any further speakers on the amendment?

I will now put the amendment.

As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the motion for the amendment to the Chamber and it was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: Councillor WINES, the amended motion. Would you like to speak to it?

Further speakers on the amended motion?

Councillor JOHNSTON, and this is on the amended motion.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, and what I will note for the record is this is actually the same motion I moved at the budget last year that you said was competent and had no problems with, Madam Chairman. So we are going to start with pathetic games from this LNP Administration tonight and I think that is just awful, Madam Chairman.

So the motion before us is very clear. It is one that I have moved in this place previously, and that is to transfer $400,000 from a road resurfacing project on Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly, to three road safety improvements around schools, including Graceville State School, Corinda State School and Christ the King.

So these three projects have now been on the list for Tennyson Ward improvements, some since as far back as 2009. They have been waiting a very, very long time to be funded and it is extremely clear to me that this LORD MAYOR is neglecting his obligation to govern on behalf of the whole city.

I am bringing this motion forward today. It asks for no additional funding, but is a reallocation of existing funds to the highest area of need, that is, safety around schools that would allow the current resurfacing project to continue and these three important road safety projects to be completed.

Now, Madam Chairman, this is a win-win. I know there is $1 million left for the road resurfacing project in Yeerongpilly. That project has not commenced, and even if the scope of that means 100 metres less has to be done, Madam Chairman, going from $1.4 million to $1 million, there is still a huge sum of money for the road resurfacing project.

The important issue here, Madam Chairman, is that all three of these schools are Council Active Travel schools. Corinda actually started in 2008 and the refuges and the build outs that they have been seeking actually came out of that first year of the Active School Travel program. Graceville has been waiting for a very long period of time. They have directly spoken with the LORD MAYOR about this and he has made empty promises to them year after year. Christ the King has also been waiting since 2009 for a refuge.

Now, these projects are quite small but they are very important. They will provide safe crossing points for Active Travel schools. They will help improve road safety around the three schools. They will provide a proper footpath for Graceville State School. There is currently on their main frontage, right where the crossing is, only a metre-wide footpath, and then it drops off down an embankment.

Now, last year a serious accident occurred and a person fell off their bike because there was nowhere to go because of the drop-off, off the embankment. Now, I cannot sit by and allow this Council not to fund these important road projects. We have heard the criticism over and over again from the LORD MAYOR and other Councillors that I should stop whinging and just wait.


- 107 -

Well, Madam Chairman, what I would like to say today is that I have been waiting. We have petitioned, we have written letters, we have spoken to the LORD MAYOR, we have had meetings, we have participated in Active School Travel. Our community has done every single thing that it can to make sure these projects are funded. The only people stopping it are the LNP Councillors in this place who have repeatedly voted against this motion.

They voted against it in 2016 when I moved it in the budget, and I hope that they have changed their minds and will support it today. What I will put on the record is that in this budget program over the past five years, there have been 471 projects funded across the city, plus emerging and various. So, a total of 471 projects. Now, across the 26 wards, that is an average of 18 to 20 projects over the five-year period, and that works out to be around three to four projects a year per ward. So let me say it again. Over five years the average is 18 to 20 projects of this kind, and three to four a year.

Now, Madam Chairman, the sad reality is that over the same five-year period, Tennyson Ward has had one project in the total five years and that was five years ago in 2012-2013, which was also a Safe School Travel project for Sherwood State School which was hard fought, as I know those parents will recall. So in five years whilst other wards have been getting on average 18 to 20 road safety projects in their ward, Tennyson Ward has had one.

Now, let me remind everybody in the Chamber again today that this motion does not ask for funding from anyone else. It is a project within my own ward, and I am asking for those funds to be reallocated from the road resurfacing project to the school safety projects. Now, I am hopeful we may not even need the whole $400,000. The Council officers of course need to scope this in some detail and I suspect the footpath will be reasonably complicated because of the embankment drop off.

But I know that the Council Traffic Planning and Strategy officers support these projects. Every year I meet with them, every year we discuss the priorities, and every year I advise them these are the top three priorities in Tennyson Ward. But as I have just outlined, for the past five years, whilst every other Councillor in this place has had three to four projects a year on average, Tennyson Ward has had none.

Now, Madam Chairman, I am not asking for any additional funding. I can make this work with the allocation that has been made to Tennyson by reallocating part of the road resurfacing to this school’s projects. It is a simple motion. It will do the right thing by three schools that have worked so hard on their Active School Travel program, that have week after week, done the right thing by this Council, supporting a great program that Council has, and it is now Council’s turn to support our schools.

It is unreasonable for the LNP Councillors to block this motion again because this does not impact on them. No one is missing out here. The only thing that will happen is that three projects that are desperately needed in this ward will be funded, and there will be a little bit of equity come back into budget allocation in Tennyson Ward. That would work out to be, if we had three done with this, four projects over the whole five-year period.

So let me be clear. Every other ward over the past five years has had 18 to 20 projects on average and Tennyson Ward, Madam Chairman, has had one. Now, that is not reasonable. We are elected to govern in the interests of the whole city and it is just simply unreasonable for this Council to block the motion.

So I remain ever hopeful that today there will be a change of heart and this Administration will be voting for this motion because, as I said, and most importantly, I am not asking for any additional money, I am not asking for money to come from anybody else’s ward. I am asking for an existing project to have part of that funding moved over to fund the road safety projects, to support three valuable, hardworking, Active Travel schools who have been waiting and waiting and waiting for this LNP Administration to put party politics aside and do the right thing by our community.


- 108 -

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chairman, I will be brief.

I just rise to support Councillor JOHNSTON with this motion. She is seeking to reallocate funding from within her ward budget, nothing more, nothing less. We share a boundary and we share students. Many of the students who reside in my ward attend Corinda State School and would benefit from the work that Councillor JOHNSTON is proposing. This work that is proposed will benefit children and families across both wards.

I believe, as Councillor JOHNSTON has clearly detailed, that it really does reinforce the work that has been undertaken both by our Council officers and by the Active School Travel program that this request would fit in building on the work that has been done within those schools. I believe this motion is genuine, and most importantly I believe it meets the needs of the community that Councillor JOHNSTON represents.


There being no further debate, in accordance with section 41(4) as mover of the amended motion, Councillor WINES, right of reply?

I will now put the amended motion.

As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the amended motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.

The voting was as follows:AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors

Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 19 - The 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.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions? I know Councillor STRUNK has one. Any others?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, Madam Chair.

I would like to present a petition by a number of my Forest Lake residents who are requesting a pool facility in Forest Lake.


Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I present a petition from 43 residents of Hamilton who are calling on the stopping of noisy night works.

Chairman: No further petitions?

Councillor WINES.


- 109 -

446/2016-17It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor TopicCA17/218030 Charles Strunk Requesting Council for public swimming pool facilities for

Forest LakeCA17/223731 David McLachlan Requesting that Council stop noisy nightwork in Hamilton

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 RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to speak on two topics today, the first being an acknowledgement of the work of the Pullenvale Ward environmental group, Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network, who also volunteer in the Walter Taylor Ward. Secondly, the Brisbane City Council’s Recovery and Resilience Disaster Management team who conducted a street-meet event on the Sunday just gone at the Brookfield Showground.

Madam Chairman, the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network was established in 1999 as a volunteer organisation that focuses on the re-establishment and maintenance of ecologically healthy catchments, to deliver both environmental and community benefits. Almost every weekend the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network’s volunteers provide a wide range of regular programs and activities, as well as innovative and influential conferences and special events that reach a wide audience and involve not only local residents, but participants from Brisbane, South East Queensland, and interstate.

I am so proud to acknowledge and highlight the volunteer work during the Cubberla-Witton Clean Up Australia Day activity that occurred on Saturday 5 March 2017. Many in the community, including young families and my own, Madam Chairman, came out on a very hot morning to pick-up rubbish and recycle waste. The areas bounded by Kersley Road and the Western Freeway in the south, Marshall Lane in the west, Fig Tree Pocket Road and Chapel Hill Road in the east, and Tristania Road in the north, which also included the Cubberla Creek, the Kenmore Plaza Shopping Centre, the Cubberla Creek Reserve and the Akuna Sports Ovals as our areas, for Clean Up Australia Day 2017 in the Pullenvale Ward.

Copious amounts of rubbish, including car parts, tyres, general rubbish and substantial volumes of fast food packaging, was collected on the day. So my heartfelt thanks to all volunteers on the day, and a huge thank you acknowledgement to the management committee of the Cubberla-Witton Catchments Network for all their efforts in coordinating the day. Thank you to the Pullenvale Ward community for keeping our neighbourhood clean, green and sustainable.

So, Madam Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I want to thank Brisbane City Council’s Recovery and Resilience Disaster Management team who conducted a street-meet event on the Sunday just gone at the Brookfield Showground. The street-meet included Queensland Fire Services, Queensland Rural Fire Service


- 110 -

Brookfield Brigade, Moggill Group SES, Brisbane City Council’s Regional Coordinator for Natural Environment team for the West region, and the organising group being Council’s Recovery and Resilience Disaster Management Team, especially Miss Faye Gibson.

Thank you all for coming out to the west to support the communities of the Pullenvale Ward. The Pullenvale Ward community came out in force and gained many tips to be prepared for severe weather, through talking to the emergency services and Council personnel about local bushfire risk, and how to prepare our properties and family for wild weather, be it bushfire, flooding or severe storms.

So I know from my experience and feedback from many on the day in the community, we all walked away knowing we can be weather-storm prepared. So as the team promoted on the day, be informed, be safe, be prepared.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.


Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair.

I wish to talk about two people, one a prominent local singer in the Wynnum-Manly area who has passed away, and also secondly about a Council worker who is leaving the Council.

Firstly, I talk about Glad Graveson. Glad was a great singer in the local Wynnum-Manly area. She was well into her 80s when she passed away last week. She had a lovely voice but she did not start public performances until after her husband died about 20 years ago. She sang at lots of charity concerts around the local area. Basically if you wanted to get a decent crowd, let everyone know that Glad was singing and they would turn up.

I believe she won Seniors Idol in the first year that it was run at City Hall, and she used to perform professionally at the Christmas and other concerts here at City Hall. One of her best collaborations was with entertainer Terry Scott at the Wynnum-Manly Leagues Club. They used to perform once a month and they would always pull in a terrific crowd as well, but she performed in a lot of other clubs around the Wynnum-Manly area, and the Brisbane area generally. She used to be at the Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club, and she also sometimes performed on the northside.

She was a member of the prominent McFarlane family. Councillor MURPHY would know, brother Bill was instrumental in giving the Wynnum-Manly Marching Girls land to Meals on Wheels. I think there are about nine in their family originally and there are only three left. Glad was a great contributor to community life in the Wynnum-Manly area and I mourn her passing, as will many people in the Wynnum-Manly district.

The other person I want to talk about is James Withers, sitting up the front there. I would like to thank him for his work at Council for eight years, I believe, at Council, and the last two and half in the Committees group. Always very pleasant to deal with and good for a chat at afternoon teatime. I apologise for going after 7pm and keeping you here late on your last night. James is moving back to Melbourne to be with his girlfriend and his family and he is leaving Council on Friday. So we wish him all the very best for his future, and at only 28, I wish I was his age too. He has got his whole life in front of him. We will miss him and best wishes, James, and vale for Glad.


Councillor TOOMEY.

Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to inform the Chamber of my impending loss of hair on Friday. Madam Chairman, I was contacted by two senior students, Essie Meehan and Connor Perkins, from The Gap State High School regarding World’s Greatest Shave. Two weeks ago these two challenged me to raise awareness and support


- 111 -

the great cause the Leukaemia Foundation undertake each year to help Australians fight blood cancer.

This Chamber and many members of the community have felt the touch of leukaemia in recent times with the loss of Alan Sherlock OBE, OAM. Alan was a pillar of our community, serving as the State member for Ashgrove. He was a champion of the scouting movement in Queensland, and long-time local pharmacist in The Gap.

Madam Chairman, I would also like to give a shout out to a young battler at Ferny Grove State School, Year 5 student Brodie, who is currently battling leukaemia. He has been unable to attend school due to his therapy, and the school, along with the assistance of one of the parents, has organised the loan of a telepresence robot. This robot has given Brodie the opportunity to catch up with his friends, virtually move around the classroom and even attend lessons. I am sure you will join me in wishing Brodie a speedy recovery.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to acknowledge that I accepted Essie and Connor’s challenge, with a challenge. For every $500 Essie and Connor raise for the day, I have agreed to drop a blade. On Friday, I will join Essie and Connor at The Gap State High School for World’s Greatest Shave. I can inform the Chamber that at the time that they contacted me, at least now I am actually at a number three blade. So it is getting lower.

However, I am seeking help from all in this Chamber and those listening, to show their support and get behind Essie Meehan and Connor Perkins who are raising funds to help kids like Brodie and the Leukaemia Foundation find a cure, and care for those in the fight. Links for both Essie and Connor’s donation page are on my Facebook page. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak on two items. Firstly to respond to Councillor TOOMEY, and secondly to talk about comments that Councillor SCHRINNER made earlier in the meeting.

Firstly, on Councillor TOOMEY. Councillor TOOMEY, can I commend you for the action that you will be taking on Friday afternoon and I want to pledge $50 towards what you are going to do. I do not know if that takes you to a number two blade or not but, you know, this is a cause that everyone should be participating in and supporting, and I have not yet made a donation to Shave for a Cure as I usually do. So you have just presented me with an opportunity to do just that.

I have a best friend who has been a longstanding campaign fundraiser for the Cancer Foundation through the Relay for Life, and I would like to support you in your efforts in what you are doing. I look forward to seeing your new haircut next week, and hopefully it will go down to the number two blade. I will be interested to see that and I will go on to your Facebook page and I will make that donation tomorrow.

I want to talk a little bit about what Councillor SCHRINNER said in the Public Transport Committee with regards to the accusation and the reference he made to previous debates in this Council Chamber about family responsibilities. I want to make it really, really clear that anyone who makes a decision in this Chamber to put jobs aside or responsibilities aside to cater for their family interest will absolutely, undoubtedly have my complete and utter support.

I became Leader of the Opposition in this place and three weeks later I found out I was pregnant. I did four years—three years of Leader of the Opposition in this place against Campbell Newman, who I think public record will show was not the best person to actually go up against in terms of his personal character. I was attacked in this place for making the decision to continue to breastfeed my child and I am sorry, I am not going to let Adrian SCHRINNER, Councillor


- 112 -

SCHRINNER, get away with saying that his predicament is the same, because it is not.

I am sorry and, Councillor KING, I am sorry if you do not find this appropriate but I just—

Chairman: No, Councillor KING, don’t interject, please.

Councillor SUTTON: No, I just—

Chairman: Do not interject.

Councillor SUTTON: It is not the same. If I had have known the circumstances in which Councillor SCHRINNER had made that decision, and if that had been publicly disclosed, there is no way in the world I would have made those comments, absolutely no way in the world. I want to really place on record that that is the case, and it is not the same as what I went through. It is absolutely not the same.

I am not going to let him stand up in this place and say that today without countering it, because it is not the same. So do not ever say that again.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to speak about the LNP and road safety projects in Tennyson Ward.

Madam Chairman, I guess the really interesting thing that seems to be going on here is that this Administration has completely abandoned any pretext of supporting residents who live in my ward. That is despite the fact that last year, Chelmer, Graceville and Sherwood had the highest rates increases in the whole city. Now, the schools that I just moved that motion for are in that area and this Administration cannot even find a way to say yes to a motion that will not cost any money—that will not cost any money, other than that that is already budgeted.

Now, the only reason to do that is simply politics, is simply politics, because in the budget debate last year, and again just a few minutes ago in the motion debate, did anybody from the LNP stand up and say ‘geez, Nicole, that’s a stupid idea’ or, ‘bloody hell, Nicole, Yeerongpilly needs Fairfield Road being upgraded because of blah, blah, blah?’ No, not a peep. They could not even stand up and justify their position to the residents of Brisbane about why they will not support roads projects in Tennyson Ward.

Now, I have heard Councillor ADAMS, I have heard Councillor KING say in budget debate in recent years that I should stop whinging because Tennyson Ward got all that stuff fixed up in the flood. Well, Madam Chairman, yes, we got some roads resurfaced. We did not even get all our paths reopened, and in the supercell storm two years ago, we got hundreds of trees knocked down, the cricket nets knocked down, and guess who is fixing them? Me, out of the trust funds because this Council will not even—

447/2016-17The Chairman then advised the Chamber that as it was nearing 9pm, the meeting would automatically stand adjourned unless it was agreed to continue the sitting. She put the question of whether it was the will of Council that the meeting continue past 9pm, and the Chamber voted in favour of the continuation of the meeting until all business had been completed.

Councillor JOHNSTON: So, Madam Chairman, the issue I have got is I do not think it is a justifiable position for the LNP to simply abandon residents who pay their rates in this city, and that is essentially what is going on here.

Now, I made a commitment to my residents that I would publish the debate, which I will be doing, and last time you did this, I put a letter out to everybody in the community, and I can tell you I will be doing that again too because the people who are blocking—the people who are blocking important safety


- 113 -

upgrades around Graceville State School recommended by Council officers for years and years and years, are the LNP. No one else, just the LNP.

Of course, you know, one project in five years while other Councillors get dozens is just a shameful abuse of power. That is what it is, for party political purposes. I just think you are absolutely disgraceful to treat the Brisbane residents who pay rates in this way. It is not about me. It is about Brisbane residents who pay rates. I am doing this on behalf of the Active Travel committees who have been pushing for this, the P&C presidents, the mums and dads, the principals, and you want to shoot the messenger because you do not like me? Well, for god’s sake, how pathetic are you? We are not in Grade 3 at school.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I feel that you are imputing motive. Remember there is no parliamentary privilege in this place.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, I think they are pathetic, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, that is not appropriate language for this place.

Councillor JOHNSTON: What, saying somebody is pathetic? That is a factual statement as far as I am concerned.

So, Madam Chairman, what I will say is, I will make clear to my ward again that the people who are supposed to be governing in the interests of this city have again not even bothered to justify why they will not support these projects. Not even to stand up in this place and put on the record why they will not support it. That is truly, truly pathetic and, Madam Chairman, I just think that at the end of the day, why even bother turning up over there, you lot?

If you only want to govern for yourselves and your party and you do not want to govern for the whole of this city, go and do something else, because the rest of this city deserves to have money fairly spent and children’s safety around Graceville, Corinda and Sherwood needs to be treated seriously by this Council, and it is just pathetic that Councillor COOPER could not even be bothered now to stand up and talk about it, or the DEPUTY MAYOR stand up and talk about it, the portfolio areas of responsibility.

So, Madam Chairman, I will just be making it very clear to my community that it is the LNP who have completely abandoned them.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair.

I just rise to speak on a few local items briefly, particularly the Breakfast of Champions events that two of my local PCYCs (Police and Community Youth Clubs) have organised lately and I understand they have been right across Brisbane and Queensland, Sandgate and Zillmere. It will be a great opportunity to come together as a community with a wide range of participants from local businesses, to community groups, to school leaders, to school students, school captains and other members of the community, to identify issues that are facing our community, both in the Sandgate area and the Zillmere area, and finding community-based solutions to address those issues.

So I want to commend the teams at both the Sandgate PCYC and the Zillmere PCYC on bringing these events together. They have been very useful tools for our community to come together, and I look forward to seeing some of those outcomes come to fruition.

I also just wanted to mention a couple of past presidents of school P&Cs who have just, in the last couple of weeks, stepped down, long-servicing presidents at Shorncliffe and Sandgate State School P&Cs, who I have worked pretty closely with over my time in this role. They have certainly pre-dated me, and that is Debbie Drago at Shorncliffe State School and Lorraine Hockey at Sandgate State School, who have done amazing things for their school


- 114 -

community and will continue to make a difference in our local community in whatever capacity they choose to do.

I would just like to put on record my appreciation for their work. Thank you.


Before I formally close the meeting, I would also like to extend my thanks to James Withers in his role as clerk in this Chamber. Thank you, James, for your service to the Chamber, and the city, and to all of the Councillors, and we wish you well in your new job and living in a different state. The weather will not be as good, but we will certainly miss you and we certainly appreciate all the effort that you have put in on behalf of Brisbane City Council. So thank you very much.

I declare the meeting closed.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 8 March 2017Q1. Under the revised Brisbane Metro plan will any existing bus station stops or bus stops be removed or

closed? If so, please advise which stops are affected by the changes?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 9 March 2017Q1. Council you please confirm the start date and the finish date of the Food Trucks Bne Trial.

Q2. Could you please advise the number of times each premium Food Truck Site was booked during the Food Truck Trial as per the table below:

Site Time Truck Spot Number of Bookings during the trial

Albert Street Shared Zone, City

Thursday 11:00- 15:00

1

23

Friday 11:00 -15:000 123

EE McCormick Place, Upper Roma Street, City West

Friday 17:00 – 21:00 1

2Saturday 17:00- 21:00

1

2Brisbane Botanic Gardens, Albert Street City East

Thursday 11:00 – 15:00

1

23

Friday 11:00 – 15:00 123

New Farm Park, Brunswick Street, New Farm

Saturday 12noon – 16:00

1

23

Sunday 11:am – 15:00

1

23


- 115 -


Sunday 17:00 -20:00 123

Captain Burke Park, Holman Street, Kangaroo Point

Saturday 11:00 – 15:00

1

23

Sunday 11:00 -15:00 123

River Terrace, Kangaroo Point Cliffs

Saturday 11:00 – 15:00

1

2Sunday 11:00 – 15:00 1

2Jurgens Street Woolloongabba

Friday 12noon – 16:00

1

2Sunday 12noon – 16:00

1

2Jane Street at Davies Park, West End

Saturday 14:00-18:00 1

2Sunday 11:00 – 15:00 1

2Orleigh Park at Morry Street West End

Saturday 11:00 – 15:00

1

23

Sunday 11:00-15:00 123

Frew Park Milton Saturday 11am – 15:00

1

2Sunday 12noon -16:00

1

2Sir Samuel Griffith Drive Mt Coot-tha

Saturday 11:00-15:00 1

23

Sunday 11:00 -15:00 123

Josling Street Near Perrin Park Toowong

Saturday 11:00-15:00 1

23

Sunday 11:00 -15:00 123

Sir John Chandler Park, Meiers Road Indooroopilly

Saturday 11:00-15:00 1

2Sunday 11:00 -15:00 1

2Decker Park, 25th Saturday 11:00-15:00 1


- 116 -


Avenue Carpark Brighton Foreshore

23

Sunday 11:00 -15:00 123

7th Brigade Park, Murphy Road, Chermside

Saturday 12noon-16:00

1

2Sunday 12:00-16:00 1

2Teralba Park, Pullen Road, Everton Park


1

2Sunday 12:00-16:00 1

2Colmslie Beach Reserve, Colmslie


1

2Sunday 12:00-16:00 1

2Hidden World Playground, Roghan Road, Fitzgibbon


1

2Sunday 12:00-16:00 1

2Drevesen Park, Upper Esplanade, Manly


1

2Sunday 12:00-16:00 1

2Bedford Park, Love Street, Spring Hill

Sunday 13:00-16:00 1

2

Q3. Please advise if there are any restrictions (local laws etc) that prevent Food Trucks legally parking on any kerbside and serving food outside of the areas specifically nominated by Brisbane City Council as a Premium Food Van site under the FoodVans BNE Trial.

Q4. Please advise what are the locations of Kindergartens on Brisbane City Council land.

Q5. Please advise what is the location of the contaminated land that BCC issued a payment to GHD Pty Ltd on 23/2/2017.

Q6. Please provide a breakdown of the amount of funding expended individually on the New Northern Region Business Centre and Merchant Ward Office totalling $1.292,014.00.

Q7. Please advise on what date and the location was the most recent installation of WIFI in a Brisbane City Council Park.

Q8. Please advise if there are any permanent CCT cameras located in BCC Parks and there location.

Q9. Please provide a the full names of all members of the Audit Committee.

Q10. Please complete the following table detailing the Sport Budget Aeration Program detailing the name of the location, ward for each field to receive work in 16/17.

Location Ward


- 117 -

Location Ward

Q.11 Please complete the following table detailing a list of all Council lease facilities and ward they are in.

Facility Ward

Q13. Please provide a list of all groups currently waiting for a Council lease facility.

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 Griffiths (from meeting on 7 March 2017)Q1. Please provide the full names and roles of all Council employees attending the 2017 Lord Mayoral

Business Mission to the 2017 Asia Pacific Cities Summit to be held from Sunday 10 September to Wednesday 13 September.

A1. The Lord Mayor’s Business Mission and the Asia Pacific Cities Summit (which includes the Mayor’s forum) are two separate events. Not all delegates or staff will attend both events.

Accompanying the Lord Mayor on the Business Mission will be one officer from the Lord Mayor’s office (Director of Strategy, Communication and Economic Development – Greg Bowden) and two officers from the International Relations and Multicultural Affairs Unit of Council.

The costs below are for those attending both the business mission and the Asia Pacific Cities Summit.

Item Estimated Cost per personOfficer Air Fares $9250 Officer Accommodation $2000


- 118 -

Officer – Other expenses $3250 (including Travel Doctor, Council allowances, and contingency)

TOTAL – ALL Costs $14,500

Item Estimated Cost per personLord Mayor Air Fares $9250Lord Mayor Accommodation $2000Lord Mayor – Dignitaries’ Gifts To be determined. On the previous mission gifts of Aboriginal

message sticks were given out at the cost of $36.76 per unit.Lord Mayor – Other expenses $3250 (including Travel Doctor, Council allowances, and

contingency)TOTAL $14,500

Accompanying the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee to the Asia Pacific Cities Summit will be one officer from the Lord Mayor’s Office (as referenced above) and up to seven officers from the International Relations and Multicultural Affairs Unit (two of which are travelling on the business mission) subject to trip specific requirements to be determined in conjunction with the host city and subject to Civic Cabinet approval.

Airfares and accommodation for Council Officers and elected representatives for the days of the conference are covered by the host city. It is expected that along with the Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee that some staff members from the International Relations and Multicultural affairs unit will arrive one day before the start of the conference. Another staff member from the International Relations and Multicultural affairs unit is likely to arrive earlier than this, however, this is to be determined in conjunction with the host city’s requirements which have not yet been determined. Below amounts are present estimates.

The costs below relate to only those travelling to the Asia Pacific Cities Summit.

Item Estimated cost per personOfficer Air Fares $0Officer Accommodation $400 (plus the cost of accommodation for any earlier nights

for one officer as referenced above).Officer – Other expenses $1,200TOTAL – ALL Costs $1,600

Item CostLord Mayor Air Fares $0 (included in the overall business mission trip cost above)Lord Mayor Accommodation $0 (included in the overall business mission trip cost above)Lord Mayor – Dignitaries’ Gifts To be determined. On the previous mission a specific gift of

Aboriginal message sticks were given out at the cost of $36.76 per unit.

Lord Mayor – Other expenses $0 (included in the overall business mission trip cost above)TOTAL $0

Q2. Please provide the full cost to Brisbane City Council for all Elected Representatives and officers travelling on the 2017 Lord Mayoral Business Mission to the 2017 Asia Pacific Cities as per the following breakdown:

Item CostOfficer Air FaresOfficer AccommodationOfficer – Other expensesTOTAL – ALL Costs

Item CostLord Mayor Air FaresLord Mayor AccommodationLord Mayor – Dignitaries’ Gifts


- 119 -

Lord Mayor – Other expenses TOTAL

A2. Refer to the answer in question one above.

Q3. Please provide the full names and roles of all Council employees attending the Mayor’s Forum in Daejeon South Korea, and the Cities of Beijing, ChongQing, Chengdu and Shenzhen in China


Q4. Please provide the full cost to Brisbane City Council for all Elected Representatives and officers travelling to the Mayor’s Forum in Daejeon South Korea, and the Cities of Beijing, ChongQing, Chengdu and Shenzhen in China as per the following breakdown:

Item CostOfficer Air FaresOfficer AccommodationOfficer – Other expensesTOTAL – ALL Costs

Item CostLord Mayor Air FaresLord Mayor AccommodationLord Mayor – Dignitaries’ GiftsLord Mayor – Other expenses TOTAL


Q5. Please provide a full list for all external parties travelling as part of the 2017 Lord Mayoral Business Mission to the 2017 Asia Pacific Cities Summit & Mayor’s Forum in Daejeon South Korea, and the Cities of Beijing, ChongQing, Chengdu and Shenzhen in China as per the following breakdown:

Travellers Name Company Position Company

A5. The business mission is not being undertaken until September so this question is unable to be answered at this time.

Q6. Please advise how much Council spent on Facebook advertising for the official Brisbane City Council Facebook page in 2015/16

A6. $34,932.17.

Q7. Please advise how much Council spent on Facebook advertising for the official Brisbane City Council Facebook page in the 2016/17 year to date.

A7. $35,539.36.

Q8. How many security guards were employed on Brisbane City Council bus services in the 2015/16 financial year

A8. 56.

Q9. How many security guards have been employed on Brisbane City Council bus services in the 2016/17 financial year to date.

A9. 55.

Q10. Please advise which routes currently have security guards on board.


- 120 -

A10. All Nightlink services and Blue and Maroon CityGliders that have trips commencing between Midnight and 5am.

Q11. Please advise the total cost to Brisbane City Council of hiring security guards to ride aboard bus services for the 2015/16 financial year.

A11. $567,370.04.

Q12. Please advise the total cost to date of hiring security guards to ride aboard Brisbane City Council bus services for the current financial year 2016/17

A12. $341,099.49.

Note: The figure above relates to payments made up until 31 December 2016.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 9.06pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer)Robert Southwood (Council and Committee Officer)Emily Blake (Acting Council and Committee Officer)Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


- 121 -

· web viewcommittee presentation – brisbane metro community consultation 76...

Documents