MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4434 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 13 May 2014
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
Chief Executive’s Office
Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4434 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 13 MAY 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESENT: ______________________________________________________________________ 1
OPENING OF MEETING: __________________________________________________________ 1
APOLOGY: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE – FORMER ALDERMAN LEN ARDILL: __________________________ 1
MINUTES: _____________________________________________________________________ 5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: __________________________________________________________ 5
QUESTION TIME: ________________________________________________________________ 7
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: _____________________________________________________ 19
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report) ________________________ 19
A AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF HEALTHY WATERWAYS LTD AND HEALTHY WATERWAYS
NETWORK RULES ________________________________________________________________ 33
B ADOPTION OF TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 01/14 PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1911 ____________________________________________ 34
C TRAVEL PROPOSAL – 5TH ANNUAL WORLD CITIES SUMMIT, SINGAPORE _____________________ 35
D OVERSEAS TRAVEL – LORD MAYOR’S BUSINESS MISSION TO ABU DHABI, SHANGHAI, HYDERABAD
AND SINGAPORE _________________________________________________________________ 36
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION
COMMITTEE DURING RECESS: ____________________________________________________ 37
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report) __________________________ 37
A REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 MARCH 2014 ________________________ 58
B LEASE OF PART OF ENOGGERA MEMORIAL PARK TO THE HILLBROOK ANGLICAN SCHOOL
LIMITED ________________________________________________________________________ 59
C LEASE OF PART OF ENOGGERA MEMORIAL PARK TO THE EVERTON PARK JUNIOR RUGBY UNION
CLUB INCORPORATED _____________________________________________________________ 60
D 2013-14 BUDGET – THIRD REVIEW __________________________________________________ 62
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: _____________________________________________________ 64
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE ______________________________________________ 64
A PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL PROVIDE FUNDING TO INSTALL LIGHTING ALONG THE
RIVERWALK PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE PATH THAT CONNECTS THE THORNTON STREET FERRY TERMINAL
AND BRIGHT STREET, KANGAROO POINT _____________________________________________ 64
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REVIEW THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SHARED
PATHWAY IN AKUNA STREET, KENMORE ______________________________________________ 65
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ___________________ 67
A PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL REVIEW ITS DECISION FOR A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED ON THE OLD SCOUT HALL SITE AT 806 TO 812 SOUTH PINE ROAD, EVERTON PARK ____ 82
B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL PREPARE A LOCAL PLAN FOR THE GAP __________________ 84
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REDUCE THE OUTSTANDING INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS
FOR THE RAMPATTAK INDOOR SKATE FACILITY AT 393 BILSEN ROAD, GEEBUNG _____________ 86
[4434 (Post Recess) Meeting - 13 May 2014]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4434 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 13 MAY 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
D
PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO BLOCK THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL FOR THE NUDGEE CEMETERY SITE AT 493 ST VINCENTS ROAD, NUDGEE ___________ 87
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE _____________________________________________________________ 90
A PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL NOT TO PLANT MORE STREET TREES IN AUGUSTA STREET,
ASPLEY _________________________________________________________________________ 92
B PETITION - CALLING ON COUNCIL NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW CONCRETE FOOTPATH ON THE
EVEN-NUMBERED SIDE OF MEIN STREET, HENDRA _____________________________________ 93
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE _________________________________________________________ 94
A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVERSE THE DECISION TO PLACE A HOLD ON AN
ADVERTISEMENT TO PROMOTE THE BRISBANE QUEER FILM FESTIVAL ______________________ 95
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – Racial Discrimination Act: _____________________ 97
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:___________________________________________________ 118
GENERAL BUSINESS: ___________________________________________________________ 120
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: _______________________________ 122
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ____________________ 123
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4434 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 13 MAY 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
The Chairman of Council, Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP
LNP Councillors (and Wards)
Krista ADAMS (Wishart)
Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)
Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)
Vicki HOWARD (Central)
Steven HUANG (Macgregor)
Fiona KING (Marchant)
Geraldine KNAPP (The Gap)
Peter MATIC (Toowong)
Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Deputy
Chairman of Council)
Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)
Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor)
Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)
Andrew WINES (Enoggera)
ALP Councillors (and Wards)
Milton DICK (Richlands) (The Leader of the
Opposition)
Helen ABRAHAMS (The Gabba) (Deputy Leader of
the Opposition)
Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly)
Kim FLESSER (Northgate)
Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)
Victoria NEWTON (Deagon)
Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the
business set out in the Agenda.
APOLOGY:
612/2013-14
An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Kim MARX (Karawatha), and she was granted leave of
absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Andrew
WINES.
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE – FORMER ALDERMAN LEN ARDILL:
613/2013-14
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, motion of condolence please.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, before proceeding
with the formal business of the day I would like to pay tribute to Leonard Arthur
Ardill who passed away last month. Len Ardill, as he was known, was a former
Labor alderman for the former ward of Sunnybank from 1973 until 1985. He
served under Lord Mayors Clem Jones, Frank Sleeman and Roy Harvey and was
Vice Mayor between 1982 and 1985. He was a Chairman of Finance and Works
and Transport related committees from 1976, just three years after he became a
councillor when he was first appointed to the Civic Cabinet of this city.
[4434 (Post Recess) Meeting - 13 May 2014]
-2-
His seat was the subject of redistribution in 1985. It made it a much more
difficult seat. At that election he was defeated by the Liberal Bob Ward. Len
Ardill though content to continue his life of service then entered the State
Parliament in 1986. He served for 12 years representing the seats of Salisbury
and Archerfield. His parliamentary service included time as the Chairman of the
Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee and also membership of the Parliamentary
Public Works Committee.
Madam Chairman, I don’t claim to have known Len Ardill well. He did reside in
an area around where I also reside but I can say this from an observation piece.
Len Ardill was a person who could be regarded I think as a man of the people.
He was a very significant advocate of public transport. He was very easily
recognisable by those trademark sideburns that he carried, making him a very
recognisable public figure. I did take the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to write
to his family to express condolences on behalf of not only myself but of the city.
I’ve received a nice recognition back from Noeleen and from Len Junior as well
as Alan and Amy.
So Madam Chairman, today we express our condolences to the whole of the
Ardill family in their time of sorrow. We thank Len Ardill for the significant
contribution that he made to the city. There is a formal motion, Madam
Chairman, which I will now read.
Accordingly, in view of Mr Ardill’s service to Brisbane, the LORD MAYOR moved, seconded by the Leader of
the Opposition, Councillor Milton DICK, that
“That this Council extends it sincerest and deepest sympathies to the family and friends of the late
Leonard Arthur Ardill and pay tribute to him for his dedicated service to the city and people of
Brisbane.”
Chairman:
Other debate? Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks very much Madam Chair, and I rise to support this condolence motion in
honour of Len Ardill. I was privileged to attend his memorial service on 10 April
alongside the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS.
Len served our city and our State with distinction, as the LORD MAYOR has
listed his many achievements which I will also touch on. But I also want to talk
about some of the things that I learnt at that service that I didn’t know about Len.
I probably have known Len for about 20 years as a party official and also a
former State secretary and as also a branch member.
Len was one of the first people that I met when I joined the Labor Party and it’s
true to say you couldn’t miss Len in a crowd. Len would stand out not just for
his retro appearance but also because of his firm beliefs and his firm values. One
of the things Len always valued inside the Labor Party was branch member
participation and branch member activism. We talk a lot about reform inside
political parties but Len was one of those people that practised what he preached
just about every day. Even though he retired from public life he was a very
active participant in party forums, party policy forums and particularly the area
of transport policy.
There would be very few people with the length and depth of the experience that
Len brought to policy development for our city and our State and we heard
through that service a lot of information about Len’s obsession about trains,
trams and anything really to do with public transport. In some ways Len Ardill
was ahead of his time. Public transport is a very topical and I guess current
issue. But back in the ‘60s and ‘70s when Len first sought public office and he
decided to run for local government, he made that a cornerstone of his career,
particularly improving the networks in the southside of Brisbane where he was a
lifelong resident.
Also I learnt at that service about the difficult and hardships that Len had
growing up during the war and the farm that the family ran, and the 4am starts
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-3-
when he was about 11 or 12 taking care of the family farm while others were
away fighting for this country. Len was someone who rolled up his sleeves and
got on with the job. Through his time as a local government official he achieved
many things. But I think one of the things that I was most impressed about was
his strong connection to—when he was chair of Town Planning—ensuring that
there were spaces in Brisbane that were protected and spaces in Brisbane at the
time not popular from over development.
Also as town planning chair ensuring that there was parkland and open space as
part of development, now part of the normal development process. But way
back 30 or so years ago was not popular particularly amongst developers at the
time, but Len was a visionary in some ways in ensuring that there was good
public transport and good open space as our city grew. We are the beneficiaries,
particularly in the southside of Brisbane of that legacy today.
As the LORD MAYOR said in 1986 he then sought office to the Legislative
Assembly and when Wayne Goss moved electorates from the electorate of
Salisbury to Logan he then took over that electorate and held that seat until
1998, and did tremendous work on the Travelsafe Committee within the State
Parliament. So he had a particular focus upon road safety policy and this was an
issue particularly close to Len’s heart after the tragic death of his son Bill and
nephew in a car accident that occurred in 1982.
I also want to acknowledge that when he was first elected Len was a sole parent.
I didn’t know that about Len but he did a remarkable job in serving his ward but
also raising his family. I also pay my condolences to Noeleen and his children.
Noeleen was a fixture with Len for many, many years supporting him in his role
particularly as the local State member. I was fortunate enough to see Noeleen
represent Len at a number of occasions and she carried that role with distinction.
My deepest condolences to Noeleen and those family members who cherished
Len’s service and dedication.
Serving in public life is never easy and it’s particularly difficult on family
members. So I offer my thanks, my recognition on behalf of Labor councillors
for a job well done to Len Ardill, someone who has achieved a lot at both this
level of government and also at the State level and he will be remembered for
many years to come.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this
condolence motion today. Madam Chairman, Len Ardill was very much a
southside identity over a number of decades. Even after he retired from political
life he continued to be a regular fixture at many of our local community events.
I think the one thing I do remember about my dealings with Len Ardill was he
was always a person who had time for the people. I think this is indicative of
some of the comments that have also been mentioned by the previous speakers.
Madam Chairman, I do recall that over the two decades that Len Ardill did serve
the local community, he was very much about turning up at school fetes,
sporting events, social activities, community meetings. He was prolific in
supporting school committees and also the progress associations of the area. He
also had time for people when he was on his private time, particularly after he
left political life, he would still catch up with people and always have time to
have a conversation.
Madam Chairman, political life is one of dedicated service and certainly this can
be said of Len Ardill. I’m not sure that there would be any person who has lived
on the southside of Brisbane since the early 1970s that wouldn’t have known,
come across or heard of Len Ardill. Even though he was on the opposite side of
politics, certainly the one thing that was inherent in the way he approached so
many things was his dedication to making the community a better place, not
only in our local community but for our city and later on for the state. Madam
Chairman, I commend this motion to the Chamber.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-4-
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just wish to pass on my condolences
in supporting this motion as well. Madam Chair, I first met Len when he was
actively involved in transport issues. As a new person in the ALP, Len was more
than happy to sit down, spend time sharing his knowledge, his commitment to
our city and certainly his commitment to transport. He was a mentor and
understood the role of young people being able to debate and learn from others.
He gave his time very well to the Australian Labor party in that way.
In fact at one stage I was invited to be a Federal candidate and Len was part of
encouraging me to do so. But I woke up and realised local government is the
only tier of government. But I will always thank Len very much for the support
he gave. When I think of Len I think of Wilf Ardill his brother, the two had a
very, very strong bond. At the funeral we learnt that this really was a result from
when the horse of the milk cart that they had to drive to deliver the milk from
Acacia Ridge coming in towards Moorooka bolted, with two very young, very
small boys on the worst road, worse than any of ours at the moment. I think that
fear gave them a very strong friendship and commitment to public life for both
Len and Wilf who did it within the trade union movement, within the
Miscellaneous Workers’ Union.
At the tragic death of both their sons, I was absolutely struck by the
commitments of these two brothers to open up their hearts to the person who’d
been involved in the second vehicle, who in fact had been the cause of the
accident. They were able to say our sons could have been in that other car. They
were able to see beyond the pain in the individual to the problems that there
were at that time. This was in the 1980s when seatbelts, drink-driving controls,
aren’t as they are now, and that was part of Len’s commitment to traffic safety
in our city.
He couldn’t have had better credentials with his experience in Council in
planning needs for land use and transport, and also as we’ve heard about the
absolute green commitment he had for open spaces to our city. There was no
ego with Len. He was committed to policy change. He always had time to talk to
his politics. He would share his politics. He knew he had the responsibility as an
elected representative whether it was in Council or in the state to make our city a
better place and he achieved that.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Yes thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in regards to this motion. Len
Ardill was very much a man of the people and I think his loss for the community
is huge. I would like to send condolences to Noeleen and the rest of the family.
Certainly in politics, Madam Chair, there are no angels but Len was a very good
man. I knew Len through my involvement in the Salisbury branch of the ALP
and have done so for 18 years. I’ve always been impressed by his passion and
his commitment to the residents of the southern suburbs particularly working
people in Salisbury, Archerfield, Acacia Ridge and Coopers Plains.
Len used to often say to me—having had experience in local government and
State government—that local government was the tougher job. I think we will
all support him with that. I used to run into Len quite frequently until recently as
his dementia grew. I would see him at functions including at Salisbury State
High School, later to become Nyanda State High School, and he continued to
sponsor an award there for young people at the school. Of course many of the
young people at that school certainly were from working families and didn’t
have a lot of cash. So that award went a long way to helping those young people
with their education.
My experience of Len was that he was genuinely committed to the community
and that he really lived his Labor values and that has been reflected in what
people have said today. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate? I will now put the motion.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-5-
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion of condolence was declared carried
unanimously.
MINUTES:
614/2013-14
The Minutes of the 4433 (ordinary) meeting held on 1 April 2014, copies of which had been forwarded to each
councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor MURPHY, seconded by
Councillor WINES.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mr Rob Friend - The designation of open space in Gibbon Street, Woolloongabba
Chairman:
I would like to call on Mr Rob Friend who will address the Chamber on the
designation of open space in Gibbon Street, Woolloongabba. Orderly could you
please show Mr Friend in? Mr Friend you have five minutes, please proceed.
You can stand or sit.
Rob Friend:
Madam Chair, LORD MAYOR, councillors, can I thank you for giving the
Woolloongabba, Gabba Hill Community the opportunity to put our argument
before you for parkland in the Gabba Hill area. I’ve lived and worked in the
Gabba Hill since 1993. During that time I have witnessed a demographic change
within the Gabba Hill from a dormitory residential area supplying workers for
various industrial and commercial areas around Woolloongabba to one which is
now an owner-occupier residential area with many of these new residents being
younger people with families.
The Gabba Hill community has recently come together under a local banner of
Go Gabba Go, an initiative of a local resident Carolyn Vincent. Our position is
quite simple and that is for Council to retain this area of land between Gibbon
Street and Hubert Street, Woolloongabba, and to turn this land into parkland for
the local and district community. A quick look at community statistics show the
population of Woolloongabba is estimated at 5,723 in 2013, an increase from
3,686 in 2003. This represents an increase of 44 per cent. The bulk of the
population is between one and 44 years of age indicating that the dominant age
group is what I would put is younger than most of us.
The median age group is 34.5 in 2002 and that has been reduced to 30.7 years in
2012, a reduction of 3.8 per cent. The population projections estimate an
increase from 4,927 in 2011 to 16,412 in 2036 with an annual growth rate of 4.9
per cent, a projected increase of 11,485 persons. Since the adoption of the
Woolloongabba Centre Neighbourhood Plan there’s been a number of
development applications, which if all these are approved will significantly
increase the population of Woolloongabba and more importantly the Gabba Hill
precinct.
We also acknowledge the Woolloongabba PDA (Priority Development Area)
redevelopment will also add an estimated 9,000 residents to Woolloongabba.
While we do not know the cost of resumption of this land nor what Council is
prepared to sell the land for, it is our firm belief that Council should retain this
land for parkland, for the existing community and equally important for the
future Woolloongabba community. In proposing this parkland to Council I
received two letters, one from the LORD MAYOR and one from Councillor
Simmonds. I thank you both for that correspondence.
However in rejecting the Council’s proposition to date they quoted the fact that
there were already two parklands in Stanley Street and Jurgens Street which
provide parkland for the Gabba Hill. Can I respectfully say that these two
parklands are not those which the community could readily use? This Stanley
Street parkland, Woolloongabba Place Park, is located at the foot of the Gabba
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-6-
cricket ground and is not an area where the local community could establish a
community garden for instance, where the establishment of a community
playground would be appropriate for a range of reasons, and or the establishment
of a barbeque and other facilities.
On the other site located at the junction of Jurgens and Logan Road, east of
Ipswich Road, this area is more of a landscape feature, softening the visual
amenity of the exhaust southern exhaust tunnel for the Clem Jones Tunnel. There
are obvious issues to do with emissions and health which would be problematic
for users. Added to these facts is that access to these areas require crossing two
of the southside’s most busy roads, while the use of Woolloongabba Place Park
has additional health issues from exhaust emissions and noise, substantially
decreasing the use of this area as an acceptable community space.
In accounting terms the term opportunity costs provides a way of looking at this
issue under monetary terms. The term opportunity costs can be defined as the
loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.
Therefore it is our view that the opportunity costs are foregoing the recoupment
of the initial monies to purchase this land against the cost of purchasing another
area of land for open space, would greatly outweigh the initial investment of
Council.
In addition these monies have already been spent and the distribution of this
expenditure over the Brisbane community is one which I would think each one
of you here today would accept if this land was in your ward and your
community supported its retention.
Chairman:
Thank you Mr Friend. Thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS would you like to
reply?
Response by Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and
Administration Committee
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Yes thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Mr Friend, thank you very much
for coming in to speak to us today. I thank you for the passion that you’ve shown
for your local community. You mentioned the correspondence between us and
can I say how nice it is to put a face to the name between that correspondence.
As we discussed previously in the correspondence you’re aware that Council
acquired the land in Gibbon and Hubert Streets, Woolloongabba, as part of the
Clem7 project. The project was a significant investment for Council obviously to
tackle traffic congestion in the city and was part of the suite of projects under the
TransApex banner.
As the project has been completed these sites are no longer required for use by
this project or by Council. Council and particularly officers within my remit
which is why I’m responding to you, continually identify surplus land that might
be suitable for disposal within Council’s asset register. We do this for a couple
of reasons. Firstly to reinvest the proceeds that we gain from the sale into new
infrastructure for the people of Brisbane, and secondly to reduce the burden of
these projects on ratepayers so that we can continue to keep rates as low as
possible.
I can assure you that as part of this process of identifying surplus land, Council
officers consider a number of factors including the current use of the land, its
suitability and the needs of local community. Similarly it was in this case, I was
advised as part of that decision-making process that this land has never been
used as public parkland. In regards to your desire to see more open space within
the local area, I can also advise a significant part of the Woolloongabba Priority
Development Area which is the Goprint site will be dedicated civic and open
space when that development proceeds.
I will also note that as part of the Woolloongabba Centre Neighbourhood Plan
drafted in 2007-08 this land was zoned for high density mixed use development,
due to its proximity to public transport and facilities in Woolloongabba. For
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-7completeness I wasn’t in cabinet at the time when this plan went to cabinet, so I
noted in my deliberations the view of your local councillor, that she was in
cabinet at that time, supported the plan at the time. She was also the Parks
Chairman and she did not take any action in that role to nominate this land as
future parks land so I considered that in my deliberations as well.
All of this was considered by Council during the initial decision stage to send the
land to market and it was again reconsidered when you wrote to both myself and
the LORD MAYOR. However, I have to say the conclusion has remained the
same. I can confirm that the land is now under contract and as such it is
effectively sold. While I recognise that this is not the outcome that you were
looking for I hope that this has provided further explanation about Council’s
decision in this matter. Please be assured that your time and energy will be put to
good use. Councillors will continue to keep your comments in mind as we
discuss the future of this area going forward.
Once again thank you very much for taking the time to address Council.
Chairman:
Thank you Mr Friend. Orderly.
QUESTION TIME:
Chairman:
Councillors are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a chairman of any
of the standing committees? Councillor MURPHY.
Question 1
Councillor MURPHY:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, my question is to the
LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, the Brisbane Roar recently won the 2014 A
League Premiership and the city had its third ticker-tape parade for them last
week. Can you please explain why events such as this are putting Brisbane on
the world stage and increasing global awareness of our city?
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well thanks very much Councillor MURPHY. Madam Chairman, I’m sure that
everybody in this Chamber will join with me in congratulating the Brisbane Roar
on their successful Hyundai A League Grand Final victory in the last couple of
weeks over the Western Sydney Wanderers. Madam Chairman, it is true though
that these events and that particular event attracted some 52,000 spectators at
Suncorp Stadium. These events also attract many visitors to our city. Whilst we
acknowledge and congratulate the Brisbane Roar on a wonderful victory, we
also, specific to this city as a whole and the benefits that are gained, want to
outline some of the flow-on benefits to the people of this city.
Ten thousand visitors to this city were attendees at Suncorp Stadium. That meant
of course a substantial take-up of hotel rooms, it meant a lot of expenditure
around restaurants and retail facilities and that was a very, very significant
benefit to the City of Brisbane. The game itself, Madam Chairman, was watched,
apart from the 650,000 audience around Australia, was broadcast into quite a
significant part of the Asia Pacific region. I note that during the course of the A
League Premiership year that there is a very, very significant international
audience of games in the Asia Pacific alone.
In places like Japan through TV Asahi, through also in Hong Kong through iCABLE, Astro in Malaysia, StarHub in Singapore and Guangdong TV in China.
As well as places like Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States of America,
taking these games. So the exposure that Brisbane receives also is very
significant and not to be underestimated. Madam Chairman, the major events in
Brisbane as a whole are expected to drive around $70 million in spending during
2014 and 2015 alone. That’s every, Madam Chairman, we know that for every
$60,000 that is spent by visitors to this city it creates an extra job. That is very,
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-8-
very significant within our expenditure and within our whole economy in
Brisbane.
Back on the world of football as they know it, Madam Chairman. Ask any soccer
fan and it’s football, Madam Chairman. The reality is that during the 2014 and
2015 season, Brisbane Roar now have the opportunity to go and contest the
Asian Champions League. This will enable again brand Brisbane to be out there
beyond the G20 to reinforce our city and our place. Madam Chairman, beyond
that the A League Grand Final will also be a precursor to the 2015 AFC (Asian
Football Confederation) Asian Cup. There will be seven major games from that
tournament that will be played in Brisbane. Those games will also be broadcast
live into places like China and Jordan, Iran, South Korea and the United Arab
Emirates.
Madam Chairman, over the course of the year there has been some very, very
significant events—$26 million generated by the Asia Pacific Triennial of
Contemporary Art. We saw more than $8 million derived from the Brisbane
International Tennis Tournament, $4 million from the Quilts exhibit and between
$4 million and $10 million from each major musical that we see at QPAC
(Queensland Performing Arts Centre). Brisbane has a strong line-up of coming
events and that will of course further drive our local economy.
We’ve seen some tourism and marketing activities and events ranging from the
Bolshoi Ballet through to Brisbane International that I mentioned. That helped to
attract a 17 per cent increase in holidaymakers in Brisbane and a five per cent
increase in overall visitor spend up to $3.2 billion in the year from September
2012 to September 2013. More than 105,000 people attended the 2013 Brisbane
International Tennis event as an example and that grew again this year. So,
Madam Chairman, major sporting events like the British and Irish Lions visit in
2013 as well as obviously our own State of Origin events and other events of that
sort help to drive significant investment in our city.
We see also events like the Brisbane Marathon Festival, a weekend event that
will continue to grow and expecting to see 20,000 competitors by 2015.
Chairman:
Thank you LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Question 2
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD
MAYOR, it was revealed to the New South Wales ICAC (Independent
Commission Against Corruption) inquiry into political corruption that a $5,000
payment was made to secure a meeting with former Lord Mayor Campbell
Newman. Since that information became public have you had any conversations
with Mr Greg Bowden about his involvement with this donation to ensure that
the Brisbane City Council has not been compromised in any way?
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, yes I can absolutely say that Brisbane City Council is
not compromised. Can I say that Mr Bowden had no involvement other than in
his role at that time as a fundraiser he was a recipient of the cheque. I liken this
Councillor DICK to for example, if you are a treasurer of a football club, for
example, you receive all monies.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Well I don’t know, that’s another—
Chairman:
Order, order.
LORD MAYOR:
That’s another theory again but, Madam Chairman, that was Mr Bowden’s only
involvement.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
-9-
LORD MAYOR:
Can I say that if there was more then I’m sure ICAC would have come knocking.
What is I think more important, Madam Chairman, is the fact that still today the
Labor Party will not refund the donations that they’ve received from Australian
Water Holdings. Madam Chairman, they have been fluffing around on this issue
from the very day it was raised. Now you would think somebody like the leader
of the Opposition, Councillor Milton DICK who was the State Secretary of the
Labor Party would be on the telephone to the Labor Party saying fix this up, fix
this up. The moment that that became public knowledge the LNP returned all
donations, Madam Chairman, returned all donations.
Councillor DICK interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
LORD MAYOR:
So Councillor DICK the question for you is, when will you and the Labor Party
be doing likewise? When will you be stopping this question? I notice some
weeks ago they said they were going to write to ICAC and get advice. Then
when the matter came up just about a week or so again they go we’re going to
write to ICAC to get some advice. Well how long does it take to write? How
long does it take to write?
So Councillor DICK I think that’s a question for you. I want to give you an
assurance today that Mr Bowden had no involvement, that he was a recipient of
monies in relation in his role at that time as the fundraising director of this
organisation, Madam Chairman, the LNP within this Council. Madam Chairman,
that was his only involvement was to receive that cheque, that matter has been
finalised, the return of all monies that the LNP received that this organisation or
at other levels of government to those recipients.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Question 3
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, my question this afternoon is
to the chairman of Finance Economic Development and Administration
Committee, Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS, responsible
financial management is a hallmark of this Administration. Can you please
outline how this Administration continues to manage Council’s budget to deliver
for residents whilst keeping costs under control?
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank you Councillor OWENTAYLOR for the extremely pertinent question on this the federal budget day and
of course just a few weeks from our own 2014-15 Council budget. Well indeed
you are very right Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, responsible financial
management remains the foundation bedrock of this Administration. I’m
conscious that as we reflect on the third budget review contained in today’s
papers and on the upcoming Council budget that we will hear from those on the
opposite side of the Chamber, we will hear from them the political opportunism
of a party which offers no alternative plan.
It’s the political opportunism of councillors who routinely raise rates in
administration by over six per cent, who added a $200 million black hole in their
election costings just two years ago, and who have provided budget submissions
totalling hundreds of millions of dollars this financial year. Just for this
Chamber’s interest I had a look at the brains trust over there—Councillor
ABRAHAMS, Councillor DICK, Councillor NEWTON and Councillor
JOHNSTON—combined their budget submissions for this budget the 2013-14
totalled $421 million, Madam Chairman.
Just to put that into context that is the combination of the program’s three, four,
five, six, seven and Field Services all combined, Madam Chairman. Now I’m
sure that will allow them to go out into their community and say they fought for
the money. But, Madam Chairman, we must remember why sound financial
management is so important, something that those opposite forget. It’s important
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 10 -
because it keeps rates low for Brisbane residents. It instils discipline in Council
officers to deliver projects on or under budget. It allows us to drive the
ratepayers’ dollar ever further, and of course, Madam Chairman, last but not
least it ensures our stable budget can support a stable and growing economy out
there in the suburbs of Brisbane.
It will be tempting I’m sure, Madam Chairman, it will be tempting for the
uninitiated to buy into the rhetoric of those opposite. But despite the debate and
speculation that will follow today and in the next few weeks, remember this.
Through budgets and budget reviews like the ones today the Administration led
by LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK has consistently delivered a balanced
budget, a strong credit rating and an infrastructure program that far outstrips our
Labor predecessors. Madam Chairman, these are commitments that you will
continue to see in the financial papers before you today. They are commitments
that I have no doubt will be the central tenets for the upcoming 2104-15 budget.
In fact this Third Budget Review (3BR) will go even a step further today by
providing councillors with a level of detail of savings on completed projects that
simply was not possible under the old servicer-provider financial model. In
particular, I note, Madam Chairman, that today’s financial documents show this
Administration has kept a tight rein on expenses as we have promised to do, with
only a 0.7 per cent increase for the six months to 31 December 2013 on the same
period last year.
It’s this tight rein on underlying expenses which ensures we don’t have to
borrow to keep the lights on like previous Labor administrations have and we
can instead focus on delivering infrastructure. Council’s net debt per capita
continues to be far that below the Labor councillors opposite. For example the
final costs, the finance cost to Council under Labor was over $239 million per
year, Madam Chairman, whereas under this Administration in this current
budget it is just a little over half of that. Finance costs under the Labor
councillors opposite were 13.3 per cent of the total budget, Madam Chairman,
whereas it’s only 4.64 per cent in the current budget as shown in this wonderful
graph.
It’s this level of sustainable borrowings for infrastructure development that is
what ensures we maintain our strong credit rating. Finally, Madam Chairman,
we are able to deliver a far more comprehensive infrastructure program thanks to
our efforts to drive the ratepayers’ dollar further. You will remember that it was
only in September last year that this Administration took the unprecedented step
of having a special budget review to accelerate $13.2 million worth of important
and vital projects for this city. While accelerating projects we continue to
enforce a budget discipline which sees the review today, the papers are in front
of you today, capture a number of savings from projects delivered under budget.
For example, the Coronation Drive resurfacing between Cribb Street and Patrick
Lane, $250,000 under budget. Well done Councillor McLACHLAN, $100,000
in savings identified during design work for traffic signals hardware equipment,
$2.1 million in construction of new buses achieved by the reduction in costs for
bus bodies. The Musgrave Road, Waterworks Road Corridor project delivered
$245,000 under budget, Madam Chairman. Today we will debate 3BR and the
contrast will be simple. Those on this side of the Chamber will continue—
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS your time has expired. Thank you. Councillor DICK.
Question 4
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my second question is to the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR in light of the serious allegations made against your political
staff and Mr Greg Bowden, do you have full confidence in him remaining him
on your personal staff. For the benefit of the Chamber I table the New South
Wales ICAC exhibit mentioning Greg Bowden.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, let me make it absolutely clear. Mr Bowden has my full
confidence. I made it very clear in answering the last question from Councillor
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 11 -
DICK that if ICAC had any concerns whatsoever in relation to that that they
would have every opportunity to call Mr Bowden to give further evidence. I
might just for clarity sake say in response to this question which I probably
should have done for the last one, is that this has occurred at a time when of
course Mr Bowden was not in the employment of this organisation. It was before
his employment as part of Brisbane City Council, as part of my staff.
Chairman:
Order. Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, he was at that time a fulltime fundraiser.
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Order. Councillor JOHNSTON if you continue to interject like that you’ll be
warned.
LORD MAYOR:
So, Madam Chairman, again, I just want to for clarity sake in spite of all the silly
interjections opposite, make it absolutely clear that there was no, that there is
absolutely no further involvement on Mr Bowden’s part other than that he
received the cheque as a fundraiser from outside the Brisbane City Council
organisation. Now I would though ask Councillor DICK what action he’s taken
in relation to his own colleague, Councillor SUTTON in relation to the way in
which she portrayed a fundraising event of her own, whereby people well and
truly understood that they were attending some community function which
happened to be a function where the proceeds were going into Councillor
SUTTON’s campaign fund, something that she did not disclose at the time.
Chairman:
Order.
LORD MAYOR:
I would be interested to know Councillor DICK what you have done in
disciplining Councillor SUTTON in relation to what—
Chairman:
Order.
LORD MAYOR:
He was the MC (Master of Ceremonies) so he was in it right up to his ears
Councillor SUTTON from what you’re saying, in it right up to his ears. So,
Madam Chairman, that’s the question for Councillor DICK, why the
misrepresentation occurred on behalf of Councillor SUTTON—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
LORD MAYOR:
—and what’s he’s done, Madam Chairman, to discipline Councillor SUTTON
around that matter.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor HUANG.
Question 5
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chairman of the Public and
Active Transport Committee, Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC with more
than 6,500 cyclists and pedestrian movements daily, the Bicentennial Bikeway is
the city’s busiest bikeway and takes in some of the best scenery Brisbane has to
offer along the Brisbane River. Could you please update the Chamber on the
current status of the Bicentennial Bikeway upgrade?
Chairman:
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor HUANG for the question and
the opportunity to update the Chamber on this important project. Madam
Chairman, this project clearly indicates this Administration’s commitment to
record investment in our bikeways across our city. We’re getting on with the
important job of providing this core infrastructure, Madam Chairman, for the
benefit of all residents across our city. As Councillor HUANG was saying, there
are over 6,500 people using the Bicentennial Bikeway each day cycling and
walking. Madam Chairman, this fourth stage, this final stage of the actual
bikeway section provides that last bit of improvement in order to separate those
two modes of travel.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 12 Madam Chairman, we’ve clearly seen that by continued investment in our
bikeway infrastructure we continue to get more and more growth. By seeing,
Madam Chairman, those opportunities to provide that separation of pathway, we
provide all users with that level of comfort. Also, Madam Chairman, for cyclists
that level of confidence to continue cycling or also more importantly, Madam
Chairman, begin cycling as a mode of transport as a commuter, Madam
Chairman, not only for recreation but importantly also as a commuter.
Madam Chairman, this Administration has a clear plan of rolling out our
Bikeways Program over this four-year term and making sure that through that
record investment we are making real change and providing real benefit. We’re
making sure, Madam Chairman, that through our Bikeways Program we’re
getting out there and addressing the needs and concerns of all Brisbane residents.
We’ve seen, Madam Chairman, in recent times a number of articles raised
around the separation of paths, people having more confidence in order to be
able to cycle. These are the kinds of projects, Madam Chairman, on the
Bicentennial Bikeway that deliver that.
Madam Chairman, I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the State
government and their financial contribution to this program. They have been our
partners throughout the process of this upgrade and I’d really like to thank them
for their commitment to cycling as well throughout our city. Madam Chairman,
by making sure that this bikeway is not only Australia’s best but I say, Madam
Chairman, world class, we are delivering something that is quite unique across
Australia. The amount of work that has gone into and planning this bikeway has
been significant. I really want to acknowledge the work of all the officers in that
process.
We’re going to have, Madam Chairman, a number of key features on this
bikeway that will set it above any other bikeway we’ve seen. We’ve made sure
that through these separated paths we’ve got three and a half metres for the
bikeway, two metres, Madam Chairman, for the walkway. The walkway section
will be clearly separated and will be at an elevated level above the bikeway, not
only, Madam Chairman, for safety purposes but also for amenity, making sure
that people who are walking along the bikeway can truly enjoy the views of the
Brisbane River and really highlight the fact that we are a river city, Madam
Chairman.
Also as part of those upgrades there’s a brand new waiting area that will be
provided with even greater capacity for both cyclists and pedestrians and their
ability to get down to the Regatta terminal which will in time, Madam Chairman,
will also see its own upgrade due to the flood resilience that we’re undertaking.
By providing this extra capacity, Madam Chairman, we’re also improving the
safety features and improving the amenity. The work also, Madam Chairman,
will include a new pathway down to the terminal to make sure that the two
complement each other quite well.
In looking at the upgrade and the design we wanted to make sure, Madam
Chairman, that the bikeway also incorporated a number of key features both of
interest of historical value. As, Madam Chairman, as many councillors would
know that stretch of the river along Coronation Drive has a significant history for
our city. It was the home of the Toowong Rowing Club for many a decade. It
was also the key connector for the old Toowong ferry service, Madam
Chairman, that was run by the Hanlon family across to West End.
It also had a number of key features around its recreation as baths, Madam
Chairman, and also its key features as for economic development of our city as a
key port it was also part of the connection of making sure that we were able to
get our goods and services across the city as a whole. Madam Chairman, all of
these factors are also included so as you’re walking down there you’ll be able to
see a number of key features reflecting that history. Also, Madam Chairman,
something that we’re rolling across all of our bikeways, we’re making sure that
we’re improving the amenities.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 13 So there’s further seating and further opportunities for people to take a break
along that stretch, Madam Chairman, to make sure that they enjoy the full use of
it. By making sure that we provide this full complement of design into this
bikeway, Madam Chairman, we’re setting the benchmark high across any other
type of bikeway of its type in Australia, and making sure, Madam Chairman, that
once again Brisbane City Council leads the country in the investment that it has
across its Bikeway Program and in the design, Madam Chairman, because we
do.
That’s the kind of commitment that this Administration has, Madam Chairman,
to cycling. Because as part of the LORD MAYOR’s commitment we’re making
sure that we have a clean and green city and reducing congestion for the future.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor MATIC. Councillor DICK.
Question 6
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD
MAYOR in the interest of open and transparent government will you release all
the names of business people who have attended overseas trade delegations that
have also been attended by Mr Greg Bowden.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, I won’t do that and only because I don’t remember
Councillor DICK in the past or his colleagues ever releasing the details of people
that have been on trips. I will say this though Councillor DICK that I’ve been
very, very open in terms of an invitation to all Brisbane business to participate in
business missions. This is a very big difference. I’m glad you’ve raised the
subject because, Madam Chairman, it does give me the opportunity to explain
about the business missions. The first thing I would say to you is this, is that this
Administration has been very focused on making sure that these business
missions are that.
They are focused around business. There is a lot of business matching that is
undertaken before delegates depart. The delegates can come from anywhere
across the City of Brisbane in business both large and small and we have a very
open invitation. The only restriction we had was we had to cut off the number of
delegates—
Councillor FLESSER:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you LORD MAYOR. Yes Councillor FLESSER?
Councillor FLESSER:
That’s all very interesting and nobody is complaining about business missions
but the question was whether the LORD MAYOR will release the names of the
delegates who attended overseas trips with Mr Greg Bowden and, Madam Chair,
the LORD MAYOR is not answering that question.
Chairman:
Councillor FLESSER. Order. Councillor FLESSER the LORD MAYOR has
answered that part of the question. That’s not what the question is about, the
overseas trade missions. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I can smell mischief a mile away and that’s the only reason
the Labor Party would want that list. They would want—yes Councillor
SUTTON, I know you too well. There is only one reason that—
Councillor SUTTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
LORD MAYOR:
—nothing at all. Madam Chairman, they can go to any of the people on that
mission and they can get a copy of the—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SUTTON interjecting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 14 -
Chairman:
Order. Just a minute, LORD MAYOR, just a minute. Councillor SUTTON if
you continue to interject in that way you will be warned. LORD MAYOR thank
you.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, if Councillor SUTTON is saying they don’t know anybody
who was on it, it just shows how out of touch they are around this city. If they do
not know one person of the 125 that went to Taiwan, one of the 45 that went to
China and we restricted it to 45 because one busload was as many as we could
handle within that environment doing four cities in four days. I reported back to
this Chamber, Madam Chairman, that we had done last count $230 million worth
of business from that trade mission last September.
That’s the bit of information that Labor never reported because they never ever
took a business approach to these trips. They were all about making sure the
birds flew south from Japan from the wetlands up there. They were all about
everything other than business per se. They didn’t actually do business missions,
Madam Chairman. They did trips, a very significant difference. So, Madam
Chairman, again there’s only one reason why Labor would want that list and that
would be for their own mischievous purposes.
Now I’m inviting them, if they ask some business people around this city,
Madam Chairman, they’ve all got a catalogue which has the background to all of
those business people so go and do some homework. I’m not going to force feed
you, Madam Chairman. You get out there and earn your salt as councillors in
this city as a dually elected Opposition and do your work. I’m not doing it for
you.
Chairman:
Further questions? Order. Councillor KING.
Question 7
Councillor KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chairman of Environment,
Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Councillor
BOURKE parks are complex elements of our city. They can serve scores of
different uses. They can be specialised in their function or can simply provider
visual appeal for residents. However they work they act to define the shape and
feel of our city and its neighbourhoods. They also function as conscious tools for
revitalisation. Can you please inform the Chamber of progress which is being
made to ensure that our city parks are revitalised.
Chairman:
Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Look thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor KING for the
question. It is true that our parks play a very special and unique role in our
communities across the city, Councillor KING. With some 2,000 parks across
the city of Brisbane, it is a big job each year making sure we go out and continue
to improve and upgrade each one of those parks or as many as we possibly can
for our residents. A lot of us in this place do it in consultation with our
community and particularly through the key neighbourhood park section of the
budget, Madam Chairman, there’s $3 million allocated each year to go and
upgrade and improve the facilities in our parks.
Before I get to some of the works that we’ve undertaken though, Madam
Chairman, during the recess the CBD All Abilities Playground was finished. Of
course in the City Botanic Gardens a commitment by the LORD MAYOR to
construct an All Abilities playground. For those of you that have been down and
had a look it is a spectacular playground, Madam Chairman, with a lot of
different types and uses of play equipment to engage all who want to use that
particular facility, Madam Chairman. It really is a centrepiece of our
commitment to build an accessible and inclusive city, Madam Chairman,
building upon the work that we did to install All Ability Playgrounds in each
ward.
But turning particularly to the $3 million schedule of works in the key
neighbourhood parks, Madam Chairman, section of the budget, over the last nine
months, 10 months, Madam Chairman, obviously in conjunction with Asset
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 15 Services, we’ve been out working with our communities in our parks to install a
number of different facilities. I’m going to run through some of the works that
have been completed just so everyone can get an understanding about the depth
and breadth of works that is delivered out of this particular schedule.
So, starting in my own ward, Madam Chairman, in Avondale Park in Sinnamon
Park we’ve installed a new electric barbeque. There was no barbeque in that
park, Madam Chairman, and so a lot of concern from the community about
wanting to increase the usage of that park so we’ve spent $26,000 in installing a
new electric barbeque. In Bilston Street Park up in Stafford in Councillor
KING’s ward, we’ve done a furniture upgrade so we’ve provided additional
seating, as well as a tap as well as additional shelter, Madam Chairman.
In Councillor WINES’s ward at Gaythorne in Enoggera, we’ve done a play
equipment upgrade, Madam Chairman, to meet the Australian Standards.
Bulimba Riverside Park, Madam Chairman, we spent $165,000 upgrading the
toilet facilities down there in Councillor SUTTON’s ward. Madam Chairman,
Burnie Brae Park we’ve done fencing work up in I think that’s Councillor
KING’s ward, Madam Chairman, or Councillor FLESSER’s ward. Damon Road
Park we’ve done a playground upgrade and an installation of new play
equipment as well as under-surfacing, Madam Chairman.
Down in Councillor SIMMONDS’s ward we’ve done a lighting upgrade in
Guyatt Park in St Lucia, Madam Chairman. Out in Councillor MURPHY’s ward,
Habitat Drive Park, we’ve installed a new dog off-leash area, Madam Chairman.
Councillor MURPHY was getting a significant amount of support from local
community to provide those particular facilities down there in what is a growing
area and we need to meet the growing demand for those sorts of facilities.
Highgate Hill Park, Madam Chairman, we’ve done the design for lighting as
well for the main path and for the shelter.
The Lake Parklands we’ve constructed shade sails out in Councillor OWENTAYLOR’s ward out in Forest Lake, Madam Chairman. Lex Ord Park we’ve
done another playground upgrade in Councillor SIMMOND’s ward. We’ve
upgraded the picnic facilities out in Mitchelton at Mitchelton Park in Councillor
WINES’s ward, Madam Chairman. Oakleigh Park playground upgrade up in
Ashgrove was delivered out of part of this schedule as well, Madam Chairman,
as well as O’Reilly Street Park down in Wakerley in Doboy Ward again,
Oxenham Park playground upgrade, Madam Chairman, over in Northgate.
Madam Chairman, you can see from just those ones that I’ve read out the
breadth and different types of projects that we deliver out of the key
neighbourhood parks schedule. Madam Chairman, we face a lot of challenges
when it comes to the budget. We face a lot of challenges when it comes to being
local councillors but these are the projects that deliver I think the best results and
the greatest community benefit across this city.
I recently opened a park last weekend in my own ward in Oxley. The playground
was picked out by the children, Madam Chairman, and to open the park on the
weekend and to have those same kids able to enjoy a playground that they had
designed is probably the greatest part of this job, Madam Chairman, and one of
the greatest things that we do in this place with the continual improvement and
the money that we continue to put in to upgrading our parks and facilities across
the city. As we heard in the question from Councillor KING, they are unique,
they are important and they play a pivotal role in not only our lifestyles but also
in the growth and development of the young people of our communities.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor DICK.
Question 8
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my question is for the LORD MAYOR. LORD
MAYOR the Australian Government as you know has released an exposure draft
about changes to the Racial Discrimination Act for public comment. Will you
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 16 -
today table your submission opposing these changes made on behalf of the
multicultural groups and residents of our city and if you haven’t why not?
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, this will be subject to debate later today and I’ll leave it at
that. That will be the opportunity.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor WYNDHAM.
Question 9
Councillor WYNDHAM:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my question is to Councillor
McLACHLAN, the Chairman of Field Services Committee. Councillor
McLACHLAN can you please provide information about Coronation Drive
resurfacing program and detail why initiatives such as this are important both to
the economic growth and recovery after the flood.
Chairman:
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to Councillor WYNDHAM for that great
question. I am delighted to be able to provide details of this important project
delivered on time and on budget by the Asphalt and Aggregates Branch of Field
Services during February and March this year. The Coronation Drive resurfacing
between Cribb Street, Milton and Patrick Lane, Auchenflower, all in the
Toowong Ward, all so well represented by Councillor MATIC. Of course
Coronation Drive is one of the city’s major arteries with tens of thousands of
vehicle movements daily. I understand a typical day sees approximately 77,000
vehicles go past the intersection of Park Road.
Closing down any section of this road for any maintenance or repair work was
always going to provide some significant challenges. Six lanes of major arterial
road over 1.6 kilometres was the scope of the work repairing damage inflicted on
the road surface and substrata of the road during the 2011 flood, and with
funding provided by the Queensland Recovery Authority. The project also
provided the opportunity to remove the remnants of the old tidal flow lighting
system and the reinstallation of traffic detector loops.
The additional challenges, Madam Chair, was working in conjunction with
another of the LORD MAYOR’s deliverables for the city, the installation of the
Milton drain backflow device and which required these concurrent projects to
work together to ensure the traffic kept moving and that neither project
experienced any undue delays. A significant planning exercise was undertaken to
get the details right for the expected two months required to deliver this project.
This was the, as you’ll all recall, the next major project for the Asphalt and
Aggregates branch after the successful resurfacing of the roadway of the Story
Bridge but this project, Madam Chair, was delivered in a completely different
way.
Councillors will recall that the Story Bridge project was delivered essentially
over one weekend with multiple shifts and a complete shutdown of the bridge.
That method of delivery wasn’t available on the Coronation Drive project
because of the need to keep the road open for traffic with very few alternate
routes available for motorists. As well the work had to be suspended when there
were a couple of significant sport or concert events at the nearby Suncorp
Stadium. With the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use Coronation Drive
during the project, there was a grand total of three, three complaints received
from the public, two due to lane closures and one trip hazard reported from a
pedestrian.
There’s great credit due to all involved in the planning and execution of this
work, as well as the team involved in providing the provision of information and
updates to the public to let them know what to expect if their journey took them
via Coronation Drive. Of course the motorists of Brisbane also deserve credit for
their patience, as do the residents who live along Coronation Drive and who had
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 17 -
to put up with equipment and material being moved around during the night
shifts required for delivery of this project.
Road resurfacing on busy roads is generally a night-time activity and our crews
know that they are creating inconvenience and noise. But most residents
recognised I think that there is a longer-term benefit that comes from the few
nights of disruption that they may be required to endure. Of course the roadway
on Coronation Drive was last famously resurfaced in 2002, 12 years ago, and of
course resulted in this memorable headline, It’s a Stuff Up, with Lord Mayor Jim
admitting that under his administration the 2002 resurfacing exercise saw a
blow-out in both the budget and the original estimate of time it took to complete.
These are the days I see Labor councillors congratulating themselves on Twitter
and saying these were ‘the good old days.’ The good old days as Labor calls it,
It’s a Stuff Up was the headline back then under Lord Mayor Jim Soorley’s
administration.
Well, Madam Chair, the 2014 project was completed in just 33 shifts with the
expected duration allocated for the work of nine to 10 weeks depending on the
weather on budget. Coronation Drive, one of our major roads affected by the
January 2011 flood and the amount of traffic on it and while the substrata was
still soaked, caused a lot of the damage. There was extensive rutting, cracking,
patching and service trench work that needed to be remediated within that total
budget of $2.2 million.
Madam Chair, this project used some 12,000 tonnes of asphalt. In context the
broader program of works delivered by the Asphalt and Aggregates Branch saw
over 280,000 tonnes of asphalt laid in the last financial year, a $60 million
commitment from the LORD MAYOR to smoother and well-made roads and
we’re on track for a similar delivery this financial year. All part of maintaining
over 5500 kilometres of Council road in Brisbane and that is an ongoing
commitment by this Administration to deliver nuts and bolts projects. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 10
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD
MAYOR, the Abbott Government will tonight abolish the carbon tax and we can
see that the savings from that measure are already being accounted for in the
Council budget review today. Will you publicly commit to return the between
one and two per cent cost to rates—1.7 thank you Councillor FLESSER. The 1.7
per cent cost of the carbon tax to Brisbane ratepayers—to them through a cut in
rates next year.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, I thank councillor for the question. Madam Chairman,
we are firstly dealing with a hypothetical. Tonight's budget has not been brought
down yet. We don't know what the detail of that budget is. In terms of anything
else, Madam Chairman, you know that there is a great deal of legislative change.
It has to go through two Houses of Parliament—not one but two Houses of
Parliament, Madam Chairman.
So I would say that Councillor JOHNSTON's question is very, very premature.
On the issue of rate cuts, she should know well about that because many of her
residents have had very significant rates cuts, Madam Chairman, over the last
period of years. Many of her residents had significant rates cuts.
Chairman:
Order.
LORD MAYOR:
They have councillor, you have a look—
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 18 -
LORD MAYOR:
They have councillor, don't argue. You have a look at the situation out your way.
So, Madam Chairman, I'm not going to deal with this, it's a hypothetical. Let's
wait and see, a long way to travel in terms of legislative change and both Houses
of Parliament—
Chairman:
Order. Councillor—
LORD MAYOR:
—having to pass matters first.
Chairman:
Councillor WINES.
Question 11
Councillor WINES:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chairman of the Lifestyle
Committee, Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS, I understand the Gold
Star Reading Club is starting again shortly. Can you please update the Chamber
or any changes or new initiatives in this program?
Chairman:
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Councillor WINES for the questions. I
know that all the councillors here hold Gold Star very close to their hearts—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS:
—and it is coming very close to the beginning of Gold Star again and we're all
very away of the fabulous program that has been enabling children right across
Brisbane to discover the joys of reading and writing.
The next Gold Star Reading Club is commencing in Council libraries on
Saturday 7 June 2014. This actually marks the 10th anniversary of our Gold Star
Reading program which began in 2004 as an idea from the Bracken Ridge
Library, Councillor COOPER. So the aim of the Gold Star program is actually,
as we said, to promote literacy and encourage reading amongst primary aged
children. I think something that's very important to complement the NAPLAN
(National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy) tests that they're
actually sitting in today and the next couple of days as well.
We also want to make it fun. So it's about engaging the kids and making sure
that they realise that reading isn't about hard work. I often speak to the children
at the Gold Star programs about how it's exercise for your mind rather than just
running around and playing sport with a ball, you also have to exercise your
mind as well. It's also about being able to access books that you may not just
have sitting at home or are in your school libraries as well. So making sure you
can find some books that actually engage, particular boys, sometimes it's more
difficult to get them into the reading than the girls as well.
It's a nice way for us to make sure our schools work with libraries, so we know
that the local schools love to have their classes to come in and be engaged with
this program as well. It supports parents, because we know the success we have
with children and their reading does come from parents reading to their children
at a very young age. We have story time every Sunday in our regional libraries
where we try and encourage different ways for parents to engage with their
children and read a book at home from those as young as 18 months up to our
tweenies involved in children's story time as well.
So far we have seen 43,547 children participate in Gold Star Reading over the
last 10 years. As we all know, those numbers are reflected in year upon year
increases in the number of students that register. Each year, we actually do look
at the feedback that is raised from the parents and the students and the librarians
on our Gold Star program and we make sure that we are trying to sustain the
children's engagement levels and recognising the emergence of other reading
programs that come on from month to month across our libraries as well.
What we've found is that the four months is sending to be a long time to try and
keep the parents and the children engaged in the Gold Star program. So what
we're doing it looking at changing the duration from the four month to the three
month. So whereas you'd be familiar that it usually starts in May, we've just
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 19 -
pushed that back a little bit to June so that it'll be a concentrated three months to
get the kids engaged in that reading program and will still allow them to focus
their efforts on the period when they need to, to get the reading and get all their
little prizes they get on a weekly basis, but will help with their attention levels
and engagement with the program as well.
So they're still going to see the same mascots, there'll be Raptus and Liana and
Gold Star who are there all the time through their program. They'll still get their
activity books and through that three month program, they'll get their little
rewards, whether it's rulers or pencils or erasers and bookmarks as they go
through. This year, they've also got some bag tags and some library bags and
school bags that will be also put into those prizes as well. There will still be the
monthly draw for every kid to go into to win a $25 book voucher per library and
also $250 for their school library as well.
So what we're trying to do is making sure that we keep it fresh. We make sure
that it's keeping it relevant to the parents and to the children for this program.
We have made the reading challenges more challenging as well. So it's not about
just making it too easy to get those little incentive prizes every week. But I think
the most important thing that this is based on the feedback and the strategies that
the librarians have taken on board from those 45,000-plus people that have been
involved over the last 10 years.
The idea is now that children will ready three books each month as they
complete their challenges and they're designed to actually extend the use and the
actual knowledge of the library. So it's going to be a little bit beyond just the
reading, so we're trying to extend the program out from just reading the books as
well. We're also going to try and encourage the digital collection and writing
reviews with the kids as well.
So let me just reiterate the program this year runs from 7 June till 31 August and
of course I look forward to getting to as many ceremonies as I can in the libraries
from 6 to 21 September to hand out those beautiful gold medals that all the
children just love. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairman:
That ends question time.
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council
during the Autumn Recess 2014, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, is there any debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Seriatim - Clauses C and D
Councillor JOHNSTON requested that Clauses C and D, TRAVEL PROPOSAL – 5TH ANNUAL WORLD
CITIES SUMMIT, SINGAPORE, and OVERSEAS TRAVEL – LORD MAYOR’S BUSINESS MISSION TO
ABU DHABI, SHANGHAI, HYDERABAD AND SINGAPORE, respectively, be taken seriatim, en bloc, for
voting purposes.
Chairman:
Thank you. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, before coming to
the items contained within the report there's just a number of other matters that I
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 20 -
would like to raise. Madam Chairman, just firstly to acknowledge some of the
important events that have happened or are about to happen, Madam Chairman.
The second of May saw the Starlight Children's Foundation Starlight Day. It's an
event which has been happening since 1988 and I want to recognise the great
work that the Starlight Children's Foundation undertake in making the lives of
sick kids, often very, very seriously ill children, a little brighter, Madam
Chairman.
The World Asthma Day was held on 6 May. We saw World Red Cross Day
celebrated on 8 May. From 12 to 18 May, Madam Chairman, National Volunteer
Week. We acknowledge that across the State of Queensland, the value of
volunteering amounts to something like $13.4 billion, Madam Chairman. One in
every three people across the state of Queensland undertake volunteering work.
That figure is no different within the city of Brisbane and we thank all of those
volunteers out there who give freely of their time to make our city a better place
in which to live, to give something back to their community.
Madam Chairman, over the last few weeks, I've also updated industry on—and
the people of Brisbane on the number of new hotel rooms that we've seen in our
city. Over the last year, we've seen 575 new hotel rooms plus 337 serviced
apartments coming online. These are ones that have either opened recently or are
under construction and coming online during the course of this year. But we
need continued investment in Brisbane and I can say that we were able to
downgrade the number of hotel rooms that we do require each year now, over
the next 10 years.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
A year ago, we said we would need between 300 and 450 rooms each year for
the next 10 years, given the expected growth in the convention market and
tourism in our city. With the new hotel stock that we now have coming online,
we were able to downgrade that to the need between 220 and 330 rooms each
year of the next 10 years. So that is good news for our city in terms of supply.
Even with the growth that we have seen in the last year, Madam Chairman, we
know that there was around 1,100 visitations to our city last year—start that
again, that's not right. There was, Madam Chairman, around 1,100 full time jobs
that we missed out on, essentially, because we were having to turn people away
because of lack of hotel rooms in the city at a critical time. So we want to
continue to encourage, at this time, additional hotel, at that high end in
particular, Madam Chairman, where we're missing out on opportunities. Where
there are high spend individuals who can make a real difference to employment
opportunities in our city.
So, Madam Chairman, it equated to around, I think, it was about 250,000 bed
nights per year that we missed out on as a result of shortage of supply.
Madam Chairman, in regards to the CBD, Councillor BOURKE mentioned it but
we've established and opened now the All Abilities Playground in the Botanic
Gardens. I certainly encourage all councillors to get down there and have a look
at that at some stage to—as another opportunity for your constituents, if they are
in the city at any time, it's a great play space for all young people. So we
certainly encourage the use of that facility.
We also welcomed, during the recess, the entry into Brisbane of Jamie's Ministry
of Food. That was launched out there at the Clem Jones Centre where a lot of
people have been taking up the opportunity for those cooking classes. So,
Madam Chairman, there's hope for me to expand beyond water rice block
production after all.
Wi-Fi, Madam Chairman, on 30 April announced the fact that free Wi-Fi was
now live. I think I've spoken about this in the Chamber before, but Queen Street
Mall, Victoria Bridge, South Bank, Madam Chairman. So there's one small
section of South Bank around Beach Street where there's construction work
happening. That won't be open for another month or so yet but the rest of South
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 21 -
Bank is certainly operational. Of course, the Brisbane Convention and
Exhibition Centre have also come on board with free Wi-Fi as have about 250
businesses.
Madam Chairman, the demolition of Brett's Wharf commenced on 5 May as the
site of the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade. That's also going to see the shifting
of the Brett's Wharf Ferry Terminal to further to the—I suppose you'd call it the
east. So that will happen over time. The ticker-tape parade I've mentioned,
Madam Chairman. Legacy Way, still on track. Construction work will be
completed at the end of this year but we won't see, probably, traffic on that until
around April of next year, given the fact that there'll be a, probably, three or four
month commissioning process. That's been our experience with other major
tunnels built in this city.
Which brings us to the items contained in—oh, one more thing before I move to
the items, Madam Chairman, Councillor WYNDHAM on my behalf the other
night was at the Parks and Leisure Australia Regional Awards and collected on
behalf of the city the Play Space Award, Category B, which was awarded in
relation to the play space at Calamvale District Park. So congratulations to all
concerned with that and I thank Councillor BOURKE, the officers, all of those
involved. That will go through now to the national conference which will be
conducted in August in Cairns.
Madam Chairman, the four items before us. The first of those items, item A, is
the constitutional changes to the Healthy Waterways and Healthy Waterways
Network Rules. By way of those changes, Madam Chairman, the changes
involve an increase in the Healthy Waterways board membership from five to
seven. Five are voted in and two are appointed by the board itself. There's a
change to the fee structure, which will also be determined by the board.
So they are, probably, key changes but there are a multitude of changes in terms
of that constitution, Madam Chairman. When you come to the area around
payment of directors, there is no payment. There's out of pocket expenses, I
believe, but no board fees apply in relation to directorship. So the increase in
directors there will not make a material difference in that sense.
Madam Chairman, item B is the adoption of a temporary local planning
instrument (TLPI) for the protection of residential buildings constructed prior to
1911. Now, of course this was part of City Plan, the draft new City Plan, and we
have previously lodged a temporary local planning instrument around this, it had
expired, we applied to the minister in relation to an extension and so, Madam
Chairman, the TLPI, which affects a total of some 395 houses across the city, we
heard word back from the minister during the recess that we were right to go.
So cabinet, acting as Council during that recess period, adopted that temporary
local planning instrument to provide an ongoing protection in relation to those
pre-1911 homes. To recast the memory for people, Brisbane previously had a
pre-1900 policy in regards to those particular homes. That was extended to 1911
under the draft new City Plan provisions. Madam Chairman, that's here for the
attention of Council today.
Item C, Madam Chairman, is a travel proposal in relation to the annual World
Cities Summit but specifically it is also the meeting of the Council of Capital
City Lord Mayors. Madam Chairman, all other Lord Mayors from around
Australia will be attending this particular event and I've asked Councillor
SCHRINNER to attend that event and, more specifically, the Council of Capital
City Lord Mayors meeting on my behalf.
The summit itself will provide an opportunity for a great deal of valuable
information. Brisbane has previously been engaged in this event through the fact
that we were awarded the runner up in the world cities prize a couple of years
ago now. I think we finished second to New York, as I recall, on that occasion.
So at that time I recall I was involved in the delegation that came here from
Singapore as a judging panel to inspect the various place making aspects and
urban renewal projects that we had in our city.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 22 -
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, before you continue, your time has expired.
615/2013-14
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR,
seconded by Councillor MURPHY.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, the final item
then on the agenda is item D, which is overseas travel proposal for myself to
lead a business mission into our sister cities of Abu Dhabi and Hyderabad, also
taking in Shanghai and Singapore. Now, Madam Chairman, in relation to this
particular visitation, the key focus is on our sister cities, that of course of Abu
Dhabi and Hyderabad.
This will be the first occasion that I've visited the city of Hyderabad—sorry Abu
Dhabi; the first occasion as LORD MAYOR that I’ve visited the city of
Hyderabad. The weekend will see the delegation move to Shanghai to undertake
some further opportunities in that city and we will be doing a one day, one night
in Singapore on return. Given the growing investments that we are seeing out of
Singapore within the city of Brisbane, hotel investment and other significant
investments from that particular place.
So, Madam Chairman, again, as previously, this is public information. It is
information which is out there. We are calling for delegates from across the city
from all sorts of businesses to attend that particular business mission. Again, as
in the past, because of the pragmatics of these missions, Madam Chairman, we
will be working on the basis of a 45 cut-off in terms of bus load, Madam
Chairman, but beyond that, we certainly welcome first in, best dressed in terms
of the attendees on this business mission.
For those that are wishing to come, there is a mechanism to express interest,
Madam Chairman, and we can keep people updated as more detail around the
specifics of times and locations come to fruition. So, Madam Chairman, I present
the report for the consideration of the Chamber.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on all items of today's E&C report. Look,
Madam Chair, just quickly on items A—and I don't think the LORD MAYOR
really touched on item A too much, which was the amendments to the
constitution of the Healthy Waterways and Healthy Waterways Network Rules.
We don't have any strong objections to these changes. Essentially, reading
through the documentation, reading through both attachments today.
Of course, these decisions were made outside of recess so the information and
decisions attached to this were not available on the file for opposition
councillors. But reading through the proposed amendments to the constitution,
on page 1, on 1.1 clause 4, and list right through clauses 1 to 27 and then a
number of proposed amendments to Network Rules on page 5 which goes from
2.1 to 2.14, these are essentially housekeeping or tidying up rules to bring them
in line with some of the changes that have occurred.
At that time, 3.25pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.
Councillor DICK:
Particularly in clause 4, item 1.1 which is the company is seeking confirmation
from its tax advisors that the proposed new objective's consistent with the
company's application for deductible gift recipient, DGR status. So look, I
support that and I support these changes. The Healthy Waterways, of course, was
an initiative of the Soorley Administration and had a strategic—that
administration had a strategic approach to dealing with the healthy waterways of
the south-east corner which was, of course, to bring all the local governments
together to work together, to look at how we can improve our natural
environments and we continue to offer that support.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 23 -
Item B is the adoption of the temporary local planning instrument. We're rolling
this over again. I certainly hope that this is the last time that this comes to the
Council Chamber. We, of course, are doing this because we have taken so long
to deal with the City Plan. The Original TLPI, the one before, TLPI0113 ceased
on 8 May 2014, Madam Deputy Chair. The new TLPI which Labor supported
was approved at 11 February this year and we know that this is a short-term
solution, of course, until the draft new City Plan can be approved, which I
suspect will be coming to the Council Chamber shortly.
But this TLPI, just in case it'll have an effect for one year—and like the last two
times it has come here, we do place on record our serious concerns about how in
practice some of these homes could be protected, particularly amongst the
adjoining properties when you look at the various type zoning of high density or
high rises which would be there in the impacts of those.
So unfortunately this Council doesn't have a great track record of listening to
residents' concerns or enforcing neighbourhood plan height limits, as written, so
we'll continue to watch and make sure that the Council does what it says and
particularly with the agreements that it makes with the community.
Look, on items C and D, I'm not surprised on the day of the Federal budget
where there's a lot of coverage that the LNP will wheel in their travel junkets on
these days. It's a quite news day—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
—for the Council so they will wheel these—and of course, the decisions were
made and we're noting these decisions—not asking for approval, Madam Deputy
Chairman, we're noting the decisions. These decisions have already been made.
So the LNP were so keen to get these approved that they rushed through them
and then allowed—graciously allowed this Chamber to note their decisions.
So the first person who checks in at the first class lounge and takes the
champagne is Councillor SCHRINNER. Now I think this is Councillor
SCHRINNER's first trip. We've had Councillor SIMMONDS take a trip,
Councillor ADAMS went away for a long weekend to Japan, well I'm talking
about Civic Cabinet. So the only people left are Councillor COOPER and
Councillor MATIC. So I place a bet that there will be special trips for the
remaining Civic Cabinets as their little rewards coming down the line.
Councillor MURPHY:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Deputy Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor DICK. Councillor MURPHY?
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Deputy Chairman, I believe that's imputing motive.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
I withdraw, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor DICK.
Councillors interjecting.
Deputy Chairman:
Order. Order. Councillor DICK has withdrawn, please continue.
Councillor DICK:
Sorry, I correct the record. As Councillor ADAMS said, she didn't go to Japan, it
was another junket she was on. That's right.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
It was the Lantern Festival that she needed the ratepayers to fund her business
class air fare. As Councillor HUANG said in the last debate, it's arduous
traveling overseas. That's why you need to travel business class.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
So, moving right along. So I withdraw that comment and announce that I predict
through my crystal ball that Councillor COOPER and Councillor MATIC will be
granted trips by this Council Chamber before this term is over.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 24 -
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Now, the big ticket item today is $60,000 for the LORD MAYOR and Greg
Bowden to travel overseas.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
The LORD MAYOR says this is all out in the open, except who is traveling
overseas with the LORD MAYOR. He says, we'll go and ask the business
people. We produce this, we use ratepayers' funds to invite them, we do the
printing, we do the administration fees that we charge them but we're going to
keep it a secret. Why not publish who attends? What's there to hide? Why not
publish who attends these overseas travel?
At that time, 3.30pm, the Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, resumed the Chair.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's right, the LORD MAYOR said, we could only take 45 because we've
booked the bus. We've booked the bus for the 45 delegates but we're not going to
tell you who goes on the trips. Now I have my suspicions when you talk about
business people and Greg Bowden, there's another sentence involved but I won't
go there, Madam Chair.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, that is imputing motive.
Chairman:
Sorry, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Point of order, Madam Chairman, that is imputing motive.
Councillor DICK:
How?
LORD MAYOR:
I ask that Councillor DICK withdraw.
Councillor DICK:
How on earth?
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Councillor DICK, the LORD MAYOR has asked that you withdraw—
Councillor DICK:
Whenever any councillor asks me to withdraw, unlike them, I withdraw. I
withdraw, every time. Every time.
Chairman:
Okay, thank you Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Every time. What I will say is, Mr Bowden is in charge of the business liaisons
in the LORD MAYOR's office, Mr Bowden also, in a previous life, as we know,
as we debated today, was in charge of fund raising for the LORD MAYOR and
the former Lord Mayor.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Okay, so there are business people going on this trip with the LORD MAYOR,
who we don't know, who are kept in secret, and the ratepayers are funding Mr
Bowden and the LORD MAYOR 60,000—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes, point of order, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Will Councillor DICK take a question?
Councillor DICK:
Absolutely.
Councillor SUTTON:
I just wondered, Councillor DICK, if you have any indication from anyone
inside the LNP that Mr Bowden won't again be appointed as fundraising director
into the future for future campaigns? Could you elaborate on that?
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I do not have any information about that, it's a big mystery and
it's a big secret. I do not know the movements or what Mr Bowden may or not do
in the—
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 25 -
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
All I know is what he's done in the past. All I know he's done is in the past which
was raising millions of dollars from business people to help the LORD MAYOR
get re-elected. So, Madam Chair, what I want to know, in the interest of
transparency, as the LORD MAYOR—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
—glossed over it, how does the Council promote these trips to local businesses?
Is it a letter? Is it publications that the ratepayers pay? Do they send an email
out?
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
Who pays for that? Who writes the content? Then, of course, we don't know who
signs up once we magically find these people. Then we know, how much does it
cost and individual business to participate? Because in the E&C, Madam Chair,
it says some of the $60,000, we don't know how much, is to be offset by an
administration fee to be paid for by delegates. So that's fine, if we haven't set that
fee, it's really easy. What's been the fee in the past?
Just a round figure, is it $1000, it is $10,000? You pay to go on these trips. I
think, given that we are hosting these, ratepayers should know, in the full
transparency, if you're not going to say who's going, the 45 mysterious people
who travel on the bus with the LORD MAYOR, with the business advisor, the
former fundraiser, what do they pay? Now when the Council—
Councillor FLESSER:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order. Yes, Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
I was wondering if the Leader of the Opposition would take a question?
Councillor DICK:
Two from two, yes.
Councillor FLESSER:
Councillor DICK, how do you propose, or how do you speculate that these 45
people are actually chosen? How are they chosen? Do they nominate? Are
emails sent to businesses asking people to nominate?
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
Touchy, touchy.
Councillor FLESSER:
Madam Chair, maybe Councillor DICK might be able to answer that question.
Councillor DICK:
Well we don't know, Madam Chair, and that's the question.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
We don't know, and it can all be revealed with the LORD MAYOR tabling
who's gone on these trips before. That's easy. That's easily done.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, would the Opposition Leader take a question?
Councillor DICK:
Yes, Madam Chair.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, does the Opposition Leader accept that given that Labor
started the Asia Pacific Cities Summit and given that I gave you the opportunity
to send along a Labor councillor to the Asia Pacific Cities Summit in Kaohsiung
last year, do you not accept that if you had accepted in a bipartisan approach to
attend that Labor instigated summit that you would have got the full list of
delegates and their background and everything about them?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well—
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 26 -
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I'm happy to answer the—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
—question. Unlike LNP councillors, myself and Labor councillors are too busy
saving ratepayers' money—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well I'll answer it this way, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
I'm happy to go out to any resident.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to answer the question by saying, I'll be
happy to go out to any ratepayer in the city and say, would you prefer $60,000 to
be spent on a park upgrade or an intersection across any of the—not in my—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, your time has expired.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Just a moment. Look, please be quiet.
616/2013-14
At that point, Councillor DICK was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor FLESSER,
seconded by Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll be brief. Because at the end of it—I thank the
Chamber and I thank the LORD MAYOR because this is an important issue.
When you're talking about public expenditure around $60,000, I make no
apology to say that I oppose this. Because in a tight financial environment, we
hear lectures from the LNP about prudent financial management, we're hearing
tight financial—because of our debt problems, because of the constraints of our
city, because of the financial situation that we've got, it does not make sense in
this environment that we would spend and, in my opinion, waste $60,000 for the
LORD MAYOR and his business advisor to travel on a junket across a number
of destinations across the globe.
Madam Chair, I don't think it's good enough. If the LORD MAYOR wants to be
upfront and true blue, he should release how much the Council charges per
delegate, who goes on these trips and who has attended on the trips before and
what is on the agenda. So the LORD MAYOR says that this information is
provided, the packs are done up. Well it's pretty simple, Madam Chair, if the
ratepayer are paying for it, if the ratepayers are forking out the money not just
for the LORD MAYOR and his hand-picked political advisor to travel overseas
at the tune of $60,000 but to fund and to organise these trips they need to be a lot
more upfront and a lot more honest with the people of Brisbane.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on items C and
D. Madam Chairman, let me first—
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON. Yes, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, let me first speak about the
World Cities Summit and the importance of Brisbane's participation in it.
Madam Chairman, I think it's fitting that the DEPUTY MAYOR attends the
World Cities Summit and the World Mayors' forum which will be held in
Singapore. Madam Chairman, this is a very important Asia Pacific Summit and
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 27 -
having attended that summit in July 2012 to represent the LORD MAYOR, to
receive the Special Mention Award for Brisbane and also participate in the many
different seminars that took place during that time of the summit, it is an
extremely important summit and there are many different opportunities for us as
a city to gain information on technological advances in so many different facets
of what running a city relates to.
Madam Chairman, I think it is quite responsible that given that the Capital City
Lord Mayors will all also be in Singapore for this summit and that the DEPUTY
MAYOR is representing the LORD MAYOR at that meeting that it does
coincide and that there is that cohesion between all of the Capital City Lord
Mayors. I can recall that those Capital Cities Lord Mayors were also there in
2012.
Madam Chairman, I strongly believe that the references to the attendance at the
World Cities Summit and these business missions as being a junket is at the least
is a misrepresentation, but at the worst an absolute insult to the other cities which
are welcoming our business delegations and our city representatives. These trips
are extremely well planned through our International Relations Unit. Our
officers upstairs, they conduct a considerable amount of business matching
processes before these trips even take place. They liaise extensively with other
governments in other countries and cities to ensure that our delegates who go on
these missions are well looked after and have appropriate meetings.
This is not about a junket, as those on the opposite side of this Chamber have
relayed, even though that may have been the case under the former Labor
administration in this place. It is certainly not the case with this Administration.
We have very strong business outcome focused business missions—
Councillor FLESSER interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: It is very important that for these business representatives that sacrifice their
time in their business to attend these missions get an outcome. Madam
Chairman, I would just like to refer to the most recent mission that went to
Shenzhen, Chengdu, Chongqing, Kaohsiung and Hong Kong in September 2013.
Madam Chairman, over 100 business, industry and government leaders from
Brisbane and South East Queensland joined the LORD MAYOR on this business
mission. That was the largest trade mission to leave Queensland.
From 11 to 18 September there was attendance at the Asia Pacific Cities Summit
in Kaohsiung which is a vital summit relative to Brisbane. It is an international
biennial summit for business and civic leaders. It is a forum for businesses to
make connections, not only on a business to business perspective but also a
business to government perspective. There are extensive outcomes that result
from these missions and attendance at summits.
Now, in particular, that last mission in 2013, that has generated over $220
million worth of business outcomes for locally based companies in Brisbane.
This is not about people going away and kicking up their heels and having a
good time. This is about business-to-business, business-to-government
outcomes. We have key performance indicators for these missions. We achieve
economic development outcomes for these missions. We create networks, not
only for our Brisbane-based businesses but also for our city.
Those on the opposite side of the Chamber, Madam Chairman, they forget what
they did, let actions speak louder than words. Let's have a look at the last four
years that the Labor administration was in this place, how much did they spend
on an average over that four-year time period? Well, Madam Chairman, in 201314 dollars, it was about $1.2 million per annum average. Let's have a look at
since there has been—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Let's have a look at what that equivalently was over the last—
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 28 -
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Over the last term of this Administration—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: —the LNP Administration. It was less than half, Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: So don't listen to what they say, let's look at what they do. Actions speak louder
than words. I will also go back to Councillor DICK's comments. He says,
“myself and the Labor councillors, we're too busy saving ratepayer's money,”
but who was in that administration when they were spending on average $1.2
million? Oh, well I think Councillor FLESSER, the former Chairman of Finance,
I think Councillor CUMMING and also Councillor NEWTON might have been
there and I think maybe Councillor ABRAHAMS. Don't listen to what they say,
look at what they do.
Let's have a look—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: —at what their leaders, their supposed leaders, the former Foreign Minister, look
at what he whinges about. Councillor DICK wants to talk about first class
lounges? Well that one, it relates to—let's quote the front page of the CourierMail, what does the former ALP foreign minister get? “First class tosser”,
quoted from the front page of the Courier-Mail.
Don't come in this place and say that we are wasting ratepayer dollars. We,
through these trade missions, are generating economic outcomes for the city of
Brisbane. We are not going on junkets, we are developing business ties and
developing outcomes for Brisbane based businesses. If any of you on the other
side of this Chamber actually got it, you would start to realise that business is not
just local, it is global. That is where this city is taking ourselves forward and
making sure our Brisbane based businesses have the opportunity to make
connections and they thrive.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on items C and D. Madam
Chairman, can I start by thanking the deputy mayor for international affairs for
her insightful comments into the LNP's overseas holidays—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON, as you know what the rules
say, you refer to councillors as councillors.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, that's what Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR calls herself on her
own website and in her own publications—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, don't argue with me.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Okay, well—
Chairman:
In this Chamber—you know the rules in this Chamber.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, the deputy
mayor for international affairs for her insightful contribution to the debate here
today. We know how passionate she is about overseas trips and I'm sure she's
disappointed that it's Mr Bowden going and not her on this occasion.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, there are a couple of things that I would like to put on the
record with respect to the travel that we're being asked to note today, which was
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 29 -
approved in secret by the LNP administration during the Council recess. Not
only, Madam Chairman, did the E&C—the Establishment and Coordination
Committee not have the courage to bring the matter here for endorsement and
decision, Madam Chairman, they are now refusing, as we've heard repeatedly
this afternoon, to outline in very simple terms who is attending on these trips
with them.
Now, Madam Chairman, we've heard all the excuses here today, particularly
from Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, the deputy mayor for international affairs—
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman, claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
It's not misrepresentation I don't think, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. But
Councillor JOHNSTON, I have already asked you to refer to Councillor OWENTAYLOR appropriately.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am, Madam Chairman, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Madam Chairman, I
refer to Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR's comments earlier today about the ALP.
She says, don't listen to what they say, look at what they do. Well, Madam
Chairman, I'm holding up a mirror for Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR here today.
The issue before us is to look at what the LORD MAYOR is saying. Firstly, he
is refusing to release the names of any of the business delegates who have gone
on trips previously and he is refusing to release the names of those business
delegates going on the current trips.
Now, Madam Chairman, I would say, don't look at what the LNP councillors are
saying, look at what they are doing. Now, Madam Chairman, this is hypocrisy at
its very worst, at its very worst. Increasingly, over the past couple of years, I've
noticed that the LNP's excuse for anything—for anything that is a little bit iffy in
terms of the public interest test that they say, the Labor Party did it and they did
it a lot worse than we're doing it.
Now, Madam Chairman, we heard Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR's comments
here in the Chamber that the ALP was so bad they spent $1.2 million on
overseas trips, Madam Chairman. But, Madam Chairman, let's look at the LNP.
We're not quite as bad as them, Madam Chairman, we're only spending about
$65,000 on this trip plus the hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few
years. Madam Chairman, it reeks of hypocrisy to say that the opposition did it a
lot worse than us so we'll just do a little bit of it.
Have the courage of your convictions. The LNP councillors stood up in this
place years ago, Madam Chairman, when you would have been here, and
criticised Jim Soorley over and over again for his overseas trips. Yet, Madam
Chairman—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—and yet, Madam Chairman, today the LORD MAYOR will not even justify
who is going with him on those trips. We don't know if they are good value for
money because this Administration made a secret decision in the recess and is
not explaining why and who is going on this trip. That's not good enough,
Madam Chairman.
When they were in opposition, the LNP jumped up and down and claimed Jim
Soorley was the worst person going. This Administration does not have the same
ethical stance when it is in administration itself and is not being open and
transparent about these trips. Now, Madam Chairman, I ask the LORD MAYOR
to do the right thing here. As we've heard in this debate today, all of this trip is
being organised by Council. Presumably the business delegates are paying their
costs plus some fee but we still don't know any of that.
Release those figures, be open and transparent, try and be the administration that
you said you wanted to be six years ago when you started out. Because you are
falling way short of that standard. When you justify your bad behaviour by
saying the Labor Party did it a lot worse than us, that does not reflect well on
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 30 -
your administration. Be up front, do the right thing, have the courage to explain
who's going with you.
God help us, if the future of this city's economic development is reliant upon the
fact that we're only getting one bus load of people to come along with us, I
would have hoped that there might be a little bit more forethought and strategy
going into our international trips and the business that we're generating overseas
with our local businesses in countries where we want to partner. I would have
hoped that the criteria for these trips is a bit more than who can we fit on the
coach? Because that does not reflect well on you, LORD MAYOR, if that is the
criteria and that is the only criteria you have outlined here for us tonight about
who is coming.
You haven't outlined any others and that does not reflect well on you, Madam
Chairman. So I will not be supporting C and D because of the lack of
information that's been provided, because of the hypocrisy of this Administration
in criticising the Labor Party and then doing exactly the same thing they are
doing. I will not be supporting it because, Madam Chairman, the LORD
MAYOR can't be bothered to provide us with some basic details about who is
going with him.
This would be a good opportunity to promote those businesses in this
community. If the LORD MAYOR is genuine about the economic benefits that
will flow from it, why is it a secret? Why is it a secret? It shouldn't be, Madam
Chairman. If this is a good thing for our economy in Brisbane, he should be
singing from the rooftops that X business is going and they hope, as we heard
from Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, to make all these wonderful meetings and
matching and to generate all this business.
What is it? Who is it? What are we hoping to do? Is it manufacturing we're
targeting? Is it food economy in Brisbane? We don't know because the selfprofessed LORD MAYOR for economic development cannot spend one minute
telling us who his 45 companions on the coach are going to be. Now that, in my
view, Madam Chairman, falls short of the high standards this Council should
have when it is spending $65,000 in ratepayer money that in my view would be
much better spent on backflow valves for my community that's still waiting for
them.
Chairman:
Further debate, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, look, I thank, I think, councillors opposite for what was
to be expected, I suppose. Madam Chairman, there has been a quantum shift in
terms of the types of trips that this Administration undertakes compared to that
of the trips that were taken by councillors opposite. I do want to, given the level
of criticisms, just instance some of those trips. Councillor FLESSER, for
example, in 2001 in June, he went to Japan visiting the Yatsu Hagate festival at a
cost of what was $9,000. That was back in 2001 dollars, I think that's about
$12,000 today.
Then two years later, decided to go back to the same place, to Narashino in
Japan to the Yatsu Hagate Environment Symposium. So we had Councillor
Bryant, no longer with us, but went to Fukuoka and that was paid for out of the
Asia Pacific Cities Summit budget but there's never been an Asia Pacific Cities
Summit held in that city, it must have been a trip there to promote the Asia
Pacific Cities Summit, I assume.
We had other councillors that took students to cities. We had, of course, the
famous $50,000 from Councillor Soorley himself, which was just the cost of
himself and his spouse. So, Madam Chairman—and that was a considerable
number of years ago, I don't know what that would be valued at today.
Councillor FLESSER interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor FLESSER.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 31 -
LORD MAYOR:
So the point I'm making is this. We have made a quantum shift in terms of
overseas travel, Madam Chairman. I think Councillor JOHNSTON's suggesting
we shouldn't do any overseas travel at all, and that would be, in my view,
bizarre.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman, claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
Wait to be called, Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR:
Okay, well if that's not what you're saying, I'm pleased to hear that. Because,
Madam Chairman, today, cities are much more than simply roads, rates and
rubbish. They are economic power houses, Madam Chairman, and are becoming
more and more relevant as the drivers of economic activity.
Now, again, this Administration has reported back far more than what has been
the case historically in terms of these trips. I've indicated the extent of outcomes
that we've received from the business mission in Asia. Madam Chairman, the
reality is for me to service the businesses that go on—and when we talk about a
bus load, it becomes practically very, very difficult to service many more than
that. For anybody that wants to have a crack at it, go for your life.
Madam Chairman, if we're going to do the job properly with proper business
matching, with the opportunity, particularly in Asian cities, where the mayor is
required to open the door in terms of opportunities for business, it is not practical
to do it with many more than that. So, Madam Chairman, I just leave that on the
table. There is an administration fee, yes. The administration fee which goes on
top of the other costs associated with that trip to businesses is to offset the costs
of myself, business advisor and also two Council staff from the international
relations section who will be there to service the delegates associated with this
mission.
Madam Chairman, again, these missions are only successful if they are properly
adopted, if you have the pre-matching that takes place prior to leaving. We work
in conjunction with Trade & Investment Queensland, we work in conjunction
with Austrade and we thank those agencies very much for the dedication and
effort that they put in also to making these missions successful.
Madam Chairman, in terms of who gets invited, there are lists of thousands of
people in the international relations office and those mailing lists, Madam
Chairman, provide an opportunity for business across this city. The reason I
announced it here, Madam Chairman, is that so all of the councillors from Labor
and the independent can go out and tell their businesses in their particular wards
of the fact that this business mission occurs.
I go out across wards of this city with business forums, with Councillor
SIMMONDS, every few weeks to a month we do a different business forum in a
different area of the city. Often, there are Labor councillors at those, Councillor
FLESSER I didn't see you there but I think you were there at the last one. I'm
sorry I didn't get a chance to say hello to you. I think the councillor from
Moorooka was at one, a little while back as well, yes.
So, Madam Chairman, the point is that at those particular business forums—
these are small businesses, small-medium businesses across the city, I again
advertise the fact that we are doing at business mission and I tell people, Madam
Chairman, to stay engaged so that everybody, regardless, Madam Chairman, of
who they are and the type of business they are, can come with us.
When you talk about what do we target? Well, Madam Chairman, it's quite
varied. We've had people on business missions in the world of art, we've had
people in the world of renewable energy. We've had people in the agricultural
sectors, we've had people in property sectors, we've had people, Madam
Chairman, from a whole raft, international education been another feature,
Madam Chairman.
So look, I am sure that Labor councillors will know some of these people from
across the city that have been on these missions. So simply here today, having a
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 32 -
bit of fun, having a bit of a game, trying to get a bit of an issue stirred up and
that's fair enough. Because that's what oppositions do. But my job, Madam
Chairman, is to stay focused, to try in difficult times to utilise what I can do as
LORD MAYOR of this city to get some doors open for businesses in this city
and again, as I've indicated previously, we've opened doors and created, out of
that last trip, $230 million worth of business for this city so far and more to come
I hope as relationships continue to develop.
They, as we all know, in Asia, it's about relationships, it's about not getting
overnight successes, it's about the creation and development of those
relationships to a point of trust where those Asian communities will do business
with you. I'm committed to that, I don't care what criticism comes my way in
relation to this because I know that what I am doing is right. It is right for this
city and it is right for the businesses of this city for employment growth in this
city. Madam Chairman, to that extent, I will continue to stay committed to the
job I have as LORD MAYOR of Brisbane.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, misrepresentation?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman. The LORD MAYOR stated that I said there should be
no overseas travel at all. Madam Chairman, I stated when I spoke earlier that I
did not support these two items before us today for a series of reasons, including
that a secret decision had been made and that not enough information had been
provided about this travel.
Chairman:
Thank you. I will put the motion for items A and B.
Clauses A and B put
The Chairman restated the motion for the noting of Clauses A and B of the report and upon being submitted to
the Chamber, it was declared carried on the voices.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for items C and D.
Clauses C and D put
The Chairman restated the motion for the noting of Clauses C and D of the report and upon being submitted to
the Chamber, it was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors DICK and ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in
the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 33 -
The report read as follows
A
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF HEALTHY WATERWAYS
LTD AND HEALTHY WATERWAYS NETWORK RULES
197/435/273/13
618/2013-14
1.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided the information
below.
2.
Council’s membership with Healthy Waterways Ltd (Healthy Waterways) is currently defined
by a Network Deed (October 2010) and the Healthy Waterways Network Rules (as amended
on 28 February 2013). Council is currently a member and renews its membership annually. In
summary, this membership means:
- Council is a Founding Network Participant, with standing under the rules of an Investor
Network Participant.
- Council’s status commits Council to an annual contribution to core network program
costs. The proportion of member contribution to the core network program costs is
determined by the population of the local government area as a percentage of overall
membership population (a capacity to pay model). Council also makes additional
contributions for projects. In 2013-14 the total funding provided was $571,300.
- A Network Committee, comprised of 19 members, currently endorses the budget and
priorities. As the Network Committee is largely made up of technical officers, there is
limited strategic coordination and scrutiny.
3.
Healthy Waterways is now proposing amendments to improve its governance and operations.
Attachment B, as submitted on file, produced by Healthy Waterways, summarises the
proposed changes. Attachment C and Attachment D, as submitted on file, respectively,
present the proposed amendments to the Constitution of Healthy Waterways Ltd and the new
Healthy Waterways Network Rules.
4.
The current Constitution, with reference to the Corporations Act 2001, requires Healthy
Waterways to pass a Special Resolution at a General Meeting to amend the Constitution.
Special Resolutions must obtain not less than 75 per cent of the vote of Healthy Waterways in
a General Meeting to pass. Council’s membership to Healthy Waterways entitles Council to
12 per cent of the total voting allotment at a General Meeting.
5.
The Establishment and Coordination Committee endorsed the proposed amendments to the
Constitution of Healthy Waterways Ltd as set out in Attachment C, as submitted on file, and
Healthy Waterways Network Rules, as set out in Attachment D, as submitted on file, at its
meeting on 31 March 2014.
6.
The Amendments to the Constitution of Healthy Waterways Ltd and Healthy Waterways
Network Rules is now referred to Council for noting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 34 -
7.
DECISION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
HEALTHY WATERWAYS LTD, as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, AND THE
HEALTHY WATERWAYS NETWORK RULES, as set out in Attachment D, submitted
on file.
NOTED
B
ADOPTION OF TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 01/14
PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
1911
152/160/1007/102
619/2013-14
8.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division provided the information
below.
9.
At its meeting of 11 February 2014, Council resolved to propose the draft Temporary Local
Planning Instrument 01/14 Protection of Residential Buildings Constructed Prior to 1911
(TLPI 01/14).
10.
The draft TLPI 01/14 is set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.
11.
By letter dated 28 March 2014 (Attachment C, submitted on file), the Deputy Premier and
Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, the Honourable Jeff Seeney, MP
advised Council that he is satisfied that the proposed TLPI 01/14 meets the statutory
requirements for a Temporary Local Planning Instrument in accordance with section 105 of
the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The Deputy Premier further advised that the Council may
proceed to adopt the TLPI 01/14.
12.
Once adopted, the TLPI 01/14 will have effect for a period of one year from its date of
adoption or until the draft new City Plan becomes effective, in which case the TLPI 01/14
will be repealed.
13.
The Divisional Manager recommended as follows with which the Committee agreed at its
meeting on 28 April 2014.
14.
DECISION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ATTACHMENT A, submitted hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO ADOPT THE DRAFT TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 01/14
PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1911
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE THAT
1.
Council, pursuant to Step 6.1 (a) of Stage 3 of Part 4 of the Statutory Guideline 01/13
Making and Amending Local Planning Instruments (the Guideline) made under the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009, adopts Temporary Local Planning Instrument 01/14
Protection of Residential Buildings Constructed Prior to 1911 as set out in
Attachment B, submitted on file.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 35 -
2.
Council directs:
(a)
that a notice of the adoption of Temporary Local Planning Instrument 01/14
Protection of Residential Buildings Constructed Prior to 1911 be given in
accordance with Step 6.A2 (b) of Stage 3 of Part 4 of the Guideline.
(b)
that copies of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument 01/14 Protection of
Residential Buildings Constructed Prior to 1911 and the notice of adoption
be given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Step 6.3 of Stage 3 of
Part 4 of the Guideline.
NOTED
C
TRAVEL PROPOSAL – 5TH ANNUAL WORLD CITIES SUMMIT,
SINGAPORE
164/855/554/44
620/2013-14
15.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
16.
A formal letter dated 5 February 2014 was received from the Singaporean Senior Minister of
State for National Development and Chairperson of the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum
2014, inviting the Lord Mayor to attend the 5th Annual World Cities Summit Mayor Forum in
Singapore.
17.
Organised by Singapore’s Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Redevelopment Authority,
the Forum is an invitation only global platform for city leaders to discuss pressing city
challenges and share best practices. Since its inauguration in 2010, it has been attended by
more than 150 cities and has become one of the largest gatherings of city leaders around the
world. This invitation includes the opportunity to participate in a World Cities Summit
Mayors Forum and organised site visits.
18.
To maximise the time of the participating Lord Mayors, the Council of Capital City Lord
Mayors (CCCLM) will also hold its quarterly meeting in Singapore on Monday 2 June 2014.
It is proposed that Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner, represent the Lord Mayor and
contribute to this meeting while attending the World Cities Summit.
19.
Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agreed
at its meeting on 5 May 2014.
20.
DECISION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS APPROVE THE DEPUTY MAYOR,
COUNCILLOR ADRIAN SCHRINNER TO ATTEND THE 5TH ANNUAL WORLD
CITIES SUMMIT AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE CCCLM MEETING IN
SINGAPORE FROM 1 TO 7 JUNE 2014 AT AN ESTIMATED COST TO COUNCIL
OF $4,645.
NOTED
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 36 -
D
OVERSEAS TRAVEL – LORD MAYOR’S BUSINESS MISSION TO
ABU DHABI, SHANGHAI, HYDERABAD AND SINGAPORE
164/855/554/45
621/2013-14
21.
The Executive Manager, Office of the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer provided the
information below.
22.
It is proposed that as the 2014 Lord Mayoral Business Mission, the Lord Mayor will lead a
delegation of business delegates to Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, Hyderabad and Singapore. This will
be the Lord Mayor’s first official visit to these cities as Lord Mayor of Brisbane.
23.
This visit will further reinforce the strong sister city relationship with Abu Dhabi and
Hyderabad. It will also cement the growing business and investment ties that Brisbane is
increasingly sharing with Singapore and Shanghai.
24.
This visit will also provide the platform to further promote Brisbane’s profile and branding, as
well as associated events such as the G20, Asia Pacific Cities Summit and the Asia Pacific
region Screen Awards.
25.
The Lord Mayor’s Business Mission in September last year generated $230 million in
confirmed business to date. The focus of this mission will be on promoting local business by
connecting them with relevant businesses in key markets throughout the Asia Pacific.
Implications of proposal
26.
This business mission would further cement the business connections, opportunities and
relationships between the particular cities and their business communities, and provide a
platform for strong business growth.
27.
The mission will also enable individual Brisbane companies to explore business and
investment opportunities with Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, Hyderabad and Singapore.
Financial Impact
28.
It is proposed that travel costs will be funded from the International Relations vote code:
50018 (Internal Order) 622200 (SAP Code)
These costs will also be offset by an administration fee to be paid by participating delegates:
Detailed estimated costing is as follows:
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk
Mr Greg Bowden
Director of Strategy, Communication and Economic Development
Two Brisbane City Council Support Staff
$14,500
$14,500
$29,000
29.
Accordingly, the Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
its meeting on 5 May 2014.
30.
DECISION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE THE LORD MAYOR
COUNCILLOR GRAHAM QUIRK, THE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY,
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 37 -
COMMUNICATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TWO SUPPORTING
STAFF TO TRAVEL TO ABU DHABI, SHANGHAI, HYDERABAD AND
SINGAPORE FROM 9 TO 20 SEPTEMBER 2014. Costs will be offset by an
administration fee to be paid by participating delegates.
NOTED
ADJOURNMENT:
617/2013-14
At that time, 4.05pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor
WINES, 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 4.06pm.
UPON RESUMPTION:
CONSIDERATION
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING
RECESS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the
Autumn Recess 2014, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Just a point of clarification. There were a number of questions on notice that the
chairs were asked this morning at committees that they endeavour to give back.
Will that information be through the debate or did you want to handle that before
the—
Chairman:
Well if questions on notice were raised during a committee meeting, that's not
linked to the Council meeting as such. I'm not aware of what those are. LORD
MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, thank you. Madam Chairman, there are four items contained
in this particular report, the first of those being the report of the audit committee
meeting of 13 March 2014. Madam Chairman, the item B is a lease of part of
Enoggera Memorial Park to the Hillbrook Anglican School Limited. So, Madam
Chairman, this land is that of sport and recreation land. It is, Madam Chairman,
an opportunity here to provide facilities for the Everton Park Junior Rugby
Union Club. It is an opportunity for that club to receive from the school directly
assistance to the tune of some $90,000 for the provision of new water tanks and
storage by the club. There is also an annual field maintenance contribution of
$8500 in year one and that will be increased annually by the consumer price
index.
So what we have in this situation is a lease which provides for the opportunity
for the school themselves, Madam Chairman, to have additional facilities by way
of a building but which is linked, Madam Chairman, in terms of the types of
events and so forth at that facility which would provide outdoor recreation
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 38 -
program. It will provide meeting space opportunities. So what we have here on
this sport and recreation land is a win win in terms of that outcome. It's
something that is strongly supported by, obviously the school, but more
importantly by the club, Madam Chairman.
The next item, item C is also tied in with B in the sense that it is an extension of
lease over that particular land. It provides for a 20-year lease opportunity,
Madam Chairman. It provides also for a resubmitting in terms of that lease
whereby the school, that's located adjacent to the new leased area, and so again,
we see some certainty for that land going forward and opportunity for the club to
gain some terrific long term benefits out of that arrangement.
It's a good deal, also obviously, for ratepayers in the sense that they will no
longer be required to provide for additional facilities and so forth on that site
with the contributions that are available to the club via the school.
So, Madam Chairman, that then takes us through to the budget review. This
budget review, of course, is the third budget review (3BR). It is a continued
commitment, Madam Chairman, to the strong financial management that has
seen Brisbane retain one of the strongest credit ratings in the state. That's a credit
rating which we are committed to retaining. Madam Chairman, it's been clear
through the financial reports presented to the Council this year that we are an
Administration that is willing and able to respond to the changing needs of our
community. We have brought forward projects during the year such as the two
open level crossings, Telegraph Road corridor and the Robinson Road, Geebung
corridor, Madam Chairman.
These are very significant works but of course make a significant difference in
relation to the lives of the people out in those parts of our city. Madam
Chairman, the Telegraph Road corridor, the work is progressing extremely well
out there as well and there'll be more news on that in the not-too-distant future.
Madam Chairman, we're seeing, of course, the $4 million upgrade to the
Brunswick Street Mall. We've invested even more into some of these project
areas. This has resulted in, Madam Chairman, across the board a $20 million
reduction in materials and service costs to Council, as seen in the statement of
comprehensive income.
Particularly acknowledged are savings in road projects and also bikeways where
these savings have been reinvested to ensure that Brisbane residents get even
more under our $120 million better bikeways for Brisbane commitment. Some of
those savings have included Beckett Road. We did a widening there of Saturn
Crescent to Albany Creek Road. It was $1.53 million. Progress Road Stage 3,
Boundary Road to Centenary Highway. That was $2.492 million and $2.1
million in construction of new buses which were achieved by the reduction in
costs of bus bodies. So all of these, Madam Chairman, are significant genuine
savings in terms of the Council operations.
We've also invested in additional funds in projects such as the Anzac Square
refurbishment. That's outlined there on page 12. We've seen Legacy Way on
page 16 due to the progress of that project and extra funding also for the Call
Centre. So there's again resourcing during the storm season saw extra demand
around that, page 24 it's outlined. As part of the review, Madam Chairman, we
also aligned the budget to take into account actual expenditure. That is, for
example, on page 20, Partnering for Public Netball Court grants paid out to all
applications received which was an amount of some $189,000 less than the
funding available in Program 5 on page 22.
We saw the relocation of an SES depot, no longer needed to accommodate the
BaT (Bus and Train) Tunnel. That saves us some $200,000. Realignment of
funds across several years to reflect Council's funding agreement with the
Federal Government for stormwater harvesting, on page 13. Madam Chairman,
finally there is one point that I would like to bring to the Chamber's attention.
That is, as part of the 3BR, Council has also followed the Queensland Audit
Officer's direction to recognise the value of work completed on State
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 39 -
Government and public utility assets as part of the Legacy Way project.
So especially because these were State and public utility assets that needed work
to facilitate the Legacy Way project. They don't sit on Council's balance sheet
and Council cannot show an increase in asset value for the work done. Therefore
it has been recognised as a $124.6 million expense, as an accounting treatment.
Madam Chairman, these are some of the key points in regard to this budget
review but I know that Councillor SIMMONDS obviously will look forward to
providing further information as this debate unfolds.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair. We're dealing with four items today, I'm going to spend
most of my time allocated to the third budget review which Labor councillors
will not be supporting today.
Seriatim - Clauses A and D
Councillor DICK requested that Clauses A and D, REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON
13 MARCH 2014 and 2013-14 BUDGET – THIRD REVIEW, respectively, be taken seriatim, en bloc, for
voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Look, just on the audit committee report, I don't really think the LORD MAYOR
touched no that as well. We are getting more and more concerned that there is
appearing to be less and less, I guess, reporting from this important committee.
We know that the committee went for two and a half hours. The CFO update
included Brisbane Transport structural and operational savings and the sale of
toll concessions to QML (Queensland Motorways Ltd).
Now, once again, rather than just dot pointing what it is, we think it's important,
Labor councillors think it's important that that information actually be released
or certainly provided to all councillors. These are significant projects and
significant structural—particularly when it comes to the operational savings. We
know that this Administration is spending less on public transport, $16 million
cuts, we know they are committed to public transport and the delivery of
adequate service for our city.
Why, I repeat, was this information kept secretive? This is the sorts of
information that ratepayers should know to make informed choices and also to
be aware of just exactly what this Administration is up to. The 2013-14
Assurance Services Plan update. Minor updates were made to the plan, I'm
hopeful that Councillor SIMMONDS will outline exactly what they were. I
understand that independent members were targeted for a briefing.
Now what did that briefing consist of? Why was that necessary? What are the
projects and what are the things that the independent members of an audit
committee who are overseeing some of the most important decisions in our
organisation are receiving but once again are kept under lock and key.
Items B and C which are the lease of part of the Enoggera Memorial Park to the
Hillbrook Anglican School and also the lease of the part of Enoggera Memorial
Park to the Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club. Look, Labor councillors
don't have any huge objection to this, this seems to be a win win for both the
school and the Rugby Union club. I certainly hope that we can look at similar
projects if required and we use this as an example, because I know that there are
some locations and some similar areas where we may want to investigate these
sorts of arrangements. So we won't be opposing those today.
I certainly don't want this to become a regular pattern for this Administration,
but I think when there is negotiated outcomes and when there is a win win
situation, we should always be open to positive and proactive suggestions to help
our independent and private schools and also our sporting clubs.
Look, item D is, of course, the 2013-14 budget review, the third review. Now
despite the spin and nonsense coming out of the LNP today about sound
financial management, well I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 40 -
when you add up what is actually being taken off the table here it's around $70.4
million in so-called savings but also projects that are simply now begin pushed
out to the never-never or not happening at all.
Today, Madam Chair, the Labor councillors give an F as a fail for how this
budget is being managed. Because this is where the real proof of the LNP's spin
is coming to fruition. We hear and we'll hear it again in a couple of weeks, all of
these great projects, all of these great announcements, all of this so-called new
money but when in fact, now when you look through the paperwork and you go
through the documentation, you see broken promise after broken promise and
cuts and reduction in service delivery for the ratepayers of our city.
Not surprised they've wheeled this in on Federal budget day. It's bad news for
them, that's why they were so defensive today in question time talking about
Labor, not talking about or justifying why they are providing these cuts. I know
why they're doing it, because the budget is a mess. I know that they have to find
the money in the lead up to our own budget that they've got to cobble together
and find the savings and roll over to make sure that the budget stacks up.
Well, Madam Chair, the proof was today when Labor's shadow chairs asked
questions to all the relevant chairpersons and they could not even answer the
most basic of questions, because they don't feel like they have to. They believe
that whatever they do is right and should never be questioned. Well I've got
some questions today. Now we know Councillor BOURKE is ambitious and we
know that he'd be the first one in the queue saying, I'll cut the programs for you,
I'll find the money for you in his desperation to be approved by the leadership of
the LNP.
Now we look at—and I'll go through the line items one by one, Madam Chair,
for reference for you on the pages. On 2.1.1.1.1 the questions is—which you
couldn't answer today in the committee—why is it costing $1.758 million less
than you claimed at budget time for the Federal Carbon Tax administration?
Remember all the spin and nonsense—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
—about why the rates had to go up, why we had to do this. Big bad Labor's new
tax. Remember that? Remember this dishonest tax? Well we're seeing a few
dishonest taxes coming in tonight down the line, I tell you.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
We said that we had to do it. So no answers around that because it was all
rubbish and spin. They did that to cover up their financial mess. Why has $1.05
million been cut from the budget out of 2.1.4.2 in the Key City Park Upgrades?
So which park upgrades aren't occurring? Then you go on—and the answers
today were astounding, when Councillor Amanda COOPER was asked, why is it
costing a lazy another $1.14 million needed for the new City Plan? Her response
was, well that's what it cost.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well we budgeted for something, we budgeted for something, we said this is
what it would cost, talk about sound financial management. Oh well, we'll write
a lazy $1 million, that's what it costs. No reason why, no justification. I'll say to
my ratepayers, you know what? Your views weren't heard during the City Plan
but for the privilege of you being ignored, we're going to charge you another
$1.1 million. Not good enough, Madam Chair.
We know that in the LORD MAYOR's speech there'll be the cut and paste job
about how great they are delivering the SCIPs (Suburban Centre Improvement
program). Not this year, we're moving $2.3 million out of the budget into next
year. Next year, that's right. Well which project would this be for? That's what
we need an answer today. We know when it comes to the worst, the worst
probably is project delivery without being on time or running over, it's
Councillor ADAMS. Absolutely Councillor ADAMS.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 41 -
I need to get this on the record today because of course, where are the easy hits?
Always in the Richlands Ward, that's where we go first to start cutting and
slicing and dicing. Now this item in 4.5.1.1—and Councillor ADAMS has a long
track record of cutting service in my ward—we've got Skate Facilities rephasing—this is a favourite word—of capital and expenses of $350,000 and then
expenses for $50,000, rolling over to next year.
Now I suspect this is for the upgrade for the DJ Sherrington Skate Park. Now I
can tell you that over 1,000 people signed a petition for these improvements, that
the money was allocated two years ago, that the officers' recommendation was to
fix the major and minor drainage of that skate park, that has not been able to use
for three years. What's the answer for the chair? Yes, I remember in the
questioning last week, we're going to do it this year, yes here's the money, it's all
allocated, nope, rolling over to 2014-15 again.
This one, the Richlands site development, cover over expense to meet project
milestones, which is another $100,000 which should be for the master plan for
the old Richlands State School, which the Council has had for a number of years
now, still nothing done. Absolutely nothing done under Councillor ADAMS'
watch. The piece de resistance, the absolute gift that keeps giving—or keeps
disappearing I should say, under 4.5.2.1, the Southside Performing Arts
Complex.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
This is nearly as good as the Jamboree Community Hub, I tell you.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well I'm not getting to Councillor MATIC, I need to square off this first off,
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
So here is. It's a bit like the mystery business observers travelling with the
LORD MAYOR. Where is the location? Big mystery, big secret. It was going to
be here, it was going to be there. How many years are we going on about this?
Get on and do your job and deliver the projects that you say you're going to do.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, your time has expired.
622/2013-14
At that point, it was moved by Councillor NEWTON, seconded by Councillor ABRAHAMS, that
Councillor DICK be granted an extension of time. Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion was
declared lost.
Thereupon, Councillors DICK and ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in
the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 8 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
Chairman:
Further debate on the E&C report? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the E&C report before us
today. In particular, I'd just like to mention items B, C and D. Briefly just with
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 42 -
respect to item B and C, this is a new type of lease arrangement from what I can
see where we are entering into a community lease with a public company. I note
that the company in this case is a school and that the school does have a broad
community purpose.
I certainly won't be opposing this matter, Madam Chairman, but I would just
urge caution in looking at this and making sure that the benefits are there both
for the small rugby league club who will now have a smaller lease and who are
reliant on funding from the school to support their activities and the management
of the grounds. I hope, as it is intended in this lease arrangement, that it benefits
the community and the rugby league club as well as the school. I do think that
this lease should be monitored closely to ensure that no one loses out with the
advent of a large school moving onto Council land and taking over a community
lease. Certainly, I hope that all the benefits that are expressed in this lease do
come to fruition.
But I'm rising mainly to speak today on the third budget review which I hope
that every councillor speaks on today because—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—yet again, Madam Chairman, we find that one day of the year, on budget day,
the LORD MAYOR stands up and proclaims all of the projects and services that
he will deliver for the city and every single other day, 364 days of the year, he
cuts, carries over, re-phases and forgets to deliver those projects and services
that he has promised on the one day of the year he announces them.
The third budget review is another example of the failure of this Administration's
economic management. We've heard them today, LNP councillors today saying,
don't look at what we say—look at what they say, look at what they do. Now,
nothing can be further from the truth. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR has shared
an absolute truism with us. If we examine this LNP Administration's record, we
can see that they are continually cutting services and programs and projects that
they have promised only weeks or months earlier to undertake.
Now in this third budget review, there are actually quite a few projects that were
election and budget commitments that this Administration is being unable to
deliver in a timely way. Now I know that the finance chair will hop up at the end
of this and say, oh god, they don't know what they're doing, they're not cuts,
we're just re-phasing them, the new catch word, re-phasing. Madam Chairman,
we know from experience that when these projects are rolled over, they keep
being rolled over and then not being delivered. That, Madam Chairman, is a cut.
It is a cut in this quarter to the budget, there is a promise it will be rolled over
into the next financial year but then we see the further cuts and the further
changes that are made in the next quarterly budget.
This Administration cannot be trusted to deliver its projects in a timely and
efficient way. That is being borne out quarter after quarter in terms of the third
budget review and the major changes that are being undertaken. There are a
couple of things that I would like to mention and they're ones that I have—I've
been talking about for the past three years. Yet again, this Administration has
made deep and unjustifiable cuts to this Council's drainage budget.
In the annual budget in June, the LORD MAYOR announced a total of
$15.8 million for major drainage projects and stormwater ICP projects, 13 of
them in total. In this third budget review alone, $3.4 million is being cut from
expenditure this year and being rolled over on a vague promise that it will be
delivered next year. Now we know for the past three years that each quarter there
are simply more cuts. More cuts, cut after cut. That's a 21 per cent reduction in
the promised expenditure for this year.
You cannot trust this Administration to deliver on its promises and you cannot
trust this Administration to get the projects that this city urgently needs for
drainage. Drainage has been cut year after year, less and less is being spent, with
80 per cent of the funds going on the northside and 20 per cent going on the
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 43 -
southside. That's inequitable, that's mismanagement and I don't think that's
something that this Administration should be proud of.
The next one, this Administration has made much of its important response to
the Flood Royal Commission and disaster planning. Now, Madam Chairman,
there is an $800,000 cut to our responses to the Flood Royal Commission, to
flood planning and disaster planning. That's in one quarter. That's not good
enough. We're in the middle of a storm season where we are advertising and
telling the public to be ready and yet behind closed doors, this Administration is
cutting the Flood Royal Commission response expenditure disaster planning and
floor recovery.
It's three years on, we should be further advanced than continuing to roll over
expenditure so constantly. We've also heard today that there are massive cuts to
the bikeways projects. Now this is one of the LORD MAYOR's signature budget
and election promises. At the budget in June this year, he announced
$16.7 million for bikeways projects and since that time, he has cut $3.6 million
in this quarter for bikeway projects.
Now to me, Madam Chairman, there is a question that needs to be asked. What
projects have been cut? Now it was asked this morning in committee and
Councillor Peter MATIC had no idea at all. He is the responsible chairman,
20 per cent of his budget is being cut and he could not explain to the councillors
in his own committee where 20 per cent of his budget was going.
Well we know it's gone poof, up in the air, we might get it on a promise next
year but most likely we will not. You cannot trust this Administration. One day
of the year they announce what they are doing and 364 days of the year they talk
about abolishing it.
Now the other concerns that I have, Madam Chairman, also relate to things like
the Carbon Tax which I raised in question time today. I'm glad I got the question
up because the LORD MAYOR told me, my question about whether or not the
1.7 per cent of rates that this Council charges the ratepayers of this city, whether
it will be reimbursed to them through a rates cut when the Carbon Tax is
abolished was, and I quote, premature.
This budget review indicates that Council is making a saving of nearly
$1.8 million on the administration of the carbon tax. Council is taking money
from ratepayers to cover that cost and it is making a saving on it. Those funds
need to be accounted for very clearly, the LORD MAYOR needs to make sure
that rates are reduced by the amount of savings that are being made against the
carbon tax which we know is being cut by the Abbott Government.
His continuous denials of the importance of this for our community undermines
the integrity of this LORD MAYOR's Administration when he goes out and tells
people that 1.9 per cent of the cost of the rates is down to the Carbon Tax yet
we're not spending that money on carbon tax administration. That's taking with
one hand and not giving back with the other and that's not on, Madam Chairman.
It gets worse as well. Little things are being cut in this budget, but important
things. Fifty five per cent of the LORD MAYOR's signature disability policy is
being cut in this year. He announced $10 million in June for the disability
upgrade for public transport and he is cutting in this quarter alone $5.5 million.
Not good enough. There are also cuts to our libraries and the delivery of library
services, there's cuts to public toilets. One point six million dollars was
announced in June and in this quarter, $200,000 is being cut—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—not good enough.
Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to support in particular items A
and D of this report. Firstly, to the Audit Committee. Well this is a pretty
standard stump speech that Councillor DICK rolls out and I'm happy to roll out
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 44 -
my stump speech again. If you would like updates on any of these issues, he has
only to ask. The updates that these audit committee members are receiving are
regarding the financial treatment of these various items. They are not decision
points of progress reports.
In particular, just to emphasise that point, I note that he singled out the Brisbane
Transport structural and operational savings and said, well, these must be secret
changes. Well they're so secret that they were a line item, a project line item in
our budget this year. They are so secret that they are line items in the 3BR (third
budget review) before him if he would like to read the document, Madam
Chairman. So there is an example of where there is plenty of information
available if he would simply care to avail himself of it.
In relation to item D's 3BR, of course I'm very keen to support it. I'm happy to
deal with the issues—a number of issues that were raised by those opposite so
far. As I have said and I continue to reinforce, this 3BR is all about achieving the
core fundamentals of what this Administration is about and that's a balanced
budget to be fiscally responsible and to be transparent and accountable, Madam
Chairman, and that's what this document is all about.
I want to make some overall observations, as I always do. We see, if you look at
the financial statements at the very beginning of the 3BR, rates revenue has been
revised down slightly by 0.3 per cent to align with actual growth while forecast
infrastructure revenue has also decreased and we've seen fees from building and
development applications up $4.465 million, which is a promising sign for the
future but just goes to show that the best endeavours of forecasting, Madam
Chairman, are only those; best endeavours.
The Council would also see that we've realised the $30 million procurement
savings targets as part of the budget, which is an excellent result. It's something
again, a discipline that we try and instil in our officers. I note that one of the
great criticisms of Councillor JOHNSTON, the independent councillor, as she
was waving and flailing her arms around was the better bikeways program and
the so-called, quote unquote, cuts there, Madam Chairman. In fact, these are
some of the procurement savings.
So this is a great example where when we go out to procurement, for example in
the Moggill Creek Stage 2, it came in $650,000 under budget. Gateway North,
$500,000. Bicentennial stage 3, $300,000. So this is a great example of where by
holistic procurement and holistic procurement practices, that we can achieve
savings. Those savings can now be reinvested back into the bikeway program
because, despite what Councillor JOHNSTON says, our promise is to deliver
$120 million worth of bikeways this four year term and that's exactly what we
will deliver.
I also note, as I noted earlier, that we have kept a tight rein on expenses,
something I like to draw to the Chamber's attention fairly regularly. Only a
0.7 per cent increase on the six months to 31 December from the same period
last year. In particular, one of our underlying expenses, our employment costs
have been kept under control with an increase of just 2.43 per cent for the six
months to 31 December on the same period last year, which included of course a
2 per cent EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreement) rise. So that's an excellent
result.
So consistent are these results that sometimes it can be difficult to put them into
perspective, so I thought I'd go back and look at what the Labor councillors
managed to achieve when they were in administration. In the 2001-02 financial
year, for example, the increase in employee costs was 5.3 per cent or
$21 million. Over the same time, they managed to decrease the capital budget by
28 per cent, Madam Chairman. How do you manage that? How do you manage
to have a 5.3 per cent increase in employee costs with a 28.8 per cent decrease in
the capital budget.
In 2002-03 they increased employee costs by 6.14 per cent, Madam Chairman,
6.14 per cent by comparison the capital budget only increased by some
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 45 -
$20 million when that 6 per cent increase was a $26 million increase. This is
why, Madam Chairman, this Administration continues to achieve a strong credit
rating.
If I can go into a response of the Labor councillors opposite, I note the same
rhetoric they use over and over and over again, and that is they mistake savings,
legitimate savings, for quote unquote, cuts, Madam Chairman. What they forget,
too, is that this is a living, breathing document, the budget. Again, I'm
surprised—again, I am surprised by the naivety of those opposite that they think
when we deliver a budget on one day of the year, that's it, life is freeze-framed
from that moment forward.
This is simply not the case, it's simply not the case and what they ignore,
consciously ignore, and what I think any independent observer would
acknowledge was how much we have brought forward as well. We took an
unprecedented step in having a special budget review just to bring forward some
$13.3 million worth of accelerated expenditure. So don't tell us, don't tell us that
all we do is whittle back in the budget when we bring such significant amounts
of money forward, when we accelerate projects like Legacy Way, like the
Robinson Road rail crossing, like the Geebung rail crossing, Madam Chairman.
These are all projects, like the Brunswick Street Mall, these are all projects that
have been brought forward since the budget was brought down last year, thanks
to this Administration. So, as I said, I said I would respond to some of their
concerns. In relation to the Carbon Tax administration cost, Madam Chairman,
this is what—this is a small part of what makes up the impact of the Carbon Tax
on this administration. When the LORD MAYOR talked about the impact of the
Carbon Tax as part of the budget a couple of years ago, he talked about not only
these administration costs, which basically is council officers filling out forms
and meeting the legislation, but there was also a 0.7 per cent CPI increase,
according to the Federal Government's own figures.
There's the increasing gate fees at Swanbank, Madam Chairman, and of course—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—and ever-increasing liability at Rochedale from Brisbane residents' own
rubbish, Madam Chairman. So don't tell me that the Carbon Tax is not a big
impact on residents, Madam Chairman, it goes on millions more than what
even—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—was outlined originally, Madam Chairman. The longer that their Labor
colleagues in the senate keep it in place—
Chairman:
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—the more harmful it will be to Brisbane residents. The more harmful it will be
to Brisbane residents. Get on the phone, I urge you, please, urge your Federal
colleagues to vote for tis repeal in the senate.
In relation to the—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
It's all right, Madam Chairman, I'm only trying to answer their questions. So they
can talk as long as they want. Key city paths upgrades, Madam Chairman, was
mentioned again by Councillor DICK. I can inform the Chamber that it's due to
Cathedral Square Project commencing next year. That is on track. In terms of
stormwater drainage rehabilitation, well again, Madam Chairman, the councillor
opposite talks about drainage cuts, who was the administration who brought
forward four years' worth of backflow devices into just two? Who were the ones
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 46 -
who even bothered to have if in their election costings? That's right, it was this
Administration.
They couldn't even put it in their own election costings, Madam Chairman, so
we are spending, in reality, far more on drainage and flood proofing this city,
Madam Chairman, than those opposite even planned to do at the last election. I
shall continue on. Increase in the City Plan costs. So in relation to the City Plan,
well this is where we have brought money forward for the implementation. I
congratulate Councillor COOPER and her officers on getting through the City
Plan, Madam Chairman, in an efficient timeframe that has now meant that we've
had to bring this money forward so that we can start the implementation phase as
soon as possible.
In terms of the Southside Performing Arts Centre, Madam Chairman, Councillor
ADAMS informs me she answered that in committee. In relation to the $350,000
for the skate facilities, again, yes, this is the Inala skate facility. That money has
been carried over because consultation will—is due to start in June and that will
take a number of weeks, Madam Chairman, meaning the project will start in the
next financial year.
So you see, Madam Chairman, despite their protests, they have yet to find one
example, Madam Chairman, of what you would call cuts when in fact what they
are is genuine savings. You've seen officers deliver projects under budget,
you've seen them realise procurement savings, Madam Chairman. Well I take
Councillor DICK's interjection—the opposite is what you get under the Labor
administration and you get headlines like this, ‘Bus lane blows its budget’,
‘Brisbane ratepayers will end up paying twice as much for a bus lane along
Coronation Drive than the $16 million city hall quoted three years ago.’
Twice as much, Madam Chairman, for a project. That is their record of delivery
and I'm afraid sometimes, Madam Chairman, that this Administration is so intent
on achieving sound financial management that that kind of comparison is lost.
The other thing I want to draw to the Chamber's attention is what the LORD
MAYOR has stated. That's what we've done around the Legacy Way project
associated works. Again this is to do with—
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired. Further debate, Councillor
SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to talk on the third budget review. In doing so, I
just want—I want to thank Councillor SIMMONDS for the limited answers that
he's given today to some of the questions that have been asked. I wish that we
could get more comprehensive responses to a number of the questions that we
have raised. Because I do remember the debate on the last quarterly budget
review, Councillor SIMMONDS standing in this Chamber and saying, simply
ask the questions and you shall receive, Madam Chair, ask and you shall receive.
I thought, well, we're going to ask. We're going to ask this time and I have to
say, I was disappointed by the ability of many of the chairs in committee this
morning to be able to answer the questions that we put to them in relation to the
budget review. I guess there's a number of issues that concern me in particular.
Obviously this budget review does show the $18 million in cuts to public
transport services in this city. We see the $15.9 million cut to Brisbane transport
and the $2 million cuts to ferry services. Councillor SIMMONDS just to take
you up on your point, they are in fact cuts.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
They are not savings, they are cuts. They are less services—
Chairman:
Through the chair thank you, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—and if Councillor SIMMONDS, through you Madam Chair, does not believe
that, I invite him to come down to the Bulimba Ferry Terminal any day of the
week and stand there with me. He talks about our concerns about—he says that
we have it confused when we say project savings are cuts, however, we know
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 47 -
full well that the $2 million removed from ferry services in this city was a cut.
There are $2 million less funding going towards provision of ferry services.
But what does this third budget review say? It says, CityCat timetable
optimisation. Transfer of expense from provide ferry services in recognition of
achieved savings.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
So when we stand here in this Chamber and say, project savings equals cuts, it's
not without comprehensive evidence to demonstrate our case. Project savings is
in fact the LNP's euphemism for project cuts.
Madam Chair, the other issue in this budget—and I note Councillor
SIMMONDS has already spoken on this so perhaps one of the relevant chairs or
in fact the LORD MAYOR may be able to answer this question when we are
summing up. The thing that stood out to me is that there—when he is summing
up. The thing that stood out to me is there is almost $27 million less revenue
projected to come to this Council as a consequence of parks, stormwater and
transport and traffic infrastructure charges.
Now I understand that infrastructure charges are what's paid and we can't control
what's paid by developers in infrastructure charges. However, someone pulled
those estimates together; someone provided advice to the LORD MAYOR when
he was formulating his budget that we were going to get a certain amount of
money in via infrastructure charges this financial year. What this third budget
review says is that we are $27 million down on our estimates when it comes to
revenue received from infrastructure charges.
That $27 million less revenue has an impact on Council's bottom line. It has an
impact on what we are able to deliver. I know the charges go into general
revenue, but general revenue is allocated towards projects as we go forward. So I
want to know what we can't do because of this revenue shortfall because
somebody got the budget estimates wrong when the budget was being
formulated. So I would really like the LORD MAYOR in his summing up
comments to answer that question in particular.
Some other questions that I have about the content of this third budget review,
and again I'll focus on Brisbane transport. There is a budget—if people turn over
to the last page, there is a budget line item called Brisbane transport tools of
trade. It was a $3.5 million budget allocation in this financial year's budget. It
has there the little note, amendment to project prioritisation. There is nothing,
then in the out years.
So I would say that it looks like that project has been cut or at least delayed
indefinitely because there is nothing in the out years. In all the other things that
have been delayed, in all the other projects that have been delayed into the next
financial year, they appear in the 2014-15 column. This tools of trade project
doesn't. Madam Chair, I would say that something that had allocated
$3.5 million in this current year's budget would have had a whole range of
benefits that were—that this project was going to delivery to this Council.
So I want to know what the unrealised benefits were. What is it? What was the
business case that saw—or what was the arguments put forward by the officers,
the department, the respective chair for including this budget in the first place
and what are we now missing out on because we aren't funding this? I also want
to know how the $200,000 in project savings was realised under the SES line
item. Because I know that there has been some funny things going on with the
State Emergency Services, particularly out at the Redfern Street Depot where
they were virtually told, not given too much notice, about the fact that they
needed to move and move very quickly.
It was just lucky almost—and I say lucky, not because I'm happy with this but
lucky because—and one person's misfortune was another person's benefit, but
we were just—the SES was lucky that the Colmslie RSL closed its doors and
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 48 -
they were able to find other accommodation. Now you cannot tell me that that
was planned—
Chairman:
Through the chair, please, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—that had to be a knee-jerk reaction. I want to know what this $200,000 in
savings actually was because if it was about accommodation and it's about
accommodation saving—accommodation because we kicked them out of the
Redfern Street Depot because we were trying to save—find savings at the East
Regional Business Centre, all of this is knee-jerk reaction in terms of a
corporate—and it says to me, our corporate accommodation program is not in
line, we're desperate to find money everywhere and we are making pretty big
decisions that are pretty nonsensical in an effort to save money.
I want some explanation on that, because it does not seem strategic, it does not
seem planned and it does not seem well thought out. Another, one, $2.1 million
savings in the bus build program. I want to know how—what those savings are.
How we have achieved those savings because I would probably think that's a
consequence of Campbell Newman cutting the amount of money coming to this
Council for the bus—for building buses in total.
If that's not the case, I would really like to hear why we have saved $2.1 million.
If it's a saving, it's a saving, I'll give it to you, but without an explanation, we are
going to ask questions. That is our job. Your job is to answer them, just as
Councillor SIMMONDS said in the last—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Would Councillor SUTTON take a question?
Councillor SUTTON:
I'm happy to answer questions, Madam Chair, but I have a lack of information
generally on this budget review because they won't give me any. But I'm
happy—
Chairman:
Is that no?
Councillor SUTTON:
But I'm happy to take questions. I'm happy to take questions.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS I—okay, go on. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I was just wondering if Councillor SUTTON realised that both of those last
items were mentioned personally by the LORD MAYOR and perhaps part of her
job should be listening to the debate.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair, if that's the case and I missed something while I was out of
the office—out of the Chamber talking to a constituent, I apologise and I'll read
the Hansard.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
I was. I was. It's about building a footpath, but, Madam Chair, I'll get to building
footpaths later on.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Congestion reduction unit. I note that it has savings—I note that there are
savings of $265,000 next to that. I want to know what those savings are because,
you know what? Wynnum Road was supposed to have some projects done on it
as part of the congestion reduction unit initiatives this financial year and from
what I have seen, they have not happened. One of them has happened, one has
happened, but there were two other stages to that congestion reduction unit
funding that was to be constructed that hasn't. So I actually don't think that's a
project saving, I think it's a change in scope.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 49 -
Councillor SUTTON:
Or cuts to the scope.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just a couple of comments about the
third budget review, Madam Chair, I want to take up a point that—a non-answer
from Councillor SIMMONDS, that's in relation to the Federal Carbon Tax
administration. The project savings are $1.758 million in this budget review,
Madam Chair. Councillor SIMMONDS said, yep, there's a saving, well what is
it, Madam Chair? What is the saving? Is it less staff? Not doing as much work or
did you just overinflate the cost of administrating the—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
—Carbon Tax at the budget last year?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
Did you just make it up? Because we know, Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR
keeps claiming, oh look, the Carbon Tax is costing this Council about
$15.8 million a year, that's how much it's costing. Then we get to place like now,
third budget review, all of a sudden we see oh no, it's not really costing that
much at all. Madam Chair, there's something going on here. There's something
very interesting and I think that part of the answer to that is in the—answer to
the question on notice today about the Carbon Tax and again there was a claim
that it's costing $15.8 million.
Madam Chair, the answer to the question on notice, it's all wishy-washy, oh no
it's based on estimates and it's all calculated. We know, Madam Chair, that what
the Administration has done is used an inflation figure based on a consumer
basket of goods to work out what the Carbon Tax is costing, Madam Chair.
We're not usual consumers, Madam Chair, this is a local government and our
basket of goods is nothing like a normal consumer.
So, Madam Chair, I'm claiming that this Council Administration is greatly
inflating the actual cost of the Carbon Tax, Madam Chair, that's what I'm saying.
I think it's really interesting to see what's happened in the last couple of years,
because remember when the LORD MAYOR first made this claim about the
$15.8 million, which clearly has dropped today, he started putting on the rates
notices that the impact of the Federal Government's Carbon Tax on the
ratepayers of Brisbane is an increase of 1.9 per cent on rates on average.
Madam Chair, that happened for about four quarters then, Madam Chair, you
know what happened? Someone in the LORD MAYOR's office got this idea,
hang on a second, Tony Abbott's out there saying he's going to scrub the Carbon
Tax, aren't the ratepayers going to say, we want our 1.9 per cent back? Aren't
they going to say that?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
They deserve it back. Well, Madam Chair, we've asked the LORD MAYOR the
question about that 1.9 per cent, he says, oh, we'll look into the future, we'll see
what happens, the Carbon Tax might stay there. Well, Madam Chair, I don't
think the Carbon Tax is staying at all, Madam Chair. You know what's coming?
Fuel excise tax increase, Madam Chair. Do you think the LNP Administration's
going to put on the rates notice, 1.9 per cent of your rates is as a result of Tony
Abbott's increase to the fuel excise?
No, Madam Chair, they won't be doing that. They'll be caught out—that'll be the
test. That'll be the test to see how genuine they were when they put this notice on
rates notices about the impact of the Carbon Tax. Let's see how genuine they are
when that fuel tax excise in increased. Will they put on there how much extra
that's costing ratepayers?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
We know this Council spends a fortune, millions and millions of dollars on fuel,
but will they be putting on the rates notice how much that's costing ratepayers?
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 50 -
No, Madam Chair, they won't be doing that, Madam Chair. They've been
exposed here and we can see some of the exposure in this third budget review.
That $1.758 million, Madam Chair, of savings, well what is it? What is it? You
just got it wrong, you just made it up, Madam Chair. Unless there's an
explanation coming, that's all that ratepayers can think as well.
They've made up these—and inflated these costs of the Carbon Tax to make
themselves look good and, Madam Chairman, now they're about to be exposed
because Tony Abbott's going to increase that fuel excise, Madam Chair, and
they're not going to put that on the rates notice.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. Obviously the third budget review, we put some
questions in committee today and can I tell you, Madam Chair, we didn't get
many answers at all.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
It was let's avoid giving answers. In fact, it was interesting to note before
Councillor SIMMONDS giving an explanation for one of the questions that was
asked of Councillor MATIC in regards to, can you tell us which bikeways have
been cut in the $3.6 million loss of funding that we'd seen from the bikeway
program. Councillor MATIC couldn't answer it. In fact, Councillor MATIC took
the question on notice. Then we have Councillor SIMMONDS there saying that
it's actually a saving. So Councillor MATIC was not even aware that that was a
saving in his own program. Councillor SIMMONDS, maybe you can give
Councillor MATIC some tips on how to read a budget.
Madam Chair, this budget is about a government that can't deliver, or they won't
deliver, and they have a massive debt problem. So this is a government, I repeat
that, that can't deliver, that won't deliver and has a massive debt problem.
Certainly that's being seen out in the suburbs by residents who are noticing a
distinct cut to their services and to what they expect Brisbane City Council to
deliver.
What we're seeing now is that the cuts are being done now so that they can be reannounced in the next budget. It's sloppy, it's slack and it's showing that the
current Administration have lost the game. One of the things I'd like to bring up
in my ward is about the toilet upgrade program, and that's 1.4.3.1. That's been
cut by $200,000. Now I listened with interest before as Councillor BOURKE
talked about the wonderful program that the LORD MAYOR had introduced
about having parks that catered for all kids and how the LORD MAYOR was a
man of the people.
Well that LORD MAYOR who's a man of the people has not been able to
replace a burnt out toilet at Acacia Ridge for over one year now because there's
been no funding for those kids with disabilities to have a toilet to replace the
burnt out toilet there. I think that is shocking, shocking. It's not good enough that
we have to wait 18 months—18 months for a burnt out toilet to be replaced.
In fact, they had to wait one year for a burnt out toilet to be demolished. The
residents of Acacia Ridge and Archerfield are certainly noticing that toilet, or
that lack of a toilet, LORD MAYOR. I think it's a real indictment on yourself,
because I did write to you, that you haven't replaced that facility. That basic
facility for kids with a disability.
But let's look at traffic and transport. Cycling is something that this Council
prides itself on. In fact, the safety of cyclists is something that it talks about a lot,
but even though it talks about it a lot, it's cut almost $0.5 from that particular
program. $0.5 million cut from safety for cyclists. Madam Chair, it's no wonder
that the chairperson of the committee today didn't want to answer that question.
He didn't want to explain about safety and he didn't want to explain about what's
happened to that funding for cyclists.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 51 -
But, Madam Chair, we also have the enhancing networks through new
infrastructure. Councillor SUTTON raised this point before. The Bulimba Ferry
Terminal, that upgrade has been delayed. Another $5 million. The CityCat stop
at Milton, once again, a $356,000 carry-over, hasn't been done. We even have,
three years after the January 2011 floods, a carry-over of over $9.5 million. A
carry-over of $9.5 million three years after a flood event. Once again, we know
the ferry services have been cut by $2 million and the public know they've been
cut by $2 million. This Administration is not the friends of public transport
users.
Madam Chair, we're seeing a cut in strategic bus services. That was done—that
was cut by $800,000. Once again, could we get an explanation of why that had
to be cut by $800,000? The chairperson didn't want to answer that.
Optimising transport operations cut by $18 million in this Budget by
$3.26 million. Madam Chair, it's not good enough that we're having a cut to
public transport and it's even worse that the chairperson couldn't explain where
those cuts were, how many staff have lost their jobs, in fact what was happening
with those cuts to the city's services.
Madam Chair, this Budget is really about cutting services. It's certainly the
underlying mantra of the LNP at the state and federal levels and it's being
reflected here in this Council.
Madam Chair, they can't manage a budget and they haven't been able to manage
a budget and this is a sheer example of that. They don’t know or want to hide
what is happening which is why the committees are so poor and the chairpersons
are so poor, particularly in public transport, with being able to answer anything
about what's going on in public transport.
Madam Chair, these cuts are being recognised by the community. They know
that this Administration, like any Liberal National Party administration, is about
cutting services and, Madam Chair, I pick a sense of fear up in the members on
that side of the Chamber because they know that the residents of Brisbane are
aware of their cuts and waking up to what they're doing to the services for
Brisbane residents.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to highlight some of the issues that pertain
to the areas of interest for me and in my ward and in my capacity of shadow for
planning.
But, Madam Chair, first of all you have heard from this side of the Chamber that
we believe this Budget review is where you see that the Budget presented by the
LORD MAYOR in June over-inflated the cost of projects deliberately so that at
this time—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS I would ask you to withdraw that comment, that's an
offensive comment.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, it was over the top, I do withdraw—
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
I didn't actually mean to say that—what does seem extraordinary how many
projects, however, have been—had savings against them at a time when this
Budget sets the scene for the projects that have been delivered and offsets the
projects that have not been delivered.
Madam Chair, why you can see that there has been some giving and taking,
delivering well and certainly failing on others in this project, is because there is a
whole new language ‘re-phasing’ rather than ‘carry over’. It says it all as to this
Budget being highlighted by the number of projects that are being carried over
because they have not been delivered.
But, Madam Chair, let's go first to the project of Future Brisbane. In Future
Brisbane Councillor SCHRINNER got up and defended Councillor COOPER, so
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 52 -
when he said there is an increase of $1.1 million, he argued that that was because
the timing of that project, the delivery of the new CityPlan, is so forward that it
needed to bring forward money for the next stage of releasing the new City Plan.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS for the sake of correction I think you meant Councillor
SIMMONDS not Councillor SCHRINNER. Councillor SCHRINNER hasn't
spoken on this item.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you very much. I am so glad you brought me up. That is what I know is
my Achilles tendon but I really did not mean to make in error.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
It is actually the tendon that goes to get an Achilles heel, okay, so you really
have to have the medical knowledge, so on that one I will state that I was
accurate, absolutely.
But, Madam Chair, this should not take away from the seriousness of the point
that I am making. The new City Plan is requiring $1.1 million in this third
Budget review. Councillor SIMMONDS—and I think I've got the right name
this time—said that was bringing forward because the new City Plan is advanced
but, Madam Chair, when I went back to the Budget there was no $1.1 million in
2014-15 budget. There was no Budget to bring forward because the project is so
advanced. I think that Councillor Simmonds’ answer was a little glib and
therefore I ask why is there an additional $1.1 million expenditure that has not
been budgeted against the new City Plan either this year or in the forward
projection in this third Budget review.
Madam Chair, the other issue I would like to bring up and that is where it comes
to the guiding Brisbane's development, the operating costs. There Councillor
SIMMONDS again said this is a wonderful indication that we have got $4.8
million addition in revenue, and I agree. That falls well that there is a large
amount of development in the city and it also says that they're high level.
Madam Chair, I'm very aware of that. I believe many of those that are in my
ward, as you can see from the cranes that are up in South Brisbane.
I would wish to know if those high level applications will be brought to
committee and I throw that in. But the other one is, if there is so many extra
developments, why are we seeing such a deficiency in the budgeted expenditure
from the infrastructure charges. Madam Chair, there is a difference of $27
million in infrastructure charges; $10.8 million that we thought we're getting in
traffic and transport that isn't there; $11 million in community network that we
thought was going to be in this Budget that isn't there.
Now, Madam Chair, I realise there is a disconnect from when a development
application comes in and when the infrastructure charges come in, but that
increase isn't sufficient to justify $27 million missing in infrastructure charges.
Also, the core of every one of these programs is because the infrastructure
charges haven’t been delivered, therefore the projects are taken away. That
doesn't seem to take into account the lag between the infrastructures coming in
and the projects being delivered on the ground. That lag is significant; it is a long
delay because you have heard me many times saying that developers are giving
the infrastructure charges and seeing nothing on the ground.
I know that Civic Cabinet is aware of one developer has advised them that they
have delivered $13.9 million over eight projects in my ward and seen nothing on
the ground, nothing on the ground.
So I don't accept the basic thrust of that $27 million to justify projects not being
done when the money has been collected anyway and has not been spent as we
can see for those projects not being on the ground.
Madam Chair, I would also then like to talk about the first program in terms of
the city Clean, Green and WaterSmart City. In that project there is a seventh of
the expected expenditure on capital that has not been delivered and is being
carried over in most cases. That is a significant amount and shows a very poor
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 53 -
budgeting in the original case at the best or you could see there was an intention
of the budget at the worst. These include is the Bulimba Creek acquisition for
$1.3 million. That is $1.2 million on maintenance and storm on Australia Day,
and, oh yes, $1.5 million on stormwater infrastructure expenditure.
But then let's go onto the transport project. In that, as Councillor JOHNSTON
has already stated, she actually said that there was a $3.6 million that hasn't been
spent. In fact it is $4 million that hasn't been spent out of $16 million on
bikeways. I believe that this is irresponsible and I am very concerned the
bikeway of some of the expenditure that is being undertaken in my ward, is to
build a pathway in Dutton Park less than 20 metres away from where there is a
shared footpath that has just been upgraded two years ago, and serves the
purpose adequately, for which there has not been one record of any bike or
pedestrian crash in the State Government records.
This is totally irresponsible expenditure and then we see a quarter of this project
not being spent anyway. There is something seriously wrong with the state of
bikeways in our city at this time.
Madam Chair, then I would just like to go through all of the re-phasings. Almost
$500,000 for safety cycle facilities; $1.1 million for RiverWalk maintenance;
$356,000 for RiverWalk maintenance and rehabilitation; CityCat stop at Milton
$3.56 million; CityCat compliance terminals $5.5 million; the Bulimba ferry
terminal upgrade $5 million; the flood damage $9.5 million carryover with
Australia Day storm event—there seems to be a lot of carryovers from Australia
day events—$500,000. Why is it carried over if in fact it is actually a one-off I
have no idea, but that's how it is being proposed in this area.
Madam Chair, as well carryovers for constructed work from the developers;
local transport network, district projects carried over in Howard Smith Wharves
$1.5 million carryover; retaining walls and embankment $1.2 million carryover;
Telegraph Road corridor $310,000 carryover; Stapleton Road $250,000
carryover.
I'm sure everyone in the Council Chamber is getting the idea of the number of
carryovers there are. Story Bridge carryover $3.8 million and I do go on the
record to say that I have been advised and I believe that money will be in the
Budget and I welcome that—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS your time has expired. Councillor NEWTON?
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise this afternoon to speak on Item D of
this report which is the third Budget review and of course this is I guess the final
review into the 2013-14 Budget coming to Council prior to the LORD MAYOR
bringing down the 2014-15 Budget next month.
So it's an insight into what's happening and what will probably be announced or
re-announced in the forthcoming Budget. These projects that were promised to
be delivered in the '13-14 financial year are getting pushed out into '14-15.
So, Madam Chair, projects being axed or carried over aren't being described in
those terms anymore. I've noticed by reading this report we're using new terms.
Re-phasing to align with project milestones is one and re-phasing to align with
contractual commitments is the other.
So who sets these project milestones, Madam Chair, who enters into these
contracts that determine these timeframes? It's this Administration, it's this
LORD MAYOR. So who's responsible for the re-phasing to meet new
milestones or meet these contractual commitments? It's this Administration. So
why are we seeing delay upon delay with a series of projects.
Madam Chair, I want to just touch on a few items that haven't been touched on
by my colleagues because I don't want to repeat matters that have already been
raised, so I won't talk about—
Chairman:
Excuse me, just a minute Councillor NEWTON. Councillor CUMMING I think
you forgot something. Thank you.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 54 -
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Well if it's so small that I don't see it then it didn't happen. Thank you. Sorry
Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
That's okay, it's good to have a bit of a laugh I suppose because if you don't
laugh you cry when you read the third Budget review, Madam Chair.
So I won't talk about the Southside Performing Arts Centre which was reliant on
a lake getting filled in at the Port of Brisbane to build a car park to ship the
building onto to get it down to the Southside. How's that for planning, so I won't
talk about that one.
But what I do want to talk about are a few other things that do concern me. One
of those is a significant carryover in capital in the ageing and disability support,
the Brisbane Access and Inclusion Plan implementation.
Now we've heard a lot in this Chamber about the importance of this plan and the
importance of investment in realising the goals of this plan, and we know in this
financial year of the $3.5 million allocated in this Budget, $2 million of that was
a carryover already from last financial year and that was for the CBD all
accessibilities playground which has been built now and opened recently, except
for the toilets, except for the toilets but anyway.
So I've got a good question, so basically the remaining bit that wasn't a carryover
from last year is pretty much getting carried over into next financial year or rephased or re-prioritised or new milestones or something, Madam Chair. So it is a
bit concerning that we're seeing such hoo-hah and fanfare for the project, but it
seems that the ability to deliver that project isn't being matched with the same
level of enthusiasm.
Councillor DICK already talked about the skate park facilities so I wanted to talk
a little bit about the community facilities improvement program. This is another
question I've noticed we've asked Councillor ADAMS to provide a bit more
information, because clearly our community facilities that Council's responsible
for are of significant importance to the community and to particularly our
community organisations, so we need to know what the delays are in relation to
delivery of that program, in as much as we do in relation to the implementation
of the Brisbane Access and Inclusion program.
But also we're seeing library refurbishment and rehabilitation delays $647,000
there. That's to realign with project milestones. It's nice when you can change
those milestones so you can say that you're meeting your milestones but we'll
just keep changing the goalposts so we can always make sure we're meeting
those.
One that did raise a question or I raised a question in committee about was the
funds for the asbestos management in clubs and community centres, Madam
Chair. Now we know when we ask in the Budget information sessions what
projects will be delivered, what community facilities will have asbestos removed
this financial year. At the start of the financial year we don't know, so how can
we have project savings at the end of the financial year when there wasn't a set
game plan around which facilities were going to get asbestos removed?
We know we've got a lot of older buildings. I know of buildings in my own ward
where some work is being done and more work needs to be done. I'm sure we've
got a comprehensive list from our leasing team. I'm sure they'd welcome that full
amount of money to help achieve asbestos removal so we can get on with the job
and put the community's concerns and allay their fears about any asbestos that is
in our buildings.
Madam Chair, I was going to talk about the Riverstage goods lift as well but I
don't think—I'll be kind to Councillor ADAMS and won't mention that one, but I
think we've seen that delayed and delayed and carried over and realigned and
reconfigured and re-phased to within an inch of its life, absolutely Councillor
DICK.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 55 -
Another one that we heard a lot about and this was a big election commitment
from this LORD MAYOR, was the new pools for Brisbane, so what do we see
this financial year, $1.9 million in capital carryover to meet project milestones.
I wonder if at the start of this term that there were actually milestones set and
whether those milestones keep getting shifted along to meet the delivery. I don't
know, Madam Chair, but I guess it's certainly interesting to see.
Last but by no means least I wanted to raise briefly my concern about the delay
in relation to the delivery on the Shorncliffe Pier. Over two years ago the
Shorncliffe Pier was closed because of safety concerns, and I can understand
why the LORD MAYOR didn't mention this when he spoke to the crowds at the
recent Blue Water Festival where he stood looking at the pier. He didn't mention
anything about the project when he stood there and I can understand why,
because we're sealing nearly $500,000 in capital.
So that basically tells the community that you won't see any work happening at
all this financial year. It will be pushed out to next financial year. I know there's
a lot of anxiety and I'm just reflecting those concerns in the Chamber, Madam
Chair, and that's why I'm getting phone calls diverted from the LORD MAYOR's
office when concerns are being raised by residents in Windsor about the delays
to the Shorncliffe Pier.
Why would the LORD MAYOR's office be ringing my office saying can you
explain to residents in Windsor about why the Shorncliffe Pier's being delayed.
I'm happy to because I can tell them that the LORD MAYOR sets the Budget
and he determines the milestones, the timeframes and the contracts for the
Shorncliffe Pier.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman?
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF STANDING RULES:
623/2013-14
At that juncture, Councillor JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor NEWTON, that the Standing Rules be
suspended to allow the moving of the following motion
That this Council adjourns for the dinner break from 6pm to 7pm in order for Councillors to attend the
Bring Back Our Girls Rally in King George Square to help bring public attention to the 200 Nigerian
school girls kidnapped last month.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON you have—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Three minutes?
Chairman:
Yes you do have three minutes to establish urgency.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise tonight to seek the indulgence of this Council to
move our dinner break forward by one hour for an important purpose. At 6pm
tonight out the front of City Hall in King George Square there is a rally being
held which is part of a worldwide movement to draw attention to the fact that
200 Nigerian school girls were kidnapped last month from their school while
they were undertaking a physics test.
Brisbane residents have organised a rally tonight at 6pm to help draw attention to
the plight of these school girls who are missing and whose families are
desperately worried.
I believe, Madam Chairman, that we could as councillors in this place, assist to
draw public attention to this important cause if we attend the rally at 6pm. I
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 56 -
believe that it would be a very good gesture by all councillors to attend and
support this important cause.
I know that if 200 school girls were kidnapped in Australia by terrorists there
would be a massive outcry about it, and I would hope that all of us tonight can
find it in our hearts to call the dinner break at 6pm so we can attend and support
this important cause. It certainly in my view will help keep public attention
focused on the need for the Nigerian Government and other governments to
support the recovery and the safe return of these 200 school girls, who were
simply trying to get an education, to return them to their families safely. I would
hope all councillors would agree to this minor change in the agenda to allow us
to attend the rally.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for the suspension of the standing rules to allow the dinner
break to be brought forward from 6pm to 7pm.
The Chairman submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was
declared lost on the voices.
Chairman:
Further debate on the E&C report? LORD MAYOR?
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman, thank you very much. If there is a genuine desire I'm
happy for pairs to occur so that we're represented at that meeting. No one
disputes the importance of it.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR:
Well councillor you haven't voted for a dinner break yet in the time that you've
been here so that was nothing—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR:
You could have done the right thing and come to some arrangement—
Chairman:
You've been cautioned once already.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, in relation to the points raised, there is some issues that I do
want to raise and respond. There's been some discussion around the $27 million
impact in regards to revenues from infrastructure charges.
Now, Madam Chairman, it is true that this Administration year in year out relies
very importantly upon infrastructure charges in terms of the revenue base do
important work in this city. It is every year a little bit of crystal ball gazing in
trying to predict what might occur over that future year, but we don't know how
the market will respond. We don't know how much activity there will be in the
market and we have to, in advance each and every year, guess as to what that
market activity will be. It is a fact that it is based around trying to come up with
some sort of estimate, and look it's a bit like predicting upturns and downturns in
the market. Who 10 years ago would have stood here and said we're about to go
into a seven year global downturn? They would have said you're an idiot because
the market was just so buoyant and bullish in everything else.
So, Madam Chairman, this is an imperfect science, I am the first one to admit
that it is an imperfect science, and regardless of who is sitting on this side of the
Chamber, it is always going to be an imperfect science. We'll do our best to
estimate. So that is money that we don't have, and if we don't have it, we haven't
got it to spend. It's as simple as that.
In regards to the $200,000 for the SES depot that was raised, again that money
was not required because we no longer need to relocate the SES (State
Emergency Services) depot to accommodate the BaT Tunnel. Similarly, with the
$2.1 million construction of new buses, that saving, and it was a saving, was
achieved by the reduction in costs associated with bus bodies. So they were
those.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 57 -
In regards to the issue regarding the bus expenditure reductions, now these items
have been debated here before. We've indicated previously that there were going
to be cost reductions associated with BT and there's nothing new in this. What
this is is the rollout of the actual outcomes of things that we've debated here
many months ago around that and this is the realisation of those ongoing
reductions as part of this budget review.
Councillor ABRAHAMS has raised issues around bikeways and I'm always
happy to hear from Councillor ABRAHAMS on this subject. She has some
expertise in this area, I'm the first to admit to that, but I also—whilst there is
always going to be unmet needs out there in this area, the reality is that this
Administration is putting in enormous amounts of money compared to where we
were back in those times when Councillor ABRAHAMS was a part of the
administration and in Cabinet. $25 million a term back in those times and
remember we raised it to $100 million and we've taken it to $120 million in spite
of what CPI—well what's the rates increase been? Well of course we've
multiplied it many, many times what the rate increases have been to get up to
$120 million spend in this term.
Look there is always a case to do more, but we are doing as much as we possibly
can whilst living within our budget constraints and the capacity and ability of
people to pay.
Madam Chairman, the Botanic Gardens all abilities playground was raised by
Councillor NEWTON and look, this was a case where I accept it was later in
being delivered than it might otherwise have been. There were issues and
debates surrounding the heritage nature of that park. These were issues that were
not within our control, they were issues that had to be worked through and the
outcome of what you see is very much a part of a negotiated outcome
acknowledging the heritage listing and nature of that parkland.
It's not the end of the year yet, no it's being completed in this financial year.
Madam Chairman, on the issue of the Shorncliffe Pier, Councillor NEWTON I
often get a bit amused by this one, in the context that you guys didn't have
anything at all in your Budget, in your election Budget announcements around
the Shorncliffe Pier, zilch, zero, nothing in your cost estimates. It would not have
happened if you had won that election and been over here, and so while you can
say not true, if it's not true then what else didn't you put into your Budget
estimates that you would have intended to do?
Madam Chairman, so the Shorncliffe Pier is happening. It's happening in line
with the commitment that I made at the last election and it will be completed
during this term. We had an information stand there right at the entry point to the
Shorncliffe Pier at the Blue Water Festival and there was a lot of interest around
that. I'm glad that people were going up and getting information about it. We had
some pictorial opportunities for people to see how it would look in its finality,
and so we're committed to that as part of the asset maintenance of this city, and it
will be there for a long time to come. Once it's rebuilt, 100 year life is what we're
looking at with that Pier, and so that is something that will be there long term for
the people of that area.
Madam Chairman, in relation to—oh there's probably a couple of other things
that I've missed, but pools, well I mean this Administration has done more in
terms of pool construction. It's unbelievable the numbers that we've built
compared to where they've been over the years. They closed the Toowong pool,
closed it down. Weren't building, forget about building new ones, closing them
and, Madam Chairman, what did we build? We built three in the last term as I
recall and so we've got these couple of new ones on the go at Bracken Ridge and
out there in the Parkinson Ward.
So, Madam Chairman, all good stuff and we'll continue to build those pools in
line with our commitment to the people of Brisbane that we made in the lead up
to March or April as it was 2012. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 58 -
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Items A and D combined.
Clauses A and D put
The Chairman restated the motion for the adoption of Clauses A and D of the report of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee and upon being submitted to the Chamber, it was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors DICK and ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in
the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 17 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Items B and C.
Clauses B and C put
The Chairman restated the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and C of the report of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee and upon being submitted to the Chamber, it was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 MARCH 2014
109/695/586/6
624/2013-14
1.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2.
Section 201 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that as soon as practicable after
a meeting of the Audit Committee, Council must be given a written report about the matters
reviewed at the meeting and the Committee’s recommendations about the matters.
3.
The Chief Executive Officer is to present the report mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of section
201 at the next meeting of Council.
4.
It is recommended that Council note the Report of the Audit Committee Meeting on 13 March
2014 as set out in Attachment A, submitted on file.
5.
Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer submits the following recommendation with which
the Committee agreed at its meeting on 7 April 2014.
6.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTTEE MEETING
ON 13 MARCH 2014 AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, submitted on file.
ADOPTED
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 59 -
B
LEASE OF PART OF ENOGGERA MEMORIAL PARK TO THE
HILLBROOK ANGLICAN SCHOOL LIMITED
112/445/444/424
625/2013-14
7.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, provided the following information.
8.
Part of Enoggera Memorial Park, 95 Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera, is currently leased by the
Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Sporting Association Incorporated. This lease has now
expired.
9.
The Hillbrook Anglican School Limited (the School) is located adjacent to the leased area.
Negotiations between Council, the Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club Incorporated (the
Club) and the School have led to a proposal for the School to lease part of the original leased
area (Attachment C, as submitted on file) from Council, and to develop a new building and
car park on that land.
10.
The proposed development will assist the School to facilitate the inclusion of year seven
students into the school by providing storage, meeting space and facilities for their outdoor
recreation program, while also providing a range of community benefits.
11.
The remainder of the original leased area will be leased to the Club.
12.
The new facility will benefit the Club and the community because:
The new car park is to be accessible at all times by the Club and the community.
The School is to maintain the new building and car park as well as the existing car park
at its expense.
Hire space in the new building is to be made available to the community (Attachment D,
submitted on file).
The School will upgrade existing power infrastructure, provide new fencing and
landscaping along the Hurdcotte Street frontage and remove old water tanks.
The School will pay to the Club:
$90,000 to assist with the provision of new water tanks and storage by the Club; and
an annual field maintenance contribution of $8,500 in year one, increased annually
by Consumer Price Index.
13.
It is therefore proposed that Council enter into an agreement for lease with the School for the
construction period of the new building and car park, followed by a 20 year lease with the
School upon completion, in accordance with terms of lease as set out in Attachment B, as
submitted on file.
14.
The Divisional Manager submits the following recommendation with which the Committee
agreed at its meeting on 5 May 2014.
15.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A,
hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEASE AND LEASE WITH THE
HILLBROOK ANGLICAN SCHOOL LIMITED FOR PART OF ENOGGERA
MEMORIAL PARK, 95 HURDCOTTE STREET, ENOGGERA
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 60 -
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT:
As:
(a)
Council is the owner of Lot 2 on RP18399, Parish of Enoggera, part of Enoggera
Memorial Park, 95 Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera;
Then:
(b)
Council approves entry into an Agreement for Lease and a subsequent 20 year lease
with Hillbrook Anglican School Limited for part of Enoggera Memorial Park, 95
Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera:
(i)
in accordance with the terms for the agreement for lease and lease as set out
in Attachment B, as submitted on file; and
(ii)
otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Branch Manager, Asset
Management and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice.
ADOPTED
C
LEASE OF PART OF ENOGGERA MEMORIAL PARK TO THE EVERTON
PARK JUNIOR RUGBY UNION CLUB INCORPORATED
112/445/444/791
626/2013-14
16.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, provided the information below.
17.
Part of Enoggera Memorial Park, 95 Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera was leased by the Everton
Park Rugby Union Sporting Association Incorporated. This lease has now expired.
18.
The Hillbrook Anglican School Limited (the School) is located adjacent to the lease area.
Negotiations between Council, the Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club Incorporated (the
Club) and the School have led to a proposal for the School to lease part of the Original Leased
Area (Attachment C, as submitted on file) from Council, and to develop a new building and
car park on that land.
19.
The proposed development will assist the School to facilitate the inclusion of year seven
students into the school by providing storage, meeting space and facilities for their outdoor
recreation program, while also providing a range of community benefits.
20.
The new facility will benefit the Club and the community because:
The new car park is to be accessible at all times by the Club and the community.
The School is to maintain the new building and car park as well as the existing car park
at its expense.
Hire space in the new building is to be made available to the community.
The School will upgrade existing power infrastructure, provide new fencing and
landscaping along the Hurdcotte Street frontage and remove old water tanks.
The School will pay to the Club:
$90,000 to assist with the provision of new water tanks and storage by the Club; and
an annual field maintenance contribution of $8,500, in year one, increased annually
by Consumer Price Index.
21.
It is therefore proposed that Council enter into an agreement for lease with the Club, in
accordance with terms of lease as set out in Attachment B, as submitted on file.
22.
The Divisional Manager submits the following recommendation with which the Committee
agreed at its meeting of 5 May 2014.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 61 -
23.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A,
hereunder.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 62 -
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEASE WITH EVERTON PARK
JUNIOR RUGBY UNION CLUB INCORPORATED FOR PART OF
ENOGGERA MEMORIAL PARK, 95 HURDCOTTE STREET, ENOGGERA
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT:
As:
(a)
(b)
Council is the owner of Lot 2 on RP18399, Parish of Enoggera, part of Enoggera
Memorial Park, 95 Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera;
The Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club Incorporated has requested to be granted
the lease over an area;
Then Council approves:
(c)
entry into a lease for 20 years with Everton Park Junior Rugby Union Club
Incorporated for part of Enoggera Memorial Park, 95 Hurdcotte Street, Enoggera:
(i)
in accordance with the terms of lease as set out in Attachment B, as submitted
on file; and
(ii)
otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Branch Manager, Asset
Management and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice.
ADOPTED
D
2013-14 BUDGET – THIRD REVIEW
134/135/86/140
627/2013-14
24.
The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services Division, provided the information below.
25.
Section 162 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that Council’s budget may only
be amended during the course of the year, by a resolution of Council.
26.
Third Budget Review has been prepared and considers:
(a)
emerging issues requiring funding, additional revenue and expenditure for 2013-17;
(b)
bringing forward project funding to 2013-14 and other forward year budget
adjustments, as detailed in Part B of Attachment B, as submitted on file.
27.
Attachment B, as submitted on file, recommends amendments to the approved budget
for
2013-17
28.
Part A of Attachment B, details a summary of changes by program. Part B of Attachment B,
submitted on file, details changes of services by program for 2013-17.
Financial Impact
29.
The anticipated accumulated surplus at 30 June 2014 for the budget approved by Council is
$0.32m. The sum of the proposed adjustments to the budget for the 2013-14 will increase the
anticipated accumulated surplus at 30 June 2014 to $0.53m after adjustments for transfers
to/from Reserves.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 63 -
Changes to 2013-14 Budget:
Expenses
Operating Capability
Non-current Asset Acquisition
Total Change
$million
+114.8
Revised Budget
$million
1,937.0
-125.0
-23.6
60.8
1,134.5
The net impact of this review on 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 is listed in ‘Part B’ and
summarised below:
Year
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
30.
Forward Year Budget Commitments $m
+45.5
-11.0
+0.4
Proposed adjustments to the budgets for programs and businesses and funds for the 2013-14
year will result in a budgeted accumulated surplus of $0.53 million at 30 June 2014. This
budget review, if approved, will alter budget commitments as follows: increase $45.5 million
in 2014-15, decrease $11 million in 2015-16 and increase $0.4 million in 2016-17.
Urgency
31.
Approval is sought so that amendments to the 2013-14 budget may be reflected in the
Quarterly Financial Statements and the operating positions of the units of administration.
32.
The Divisional Manager therefore submits the following recommendation with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 5 May 2014.
33.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A,
hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO PROPOSE TO ADOPT THE AMENDED BUDGET
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT:
COUNCIL ADOPTS THE AMENDED BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR THE
OPERATIONS AND THE PROJECTS FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY
COUNCIL FOR 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE BUDGETED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS
AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT B, submitted on file.
ADOPTED
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 64 -
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL:
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by
Councillor Steven HUANG that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2014, on matters usually coming under the
jurisdiction of the Public and Active Transport Committee, be noted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor MATIC:
Madam Chairman, just briefly there are two petitions in the Committee report,
the first dealing with an installation of lighting along the RiverWalk, and
secondly, a shared pathway in Akuna Street, Kenmore. I'm sure there'll be
speakers on both so I'll let them go first. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Further debate? Any debate? I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL PROVIDE FUNDING TO
INSTALL LIGHTING ALONG THE RIVERWALK PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE
PATH THAT CONNECTS THE THORNTON STREET FERRY TERMINAL
AND BRIGHT STREET, KANGAROO POINT
CA14/153820, CA14/175103 and CA14/196068
628/2013-14
1.
Three petitions from residents of Kangaroo Point and surrounding suburbs, requesting
Council provide funding to install lighting along the RiverWalk, between Thornton Street
Ferry Terminal and Bright Street, Kangaroo Point, were presented to the meetings of Council
held on 25 February 2014, 4 March 2014 and 11 March 2014, by Councillor Helen
Abrahams, and received.
2.
The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
3.
The three petitions have 548 signatures and request that Council allocate funds from the
2013-14 financial year to provide lighting along the Kangaroo Point RiverWalk, between the
Thornton Street Ferry Terminal and Bright Street, Kangaroo Point.
4.
Council completed preliminary design on the installation of lights at this location in 2013, and
a safety audit was conducted in early February 2014, along with the Queensland Police
Service, following an incident. Recommendations were made for future safety improvements,
including light and sign installation and trimming of foliage.
5.
Light installation was originally listed for consideration in the 2015-16 financial year.
However, in response to the recent incident, Council has since re-prioritised the listing for
consideration in the 2014-15 financial year to complete detailed design and to construct
lighting for the area.
6.
Consultation will be undertaken in the middle of 2014 to inform the local community of the
project and construction is anticipated to be completed by late 2014, pending available
budget.
Funding
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 65 -
7.
Funding will be considered in Council’s 2014-15 financial year.
Consultation
8.
The Councillor for The Gabba Ward, Councillor Helen Abrahams, has been consulted and
supports the preferred option below.
Customer impact
9.
The installation of lights may require the pedestrian/cycle path to be diverted temporarily and
there may be some noise associated with the works.
Preferred option
10.
It is the preferred option to inform the petitioners that Council is committed to improving
safety along the riverside pedestrian/cycle path in Kangaroo Point and will endeavour to
deliver the installation of new lighting infrastructure midway in the 2014-15 financial year.
11.
The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting
held on 5 May 2014.
12.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT.
NOTED
B
PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REVIEW THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A SHARED PATHWAY IN AKUNA STREET,
KENMORE
CA14/169041
629/2013-14
13.
A petition from residents of Akuna Street and surrounding streets in Kenmore, requesting
Council review the proposed shared pathway in Akuna Street, Kenmore, was presented to the
meeting of Council held on 11 March 2014, by the Deputy Mayor on behalf of the
Lord Mayor, and received.
14.
The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
15.
The petition contains 40 signatures.
16.
The Akuna Street shared pathway is part of the Centenary Highway commuter links program
which aims to promote a more active Brisbane, build a city that encourages safe walking and
cycling, and improves local connections to the Centenary Highway bikeway and the Brisbane
CBD.
17.
There is growing demand for walking and cycling facilities across the greater Brisbane area,
including Kenmore. Figures show that cycling has been growing at approximately
7.5 per cent every year, for the past 10 years, and walking has been increasing by
approximately four per cent per annum.
18.
The Akuna Street shared pathway will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safe alternative
to using Moggill Road and will provide the residents of Chapel Hill and Kenmore with a safe
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 66 -
alternative access to get to the Centenary Highway bikeway. Together with the existing
shared pathway along Boblynne Street, the Akuna Street shared pathway will also connect the
Chapel Hill Primary School, Kenmore Plaza and the Cubberla Creek Reserve and sports
fields.
19.
It is important to note that the path will be a shared pathway, not a dedicated bikeway. A
shared path must be of sufficient width to safely cater for all types of users (pedestrians,
cyclists, people with special needs, children et cetera), not just people on bikes.
20.
While some cyclists will choose to remain on-road regardless of the facilities provided, the
shared pathway along Akuna Street aims to complete a missing link in the existing shared
pathway network. This pathway would also provide all types of users with a safe off-road
alternative to using major roads such as Moggill Road, where accidents and fatalities are
known to have occurred.
21.
The pathway has been designed to have negligible impacts to existing flooding conditions
along Cubberla Creek. In addition, the design considers the likelihood of flooding and takes
into consideration the requirements for future maintenance.
22.
The project team has been and will continue to work in consultation with an arborist and the
local habitat officer to ensure the final alignment has the least possible environmental impact
on the area.
23.
The proposed pathway runs as close as possible to Akuna Street to avoid separation of the
green space and aims to enhance the park area for residents, pathway users, and the general
community. During the development of the design, the pathway alignment has been altered to
retain a number of mature trees, which were planted by the local community.
24.
A short 10 metre length of fence is required next to the shared pathway at the existing
playground to ensure the safety of path users and children. This fence will not restrain the
movement of children in the playground. The fence will have negligible impact on flood
levels during creek flood events.
25.
The Akuna Street shared pathway is still in the design phase. As the alignment through the
area has been noted as a secondary route in planning since at least the year 2000, formal
consultation with residents about construction of this project was not scheduled to commence
until closer to the start of works, once funding had been confirmed. However, Council
conducted early consultation with the Cubberla-Witton Catchment Network Inc. (CWCN) in
December 2013 to discuss any potential environment impacts associated with the proposed
project alignment. In addition, the local councillor and the project team held a community
information session for local residents in February 2014.
Funding
26.
The project is part of the broader Centenary Highway commuter links project, which is
funded through the $120 million ‘Better Bikeways 4 Brisbane’ program.
Consultation
27.
The Councillor for Pullenvale Ward, Councillor Margaret de Wit, has been consulted and
supports the preferred option below.
Customer impact
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 67 -
28.
There may be some construction impacts including: noise and dust, traffic diversions and/or
temporary lane closures, some additional site traffic and temporary partial park closures.
Preferred option
29.
It is the preferred option to maintain the decision to construct the Akuna Street shared
pathway in Kenmore.
30.
The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting
held on 5 May 2014.
31.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT.
NOTED
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE
Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report setting out the decisions of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2014, on
matters usually considered by the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, be noted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We had four petitions that came through,
one Item A was a petition for multiunit development at the Old Scout Hall site
that was at—well they actually noted it was 806 to 812 South Pine Road,
Everton Park. It's not quite the correct address. This was actually two petitions
on an impact assessable application. Residents raised concerns primarily about
how trees would be protected on that site. Council, in response to the issues
raised by residents, required an ecological assessment report.
There were significant trees that were retained as a response to the issues raised.
Of course they had to respond to the Biodiversity Code and supply an arborist
report to Council to confirm any remedial work would not impact on the
vegetation. So Council officers very much took the feedback from Councillor
WYNDHAM's constituents very, very closely and carefully considered and
responded to that accordingly.
Item B is a petition asking Council to prepare a local plan for The Gap. This is
actually again two petitions and the LORD MAYOR has announced that Council
will be undertaking a neighbourhood plan for The Gap area in 2015-16. So a
clear commitment from the LORD MAYOR to undertake that work, working
with the local community, and certainly there'll be some issues that will be
looked at, so there'll be particularly identification and protection of existing
character.
It's a beautiful part of our city. I note the local councillor will be very keen to be
involved in that process, looking at the natural environment, of course a lot of
environmentally protected land in that part of the city and reviewing current and
future density. So we've got a lot of people who perhaps need to have a range of
housing options as the years progress, so we'll be working through that with the
local community.
C—the petition was asking Council to reduce our outstanding infrastructure
contributions for RampAttak. This is actually as has been discussed in this
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 68 -
Chamber before, Madam Chair. This is a commercial activity in an industrial
area. That was approved in January 2010. Just like every development in our
city, they have infrastructure charges that must be paid before actually
commencing that use. That's a legal obligation. Anyone that submits an
application to Council has a clear understanding, and these people submitted that
application. They know that it is an obligation under the state planning
legislation that they have to comply with all conditions, so it was very, very
clear.
The LORD MAYOR did actually to try and assist offer a payment plan in June
of 2013 over four years, so that's not something Council would ordinarily
undertake to offer because, as I said, you must normally pay your charges before
you actually commence the use of that activity. So the applicants have agreed to
that payment plan and have been certainly continuing to make payments.
Madam Chair, as you are well aware no councillor, including the LORD
MAYOR, has the authority to waive infrastructure charges. So while I
understand the issues of the applicant, this is not something that any councillor
has the ability to waive these charges. That authority does not rest with the
councillors in this Chamber.
I also note, Madam Chair, it's very important to note that the vast proportion of
this charge is actually QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities) charges, so
approximately 80 per cent of the cost as a consequence of this approval is
actually water supply and sewerage, so charges that are not Council charges in
fact at all. I note that the applicant sought from QUU to waive the charges and
QUU have rejected that request. So it's unfortunate and I think it's a great
facility, but it is a commercial activity. Just like every other person in this city,
everyone should be treated equally. There are many churches, there are many
childcare centres, there are private hospitals, a whole range of people who have
all met their obligation under the law to pay those infrastructure charges.
Item D is a petition asking Council to block modification of an existing
development approval at the Nudgee Cemetery site. This is actually an
application that was approved in October 2008 so as you would know, Madam
Chair, it has a currency period of four years. They did seek an extension from
Council because of a range of issues relating to what they were proposing to do
on the site.
Council's worked through this application very, very clearly. Certainly I
understand the issues of the local community, in fact I had a meeting with
Councillor FLESSER some time ago with the local community to discuss their
issues, but in fact this particular proposal is only a change to the staging of the
application, so it does not intensify the use, it is merely creating two stages. So
stage one will be the construction of the crematorium and associated area, with a
temporary driveway access of Childs Road and this is very much in line with the
requirements under the Act. So it is not a new application, it is purely and simply
a changing of the staging of this proposal. Consequently this has not been able to
be supported.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor NEWTON?
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on Item C of this report and
I guess just at the outset, I'm disappointed that this item has been decided on by
Civic Cabinet during the recess rather than going through the formal committee
process. I know that that's something the petitioners certainly desired to have the
opportunity for the councillors on that committee to consider their request, and
certainly the onus of RampAttak, Wayne and Karen Larkins, would have liked
that opportunity as well, Madam Chair, so it could have been fully discussed
rather than discussed at a Civic Cabinet level only.
This was a petition signed by over 1000 people and it's interesting, sometimes in
these reports we see the areas of Brisbane that the petitioners might come from
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 69 -
when these petitions are brought to Council, and this one doesn't mention that
but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you're finding young people from all over
Brisbane and their families who've signed this petition. It's not just something
that relates to the Deagon Ward, this is an issue of interest to Brisbane as a
whole.
This petition was calling for Council to reduce or even indeed waive the
infrastructure charges levied against the indoor skate park called RampAttak and
I encourage councillors to drop in and visit. It's an amazing facility and it's very
impressive to see this transformation of this industrial shed into this amazing
youth space.
As you would recall, one of the owners, Wayne Larkins addressed Council last
session and the response that they received to their presentation was
disappointing to say the least. It's certainly been reiterated in today's petition
response.
As is noted in the report, back in 2010 Wayne and Karen Larkins embarked on a
project to create Queensland's first ever indoor skate park and Wayne with his
pro basketball background and sports coach background, combined with Karen's
youth work background, enabled them to create a vision of something different
and unique for those young people that may not be engaged in normal formal
sports.
They wanted to create a facility that delivered on something that was not
available anywhere in Queensland at that time, not provided by the private
sector, not provided by any level of government. So they went looking for a
suitable site, and they found a spot that they felt was ideal. This is 393 Bilsen
Road, Geebung and it's ideal because it's on the train line, very close to a train
station, and for kids further afield it's not too hard with the local road network to
get dropped there as well.
They found this very large industrial shed on a large block of land that was
existing, Madam Chair. So they didn't build this facility from scratch, it was an
existing shed that they were able to fit out with their indoor ramp. So they
engaged a planner and embarked on the DA process at that time and the planner
that they engaged estimated that they might be expected to pay around $40,000
in infrastructure charges.
Now the Larkins did baulk at that figure at the time and it wasn't something that
they had really planned for, but they were prepared to make room for in their
business planning and went ahead. So you can understand the shock and surprise
when they wound up with a bill of $134,910.28. Nearly $100,000 more than
what they had planned for, Madam Chair, and I'm sure that any small business
wishing to set up would find that kind of infrastructure charge quite a barrier to
going ahead.
So they embarked on lobbying because they felt passionate about their facility
and they felt passionate about the location in the industrial area. They attempted
on numerous occasions to try to either have these fees reduced or waived. As I
said, it's a fit-out of an existing building. They didn't actually build a new facility
on that site per se.
So you can see in the report there was a bit of a reprieve a couple of years ago
when there was a general discount to infrastructure charges, a policy by the
Council at that time to reduce infrastructure charges for all businesses in
Brisbane. Even with that discount, which was quite significant, it was still out of
their reach and they weren't able to pay the $77,000 odd that they were required
to in that year.
So, Madam Chair, my position—and I won't be supporting the recommendation
even though we're only noting it today—is that this Council needs to work with
the Larkins. They're providing something different and unique. It's a safe space
for young people to go and scooter and skate and ride. It's helping Council
achieve its own youth strategy which highlights the need for skate facilities.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 70 -
This Council has been creative to provide incentives by discounting
infrastructure charges in the past and present, Madam Chair. We've seen that
infrastructure charge freeze a couple of years ago and the discount, we've seen
incentives to build aged care and seniors facilities with infrastructure charges,
and this very financial year we're seeing people wanting to build CBD hotels
getting discounts on their infrastructure charges. So it's not one size fits all. This
Council does have the ability to be able to be creative and come up with
solutions that help stimulate and provide facilities for our residents in our
community.
Now, Madam Chair, I acknowledge the Larkins are trying their hardest to pay
this off and I do acknowledge and appreciate the payment plan offered by the
LORD MAYOR. It is something that is unique, but I still think we can do more
and not punish innovation like this.
But this isn't just my view. Recently the skate park was visited by the Nitro
Circus crew, something I'm extremely familiar with and that's sarcastic, Madam
Chair. I'm not really into the Nitro Circus crew personally, but they're amazing
mostly young men, but amazing young performers who are real heavy weights at
the skate parks.
Now what did they have to say about the significance of facilities like
RampAttak when they visited there? One of their—Travis Pastrana who's one of
their stars said of the indoor skate park, these are the football fields of our
generation. A motivational playground that inspires athletes and creativity and
we need places so these kids have somewhere to go like RampAttak. They've
come behind and supported what the Larkins are doing.
So, Madam Chair, these people have been there, they've seen the impact of these
infrastructure charges on the facility. There is a great deal of concern of young
people and their families about the ability for this business to continue even with
the payment plan.
You can tell by the thousand plus people who signed the petitions just how wellloved this facility is. Getting young people engaged in signing petitions is a
really amazing exercise and it was exciting to see so many young people speak
up in support of this facility.
So I'd also like to add that if Council were to embark on a similar project, it
would certainly cost more than $130,000 in infrastructure charges to provide a
similar facility of its kind, because they're not cheap to get up and running and
having an extra slug of $130,000 doesn't help.
Madam Chair, I'd really like to see Council go back to the drawing board, be fair
dinkum about the implementation of our youth strategy, be fair dinkum about
being innovative and support people like the Larkins in what they're trying to
achieve at RampAttak.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on Item B in this report and that is the petition
requesting Council prepare a local plan for The Gap.
I think that for any petition that comes into this place 2,000 signatures is a lot
and the petitioners who have signed this petition are in excess of 2,000
signatures. I think that the sheer volume of residents from The Gap that have
signed this petition needs to be considered front and centre in this debate.
I, as the local councillors, actively lobbied for the Bulimba and District
Neighbourhood Plan several years ago. I don't recall my petition having that
many signatures on it, so clearly a neighbourhood plan and securing a
neighbourhood plan is something that the residents of The Gap are very
passionate about. So I think that we do need to give serious consideration to this
petition.
I know that your memory fails as you're getting older, but I remember Campbell
Newman when he was campaigning to be the Lord Mayor, promising every
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 71 -
suburb in this city would have a neighbourhood plan in the first term of his
office. Clearly, this is an election commitment that he broke.
I also remember Campbell Newman saying that when it comes to neighbourhood
planning that it would be local communities that would determine the outcomes
of the neighbourhood plan and what goes in them, but I see in this report that this
Council is saying that it's not actually going to be local communities that
determine the types of development that happen in The Gap, but that paragraph
31 clearly says that the scale of development in The Gap is determined by local
circumstances not local communities.
Of course what has gotten The Gap residents so upset is a number of
development applications, and they're all documented in this report, that have
been approved and I think it's fair to say that they haven't been—there hasn't
been a lot of support from the local community in there.
I was actually quite surprised to read in this report that 83 per cent of The Gap is
zoned low density residential or environmental protection and park. I have to say
as a local councillor, their local councillor, who comes in here and pontificates
from on high about the type of development that everybody else should be
having, is so gun shy about having a local neighbourhood plan done in her local
area.
Clearly the residents of The Gap have been campaigning for the neighbourhood
plan to prevent overdevelopment in their leafy suburbs and that Council, in
failing to commit to having a neighbourhood plan, is continuing to let them
down.
I note very clearly in this decision on this item that the principal petitioner needs
to be advised that Council will quote, consider a neighbourhood plan for The
Gap. That is not Council will deliver a neighbourhood plan for The Gap, that is
Council will consider a neighbourhood plan for The Gap in two years' time in
2015/2016.
Now, Madam Chair, it's probably the worst kept political secret around this place
that Councillor KNAPP is looking to retire at the next election. She tells people,
she tells people, she tells people and in fact I read the comments, I read the
comments from the Council—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
—Council rejects—Council rejects Gap residents' push for local plan and one of
the first comments is that with Councillor KNAPP already stating that she will
not be contesting the next election, it allows for a completely clean slate and
fresh start—
Councillor COOPER:
Point of order, Madam Chair?
Chairman:
Yes, point of order against you Councillor SUTTON. Yes Councillor COOPER?
Order.
Councillor COOPER:
As interesting as Councillor KNAPP is, this is actually about a neighbourhood
plan not about Councillor KNAPP. Could we please actually speak to the report?
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor COOPER, you're right. Back to the item please Councillor
SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for that and I note your comments, but I also note
that Councillor KNAPP is actually mentioned in the report and her views on this
issue as a local councillor are therefore relevant. When there are issues in my
ward that ask about my position on things, that is open for debate in this place.
This is an item relating to Councillor KNAPP's ward and therefore her position
on this petition is relevant for debate.
Madam Chair, the issue is this: this is a petition signed by more than 2000
residents of The Gap. This is a petition that Councillor KNAPP has not
supported. No, this is a petition that Councillor KNAPP is refusing to support
her local residents' request. She is refusing to do her job as an advocate for her
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 72 -
community to come into Council and strongly advocate on behalf of her
community for a neighbourhood plan.
What Councillor KNAPP also hasn't done is actually tell her local community
that regardless of what is included in the neighbourhood plan, any future
neighbourhood plan, their community is about to change fundamentally thanks
to the changes she supported in the new CityPlan, which will allow, which will
allow, 300 square metre blocks to be established in The Gap Ward, in the 83 per
cent of The Gap, that is zoned low density residential.
I said in the CityPlan debate that the biggest flaw of—the biggest con in the New
CityPlan was the fact that even though zonings don't change, what you can do
within those zonings will change. So what many of these residents do not know,
that even their low density zoning is no longer enough to protect them from
feeling the squeeze of the over-development that this Council Administration has
supported through its new CityPlan.
I would love to ask individually these 2000 signatories on this petition if they
know if their local councillor has told them that even without their
neighbourhood plan they will be able to have—their existing residential blocks
will be able to be sliced and diced down to 300 square metres, and that they
would have to put up with 7.5 metre frontages in parts of their suburb.
I dare say they don't and that is because their local councillor is asleep at the
wheel. She is not being honest and she is not being upfront with them and that is
because she has her eye on retirement not on doing hard work. Not only do 2000
petitioners want it, but our Premier wants the neighbourhood plan. He's been
very open so why isn't Councillor KNAPP supporting her own state member and
her own former Lord Mayor and her own Premier in terms of his request?
He was after all the person who made the original commitment which she stood
proudly by him on election day and said you vote for us, you'll get a
neighbourhood plan in your suburb. All of that's been washed away, Madam
Chair, and you know what, this response to this petition is a nothing response,
because it does not say there will be a neighbourhood plan for The Gap in
2015/2016. It does not say that. There is no commitment to put a neighbourhood
plan, to fund a neighbourhood plan, for The Gap in the 2015/2016 Budget.
All there is, all there is, is a tap on the head that says to the petitioners, well done
we'll think about it, we'll consider it for 2015/2016, in the same condescending
way she routinely comes into this Chamber week in week out, in her
condescending nature. The councillor for The Gap Ward has been equally as
condescending and dismissive of her local residents in refusing to support their
requests and come in as a strong advocate for those residents to secure funding
for a neighbourhood plan in her own LORD MAYOR's Budget.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor
KNAPP?
Councillor KNAPP:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't quite—I really think that Councillor
SUTTON—
Chairman:
First of all Councillor KNAPP you refer—
Councillor KNAPP:
I'm going to respond to petition B, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor KNAPP:
No it doesn't really dignify an answer because I think that her speech shows that
there is scant understanding of the CityPlan in respect to the suburb of The Gap.
Some background, Madam Chair. The head petitioner, Madam Chair, came to
see me, probably, maybe seven or eight months ago, particularly in relation to
the Bunnings application, which was in Councillor WINES’ ward. He was very
perturbed in relation to the application. I also had a conversation with him in
respect to why, two developments been approved in The Gap Ward. One at a
multipurpose centre, at The Gap Shopping Centre consisting of a block of 32
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 73 -
units, with a car park, as it says in the petition and also townhouses on a block of
land up at Mt Nebo Road, The Gap.
Now, as the petition says, Madam Chair, that the majority of my Ward, 83 per
cent of the land is low density residential. Included in that are 160 environmental
blocks. There are 5200 residential blocks that were basically developed after
1956, which means most of those blocks are within the 26 perches or 600 square
metres, Madam Chair. I will point out, Madam Chair, that the rest of the land in
The Gap is either community use or two multipurpose centres. One at The Gap
Shopping Centre and one at the BP service station.
The rest is all low density. Now, Madam Chair, when the petitioner came to see
me, I explained to him that in 2006, because he was overseas when the South
East Queensland Regional Plan was introduced. That when council was asked to
show where increased density would occur, it looked at The Gap and dismissed
the ability to have any increased density in that suburb. It looked where there
was low-medium density, which is in Ashgrove.
There is very little low-medium density in Red Hill or Bardon. So the other
suburbs that make up my Ward are protected by heritage listing because they
were built before 1945. But The Gap, except for the 90 people that lived there
before 1956, when the first development occurred, was all farms. All of the
subdivision that occurred in The Gap was low density. Except where the
shopping centre was and the BP service station. Now, I understand the
petitioner’s concern about that he didn’t particularly like the fact that at a
multipurpose MP3 you could build units, despite the fact that I sat down and
explained quite clearly that within that site, you could have a mixed use and
that’s what it was there for.
The same with the units that have been approved on the BP site, on the corner of
Payne Road and Waterworks Road. Now, he talked about petitions and I said, if
you wish to have a petition, that’s fine. I’m more than happy to table it. I must
say, Madam Chair, that I was very surprised that when he came to present the
petition, he chose not to give it to me to present, but gave it to Councillor
JOHNSTON to present. He didn’t even ask me and that is so unusual.
Now, Madam Chair, as you know, this is my 18 th year of being councillor and I
have presented many petitions, Madam Chair. We all do, Madam Chair. Some of
the petitions that are brought to council, we don’t necessarily agree with them
but we present them on behalf of our constituents. Madam Chair, it is our job
when the response to the petition occurs to say whether we would support the
response to the petition or not. In this case, Madam Chair, I do support the
response.
But I have to say that my position has always been, and it was when I had
discussions with the head petitioner and various people, that inherently the City
Plan protects The Gap. I cannot believe the rubbish that has come out of
Councillor SUTTON’s mouth in respect to 300 square metres blocks where she
has no idea. I have in The Gap suburb no MP4 or Neighbourhood Centres. I
don’t have that. It’s either residential or multipurpose or school or a sports
ground or churches.
All the environmental blocks were protected in 2000, when they were back
zoned to one house per 10 hectares. The City Plan inherently protects The Gap. I
explained to the head petitioner that there would be a local plan at some stage,
but the priority for this council was set to look at where you have increased
density in the suburbs where there was potential in a low-medium or a medium
density. That at some stage, that there would be a local plan that looked at
picking up the suburbs that were post-war, like Chapel Hill, like Kenmore.
There are many suburbs. Not every suburb in Brisbane has a local plan. The
priority of this council has always been from 2006 to look at where we could
have increased density. So, Madam Chair, I—for the record—I very much
support the response to this petition. My understanding is that the LORD
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 74 -
MAYOR has made a commitment that we will come out in the year 2015-16 to
engage with the residents to put this local plan into the City Plan.
Now, what the head petitioner is asking for, that despite where there is 3000
square metres of land, residential land, that it’s not appropriate to have a mix of
housing like townhouses. Now, there is scant land left in The Gap suburb. There
might be a one other block where you could possibly have some townhouses. To
be perfectly honest, I think 260 townhouses against 5200 houses is not really a
terrific mix of diversity of housing. The 32 units that are being built at The Gap
Shopping Centre, there can’t be any more built, because there is no more
capacity for parking for the shopping centre to comply with GFA ratio.
There is potentially, at the BP service station for some form of development, but
the access from Waterworks Road is very problematical and at the moment, the
owners and developers are showing no interest in relation to doing anything with
that site. There could potentially be some extra units surrounded by some
existing units.
The fact that I am retiring is either irrelevant, because it doesn’t really matter
whether it’s me or a new councillor who will have the same zeal that I’ve had for
The Gap since I have been the Councillor for 18 years. I think that when
Councillor SUTTON has done the 18 years that I’ve done she can get up and say
that she’s represented her constituents in the way that I have done. My majority
at the last election was far greater than hers.
Chairman:
Councillor KNAPP, back to the subject, please.
Councillor KNAPP:
That I think that’s a mark of how you judge how I’ve acted.
Chairman:
Thank you. Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Look, thanks, Madam Chair. I want to speak on item B and I want to speak
tonight to acknowledge and I have no bone to pick with Councillor KNAPP. She
represents her residents in a way that she sees fit. I respect her for that. One thing
that you say about Councillor KNAPP, and residents have told me this, they
know where they stand with her. They do. I respect that in her and she knows
that I have the utmost respect for her.
I don’t want to talk about Councillor KNAPP’s role in this. I want to talk about
the local residents. Because I’ve met with the local residents about this. I did—
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
What’s that?
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Chairman:
Order. Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor DICK:
I was talking about when the head petitioner came here and I met with him when
he—
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor DICK:
Well, all right, look, Madam Chair—
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
The head petitioner did acknowledge, as Councillor KNAPP said, he is only one.
He’s one of 2000, Councillor KNAPP, who signed the petitioner. I want to start
tonight by acknowledging the work of the people who collected the signatures.
Because it’s a huge job, and meeting with them and talking to them, I know that
they went door to door. They went to markets. They stood at the shops. They
spoke to their neighbours. They went to fetes. They weren’t—and these people
are not politically active.
I salute them tonight of any citizen of Brisbane who works hard, who volunteers
their time, because they believe in something. In this case, they believed that
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 75 -
they want increased protection. They want increased certainties from this
council. That’s why they went and collected over 2000 signatures on this
petition. It’s one of the largest petitions that I’ve ever seen come through as my
time as a councillor. I’ve been here one-third of the time that Councillor KNAPP
has been here.
18 years is a long time and there’s a lot of hard work that has gone in over those
years, but I disagree with Councillor KNAPP on this one. In the media reports of
2 May, and I do want to, on behalf of the residents, they wanted me to say this,
they are bitterly disappointed that this decision was made in recess. You only
need to look at today’s notice paper where we’ve seen some controversial
decisions all made in the recess. We know how it works.
We know when there are hot issues, when there are unpopular things in the
community, the LNP decides to do things in secret and then brings it in to the
council after the decision is made. In the Fairfax report where it says Councillor
Rejects Gap Residents Push For Local Plan, it starts the article by saying,
residents of The Gap who have been campaign for a neighbourhood plan to
prevent overdevelopment of the leafy bush suburb say Brisbane City Council
continues to let them down by failing to commit one.
The head petitioner said it remained far from the commitment residents were
hoping for that would protect the character of their suburb. Quote: Council’s
response is how you say no to someone, without actually saying no. He goes on
to say on behalf of the community, there is no genuine commitment here at all.
Given the timing they mention is years away, the high rises and dense ad hoc
development which people are concerned about would all be developed around
the new City Plan, before a neighbourhood plan could even get off the ground.
So the community is saying they view City Plan with suspicion. Now, they may
have grounds for that. Certainly, the residents that I spoke to in Councillor
KNAPP’s ward at the town planning forum that I did at the Ashgrove Golf Club
a couple of weeks ago all said they were confused and they believed that the
neighbourhood plan would give them comfort and assurances. I respect that. The
2,000 signatures on the petition, this is in the article, showed how passionate
residents were about protecting the identity of The Gap.
We can take away the politics. We can take away all the arguments tonight, but
this is about residents who really love their suburb and really want their suburb
protected. It goes on to say that the head petitioner said he sought Councillor
JOHNSTON’s help after Councillor KNAPP refused to support it. So it goes on
to—
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Hang on. It goes on to say a Brisbane City Council spokesman said Councillor
KNAPP denied that claim and claimed she had agreed to present it to council. So
I’m not sure where the communication breakdown was with the petition. But
clearly there was some communication there. I would feel aggrieved if local
residents feel they didn’t have the confidence in me to present the petition on
their behalf, if thousands of my residents, but this is not about blaming.
This is about a way forward. On the petition, unfortunately, the response
tonight—and it says that the principal petitioner be advised that council will
consider a neighbourhood plan. Not will do, but consider a neighbourhood plan
as part of a future budget considerations balanced against the needs of other
suburbs. We all know what that means. That is, LNP council speak for saying
we’ve put it on the list, we may do it. But don’t hold your breath for it.
So that’s what that commitment is tonight. I think there has been a missed
opportunity here. I think the residents have been short changed by the LNP
council. Not necessarily by Councillor KNAPP, because I know that she was
under enormous pressure because of the letter of 6 September 2013, the member
for Ashgrove wrote, ‘Dear Geraldine, I’m writing in relation to a number of
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 76 constituent inquiries I’ve had regarding the need for a neighbourhood plan for
The Gap.’
The Gap area had not had the town planning effort and attention that areas like
Ashgrove, Paddington and Mitchelton have had in the last 15 years and it is
timely that we look at ways to protect the character and feel of the suburb. I
believe that this idea has merit and I ask you to seriously consideration the
implementation of such a planning exercise. So I don’t agree with Campbell
Newman on much, but on this, I agree with him when he speaks on behalf of the
local residents.
So tonight, Madam Chair, I really want to finish where I start. I thank and salute
those local residents who have gone out there, believed in the cause, that have
gone and fight for what they believe in. Disappointingly tonight, the LNP is not
meeting those expectations.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of points on item D. It’s a petition
response regarding petitioners wanting council not to approve modification to
the existing development approval for the Nudgee Cemetery site at 493 St
Vincents Road, Nudgee. Madam Chair, people are dying to get into Nudgee
Cemetery. But that’s a pretty bad joke.
Chairman:
Yes. It is.
Councillor FLESSER:
But, Madam Chair, the residents in the area are not dying to get a crematorium in
their backyard. Now, Madam Chair, now this original application for this
crematorium was in 2008. I, along with many hundreds of local residents did not
support this crematorium moving into the Nudgee Cemetery, Madam Chair.
There were many issues that were raised by local residents, and I think that
probably the most pertinent one is the issue of air quality. Now, Madam Chair, I
don’t want to sound like some sort of crazy conspiracy advocate, unlike the
current state member we have. But, Madam Chair, I think that if you do a
reasonable search of what experts say about crematoriums, Madam Chair, I think
there’s a general consensus that it’s prudent to avoid the emissions from
crematoriums.
So, Madam Chair, that’s why I and the local residents did not support the
application in 2008. Madam Chair, I remember presenting petitions here,
certainly making submissions to the DA and I know many residents did, as well.
It was very disappointing that—I know there was particular appeals to the
LORD MAYOR at the time, LORD MAYOR Campbell Newman, but, Madam
Chair, they all fell on deaf ears and an application was approved.
What’s happened now is there’s a proposal to further entrench that crematorium
in that area and, Madam Chair, since 2008, things have actually become worse,
because there’s a couple of new residential estates that are being built right on
the crematorium’s doorstep. So, Madam Chair, this is—I think this is going to be
a disaster for the Nudgee area. A crematorium right in the middle of a densely
populated and many, many families, young families, moving to the area. They’re
going to be exposed to the emissions from a crematorium.
So, Madam Chair, I’m very disappointed that the response from the
Administration is to ignore those petitioners’ calls. I notice that this particular
response is for one of the petitions which carried 30 signatures. I understand, if I
remember correctly, I presented another two petitions of about the same number
of signatories on each one of them during the recess. So the residents in the local
area there are pretty hot and bothered about this particular matter.
They’re going to be very disappointed at the response. Madam Chair, I just want
to finish by something that has grabbed my attention in the proposed letter that’s
to be sent to the principal petitioner. Just the very last line it says, while the
original development application was assessed under IPA, the current SPA
provisions applicable to this request did not change the assessment or triggers for
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 77 -
public notification. Now, Madam Chair, I will just warn all councillors here that
this is the sort of thing that is going to happen more and more in this city.
Because we know what’s happened, Madam Chair. The LNP decided to remove
code assessable applications. So, Madam Chair, as something that we often say
on this side of the Chamber, the first thing that people are going to be aware of if
there’s some development happening in their area is when the bulldozers turn up
to knock something down. Madam Chair, we’re going to see more and more of
that. I don’t support the response that has been provided by the Council
Administration.
I know that the many, many people in Nudgee who feel the same as I do are not
going to be happy about this decision at all and I certainly will not be voting for
it.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item B in the Neighbourhood Planning
and Development Assessment Committee report. The petition responding to the
request to council to prepare a local neighbourhood plan for The Gap. Madam
Chairman, I presented this petition on behalf of 2,200 petitioners last year,
because the local councillor, Councillor KNAPP, refused to do so. The resident
who had organised the petition contacted my office in writing and indicated that
the local councillor didn’t support the petition and asked me would I table it.
I told him I was happy to do so. Madam Chairman, I am at a loss to understand
why the local councillor and this Administration have got the response to The
Gap community so wrong. I think when Councillor KNAPP reflects on this, she
will look back and say, something hasn’t happened in the way it should. When
2,200 residents support a neighbourhood plan for the local area, that is a big, that
is a serious and that is an important expression of their interests for the local
area. I don’t think that anyone should ignore it.
The sad part of all of this is that The Gap Association 4061 certainly are very
keen to see the neighbourhood plan go ahead. Now, the LORD MAYOR and
Councillor KNAPP have had somewhat of an epiphany, I would suggest, based
on the response today and the LORD MAYOR’s most recent letter to residents.
But I would like to start with the LORD MAYOR’s initial response to news
about this petition. That’s been reported widely in the paper, the Brisbane Times
online and the local paper.
Madam Chairman, initially, on 23 October, the LORD MAYOR, Graham Quirk,
wrote to all Gap residents rejecting a neighbourhood plan for the area. The
organiser of the petition at the time expressed his concern publicly about why it
would be ruled out before the petition had even been considered in this council.
Now, that’s a valid question. Why did the LORD MAYOR take the 2200
ePetition signatures, write to everyone in The Gap, and basically slap them down
and say, no, we’re not interested in the issues you are raising with us?
Now, Madam Chairman, then Councillor KNAPP wrote an opinion piece for her
local newspaper, also stating that she did not support a neighbourhood plan for
The Gap. Now, Madam Chairman, I gather there has been a change of heart,
because the recommendation that has come forward to this committee today does
seem to indicate that there will be a neighbourhood plan coming forward in the
2015-16 year for the budget.
Now, we can’t be sure of that until it’s actually announced. It is two years off.
We just don’t know what might happen in the budget two years from now. The
LORD MAYOR and his team can hardly explain what’s happening in the budget
today. But, Madam Chairman, there is a glimmer of hope that this
Administration will be prepared to undertake a neighbourhood plan for The Gap
residents in two years’ time. The issue, from their point of view at this stage, is
that that will not be soon enough.
The Gap residents are concerned about inappropriate development that is
happening in their area today and now. They want to see protections put in place
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 78 -
to ensure that the liveability of their suburb is protected. They are extremely
concerned about the impact of the new City Plan and they want to see, as a best
practice response to their petition, a temporary local planning instrument
developed to protect the existing zonings and to protect the current liveability of
The Gap.
It is disappointing that the Administration has not responded in that way to the
petitioners’ request. What I do note is that in the last day or so, the LORD
MAYOR has sent out a letter, another letter, to all Gap residents, so it’s a second
letter to all Gap residents. This time stating that he and his Administration are
happy to have a neighbourhood plan in The Gap. Now, bingo, the light bulb has
gone on that 2200 residents cannot be disrespected in the way that the LORD
MAYOR and Councillor KNAPP did last year by telling them, no, they weren’t
interested in their petition and the issues that they raised.
I have been sent a copy of the letter that the LORD MAYOR put out. I am very
surprised that the LORD MAYOR is saying how happy he is about this, given
it’s only a few months ago that he refused to support it in writing to the
residents. I, for one, am at least pleased that he has changed his mind on this
matter. I am disappointed that he has not gone as far as the residents want, which
is a temporary local planning instrument. They see the need for protection of The
Gap to be urgently implemented.
They believe the best vehicle to do that is a neighbourhood plan. Now, just so for
full disclosure, you know, I publicly stated the other day that sometimes
councillors have to do things that—on behalf of their residents that aren’t easy to
do. That may be difficult. You may have a different opinion to your residents,
but it’s our job to make sure that their concerns come to light. So I have spoken
to The Gap residents about the faults in the neighbourhood planning process.
I have urged them to be very cautious about how they go about the
neighbourhood planning process down the track. I sadly have seen too many bad
outcomes for communities with increased density and other changes to
neighbourhood planning forced on communities without their support. I don’t
want to see that happen here at The Gap. What I do know is that the residents’
association and the residents who signed the petition have faith in this council
process.
They want to get a good outcome. I would hope that their local councillor will
assist with that process, whether that’s Councillor KNAPP or if she’s retired by
then, the new councillor for that area. 2200 residents believe it’s important. I’m
very surprised that the LORD MAYOR and Councillor KNAPP disregarded
their concerns and have had a late epiphany about the importance of respecting
the wishes of Brisbane residents.
They’ve had to be dragged along kicking and screaming to the outcome we have
here today. I would have hoped that they could go further and meet all of the
residents’ requests. What I will say, as well, is the Gap Residents Association is
absolutely thriving. As I understand it, there is a huge groundswell of support for
community activities out there in The Gap, including new farmers markets
which will be starting very shortly.
So what we can see is a really good grassroots driven response to the importance
of listening to local communities and responding and acting to their concerns.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would just like to say
thank you very much to Councillor KNAPP for actually speaking to the actual
issues, rather than talking about, you know, basically personalities. So I think
there was a lot of debate of the person, rather than the issue. I find that
extremely, extremely disappointing in this place, because I note that the
Australian Labor Party councillors are very precious whenever they are
mentioned.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 79 -
But they seem to love that opportunity to really shovel it out onto other people in
this Chamber. So I think that they should look to themselves, Madam Chair,
because I think their conduct in this Chamber this evening has been indicative of
their attitudes towards this city. They play politics. They attack people
personally and they don’t actually debate the issues with any actual merit or
honestly, Madam Chair, I would suggest. Because I think it’s really important
and let’s have a look at the items that were raised.
So Councillor NEWTON, she talked about the petition. That was item C. She
was basically saying that it was unfair that council was actually imposing
infrastructure charges on a commercial business, when earlier this evening we’ve
heard from Councillor ABRAHAMS, who’s been bewailing the lack of
infrastructure charges in this city, saying there’s not enough infrastructure
charges coming in to actually deliver outcomes for your working residents.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Point of order, Madam Chair. Stand to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
No. Just wait till you’re called, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
I am sorry.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Claim to be misrepresented, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
You didn’t speak on this particular item. You’re referring to a previous report,
Councillor.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
No, Madam Chair. But I spoke on infrastructure charges and how it was—
Chairman:
Yes. You spoke on an earlier report.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
What Councillor COOPER was saying was not accurate about—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, resume your seat. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So it is disappointing to see a total
inconsistency from the Australian Labor Party. On one hand, they want more
infrastructure charges. On another hand, they want to give infrastructure charges
up to a commercial entity, Madam Chair. There are plenty of people, Madam
Chair, as I pointed out earlier, child care centres, private hospitals. All these sorts
of important—yes, thank you very much, Councillor NEWTON.
We know that you never, ever make any errors in this Chamber. So let’s be very
clear. There’s a whole range of people who I think do great things for this city.
In fact, there’s a whole range of people who are not for profits who do fantastic
things for this city. We have a scheme where they are eligible to get an offset of
their infrastructure charges. But in this case, whether it’s a commercial
enterprise, I do not disagree that it’s a great outcome, but I think it should be
treated fairly, just like any other applicant in this city.
I think that Councillor NEWTON’s point absolutely without foundation. This is
primarily a QUU charge. If she’s so adamant, then I would like to see her
advocacy to QUU on behalf of RampAttak, Madam Chair. I note Councillor
SUTTON, she got up and said that there needed to be serious consideration and
she talked to item B about the neighbourhood plan. Well, there has been very
serious consideration. In fact, there’s been a commitment from the LORD
MAYOR, and I thank the LORD MAYOR for that commitment, to undertake
working with the local community to do a neighbourhood plan in 2015-16.
So working with the community, council will be discussing the issues for them
and coming up with a neighbourhood plan. Obviously, Madam Chair, we are
active at the moment. We’re doing a number of neighbourhood plans and
working right now. So we’re not going to drop the work that we’ve got currently
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 80 underway. We’re not to engage with residents and then suddenly go, you know
what? We’ve got something else we want to do.
We’ll just leave all this. We’ll just leave these planning activities that we’ve got
underway and we’ll just go, demobilise and move over to The Gap. Well, no.
We will actually work through the process with the local residents. Madam
Chair, we’re actually talking to the residents in Lower Oxley Creek North as a
neighbourhood plan. So we actually had a session the other day with residents
and talking about the strategy for their area. So that affects a number of
councillors. That affects Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Thank you, Councillor
OWEN-TAYLOR for coming along.
It affects Councillor GRIFFITHS and I think—I’m not sure if Councillor
GRIFFITHS came along to the event. It also affects—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I just draw your attention to the meetings local law
section 52, I believe it is, indicated that if a councillor believes that part of a
councillor’s former speech made during the course of the current meeting is
considered to be misunderstood or misrepresented, they can make a point of
order. I just draw that to your attention, Madam Chairman, and perhaps suggest
that Councillor ABRAHAMS be given a chance to raise her point of order in
line with the relevant section of the meetings local law.
Chairman:
Well, thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON for representing Councillor
ABRAHAMS in that way. I will accept misrepresentation, Councillor
ABRAHAMS. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So we’ve got a neighbourhood plan
underway at Lower Oxley Creek North. It actually affects Councillor DICK,
Madam Chair. But Councillor DICK was actually on the day of that event that
affected his own personal residence, he was out there at The Gap, Madam Chair.
He was out there at The Gap, talking about new City Plan, Madam Chair. So
he’s so passionate about his own residents, he didn’t even attend an event that
affected his own residents for a neighbourhood plan, Madam Chair.
No. He was busy. He was busy saying all sorts of things, which we know are
fundamentally incorrect about new City Plan. Councillor DICK, again, you
attack people personally. You like that opportunity to attack a woman, don’t you,
Councillor DICK? We know what you’re on about. It’s disappointing, Madam
Chair. Councillor DICK, now is—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor COOPER:
Yes. Probably he is feeling a little bit sensitive this evening. So, Madam Chair,
let’s look at the facts of the matter, Madam Chair. We have got an area and
Councillor KNAPP knows the absolute detail very clearly. We’ve got an area,
Madam Chair, in The Gap. When we look at the area classifications, when we
look at the area which is the centre, the district centre, that is 0.5 per cent of that
total area is centre, Madam Chair. When we look at the potential for low density
area, that’s 42.13 per cent of the area, Madam Chair.
We discussed, as part of new City Plan, ad nauseum, Madam Chair, that you
can’t just put houses. You can’t just look at low density and say, yes, you can go
to smaller lots, Madam Chair. We said around centres greater than 2,000 square
metres. 2,000 square metres. Very specific, Madam Chair. Very detailed. It does
seem disappointing that the Australian Labor Party can’t grasp this fundamental
concept. It isn’t ad hoc. It’s not open slater. We know their planning form,
Madam Chair.
They let people do pretty much anything, anywhere. But we’ve been very
specific as to where these opportunities may lie in the future under new City
Plan. So the nonsense that we’ve had from the Australian Labor Party continues,
Madam Chair. Then we move to Councillor FLESSER in relation to item D. I
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 81 -
have to say, Councillor FLESSER has been a hundred per cent consistent, and he
has been absolutely advocating on behalf of his residents.
So I respect that, but this was very clearly, Madam Chair, not a new application.
This was purely a change to actually staging that application. Councillor
FLESSER raised some concerns about air quality. These were issues that were
addressed as part of that first actual application. So there was the council’s
environmental management offices actually reviewed air emission modelling
results. They took into consideration the terrain, the meteorological conditions.
They took all these matters into consideration as well as looking at air quality
standards and considered the application demonstrated the highest quality
provisions were being adhered to.
So I understand that the situation Councillor FLESSER is in, but this is not a
new application. This is purely an attempt to stage an application which is
already approved. That is very clearly certainly something the residents are not
happy about, but under the sustainable planning act, this is an entitlement of that
approval for the applicant to do that. So, Madam Chair, all of the vim and vigour
of the Australian Labor Party cannot, in any way, obscure the facts.
The facts of the matter is that we have a range of things underway. We will be
undertaking a neighbourhood plan, a clear commitment to that and we will
certainly be working with local residents and we looked forward to the
enthusiasm they have expressed in planning for the future of their area. Thank
you.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, misrepresentation.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Councillor COOPER said that I was
calling for more infrastructure charges. Madam Chair, that is not true. I said
there was a deficiency in the budget of $27 million of infrastructure charges and
that showed a poor budget projection. But I did not once discuss the quantum of
what an infrastructure charge should be.
Chairman:
Thank you. I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors DICK and BOURKE immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the
motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 82 -
The report as follows
A
PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL REVIEW ITS DECISION FOR A
MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE OLD SCOUT HALL
SITE AT 806 TO 812 SOUTH PINE ROAD, EVERTON PARK
CA14/4765 and CA14/39772
631/2013-14
1.
Two petitions from residents of Brisbane, requesting that Council reconsider its decision to
approve a multi-unit development, or to guarantee the preservation of mature trees on the
boundary fence and footpath located on the old Scout Hall site at 806 to 812 South Pine Road,
Everton Park, were received during the Summer Recess 2013-14.
2.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, supplied the following
information.
3.
There was one hard copy petition and one ePetition. The hard copy petition contained
136 signatures, and the ePetition had 33 signatures.
4.
The hard copy petition requested that Council reconsider its decision to approve a multi-unit
development on the old Scout Hall site at 806 to 812 South Pine Road, Everton Park. The
ePetition also requests the preservation of mature trees located on the boundary fence and on
the footpath of South Pine Road.
5.
Residents also asked for consideration of the environment and town planning regulations in
future developments and for community consultation to be undertaken in the continued
development of the suburb and surrounding area.
6.
One of the petitions received states the site address as 806 to 812 South Pine Road, Everton
Park. Council has no record of any development history for the site at 812 South Pine Road.
7.
An application for a multi-unit dwelling (38 units) on the old Scout Hall site located at 802,
806 and 808 South Pine Road, Everton Park, was approved by Council on 16 August 2013,
(application reference A003229799). This application was assessed and approved by
Council’s assessment team in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 (SPA) and against the relevant codes in the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan).
8.
The applicant provided a full response to Council’s initial request on 19 October 2012, when
Council’s assessment team reassessed their proposal.
9.
The application triggered an impact assessment process under the City Plan. As a result,
public notification was required to seek input from local residents. Public notification was
carried out from 15 November until 5 December 2012. A total of nine properly-made
submissions were received. The submitters raised several concerns with the proposed multiunit development, including the loss of vegetation from the site.
10.
The development application was assessed against all relevant City Plan codes, including the
Biodiversity Code. An Ecological Assessment Report was provided as part of the initial
application to Council.
11.
Council requested additional information from the applicant, including amendments to the
proposal to demonstrate compliance with the City Plan. In relation to the existing vegetation
on the site, the following was requested:
Amendment to the plans to indicate retention of additional significant trees within the
site.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 83 -
-
Addressing of the provisions of the Biodiversity Code in the City Plan.
An arborist assessment that supports the proposed tree retention, which in turn
addresses the impacts on the tree protection zones, and provides recommendations for
the remedial works required to ensure long-term retention of vegetation.
12.
A letter requesting further information (further issues letter) was sent to the applicant on
15 January 2013, requesting an amended vegetation retention plan that clearly indicated that
the works would not impact retained vegetation, and an arborist report to support the
proposed tree retention. Engineering issues also raised concerns about proposed gradients for
manoeuvring areas, internal circulation road and driveways.
13.
The applicant provided a full response to the further issues letter on 16 April 2013 and
included an amended vegetation retention plan and arborist report. The arborist report
submitted to Council as part of the applicant’s response identified the following:
Many of the trees have grown in groups which has altered their canopy form,
reducing their viability for retention as an individual isolated tree.
There are significant challenges in achieving successful tree retention, due to site
slope (and earthworks required to achieve safe access and level housing sites),
including shallow soil profile.
Design was altered to meet engineering safety requirements, which influenced the
viability of the tree retention.
14.
In relation to the trees located on the South Pine Road frontage, the applicant advised that
‘due to the trees’ location on the sloped embankment and proximity to the road (and
footpath), essential earthworks to achieve acceptable vertical and horizontal geometry for
buildings and manoeuvring areas dictate that the trees must be removed.’
15.
Council’s assessment team reassessed the proposal while also taking into consideration the
concerns raised in the submissions received and those which were properly made.
16.
The application that was approved on 16 August 2013 included specific conditions and
supporting plans to ensure the protection of existing on site vegetation such as:
A Tree Retention Plan, which identified seven trees for retention, including several
large eucalyptus trees and a hollow-bearing tree.
A Vegetation Management Plan, which was conditioned to ensure appropriate
protection of retained vegetation during site works. This plan is currently being
assessed by Council’s Development Assessment GreenSpace Services team.
A Landscape Concept Plan that identified revegetation works to compensate for the
loss of protected vegetation on the site, including:
30 new tree plantings to the internal roadway
seven new tree plantings within private lots adjacent to South Pine Road
common areas to be planted with comprehensive rehabilitation works, which
includes total cultivation, mulching and planting, within a site area of 1,125
square metres. This also includes 20 trees, plus shrubs and groundcovers.
Consultation
17.
Councillor Norm Wyndham, Councillor for McDowall Ward, was consulted on
12 February 2014 and supports the recommendation.
18.
The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting
held on 22 April 2014.
19.
DECISION:
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 84 -
THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT:
While one of the petitions received states the site address as 806 to 812 South Pine Road,
Everton Park, Brisbane City Council (Council) has no record of any development history for
the site at 812 South Pine Road.
An application for a multi-unit dwelling (38 units) on the old Scout Hall site located at 802,
806 and 808 South Pine Road, Everton Park, was approved by Council on 16 August 2013
(application reference A003229799). This application was assessed and approved by
Council’s assessment team in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 (SPA) and against the relevant codes in the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan).
As part of the development application process, the applicant was asked to address the
retention of existing on-site vegetation. The applicant provided an Ecological Assessment
report and arborist report.
In relation to the trees located on the South Pine Road frontage, the applicant advised that
‘due to the trees’ location on the sloped embankment and proximity to the road (and
footpath), essential earthworks to achieve acceptable vertical and horizontal geometry for
buildings and manoeuvring areas dictate that the trees must be removed.’
Council assessed the proposal while also taking into consideration the concerns raised in the
submissions, including those properly made that were received by Council. The application
was approved with specific conditions and supporting plans to ensure the protection of
existing on site vegetation, which included:
A Tree Retention Plan, which identified seven trees for retention.
A Vegetation Management Plan which was conditioned to ensure appropriate
protection of retained vegetation during site works. This plan is currently being
assessed by Council’s Development Assessment GreenSpace Services team.
A Landscape Concept Plan that identified revegetation works to compensate for the
loss of protected vegetation on the site.
The approval package outlining the conditions set by Council can be viewed on Council’s
website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline by using reference number A003229799.
NOTED
B
PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL PREPARE A LOCAL PLAN FOR
THE GAP
CA13/806324 and CA13/831768
632/2013-14
20.
Two petitions from residents of Brisbane, requesting Council to prepare a local plan for
The Gap to protect the valued character of the area, were presented to the meetings of Council
held on 19 November 2013 and 3 December 2013, by Councillors Nicole Johnston and
Geraldine Knapp respectively, and received.
21.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, supplied the following
information.
22.
The two petitions contain a total of 2,028 signatures, including 713 signatories on the
electronic petition.
23.
The petitioners are concerned that surrounding suburbs have a local plan whereas there is
none for The Gap, and that there is nothing that specifically protects existing character, the
natural environment and urban densities in their suburb. The petition further states that
development approvals in Mt Nebo Road and Glen Affric Street demonstrate the need for
greater regulation.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 85 -
24.
In Brisbane, local plans are known as neighbourhood plans and these represent local
exception provisions to the general provisions in Brisbane’s planning scheme, Brisbane City
Plan 2000.
25.
Provisions to protect elements valued by the petitioners, such as existing character and
bushland, are already contained in Brisbane’s planning scheme. The current planning scheme
already has the highest level of assessment provisions in place for higher density development
that may be proposed for The Gap. However, in preparing the new draft planning scheme for
Brisbane, further refinement of the planning scheme was also undertaken to ensure that, for
example, enhanced natural environment provisions will be in place.
26.
The demand for a neighbourhood plan has arisen in response to recent development approvals
in Glen Affric Street and Mt Nebo Road. The application for a five storey multi-unit dwelling
(32 units) at 17 Glen Affric Street, The Gap (Village Fair Shopping Centre) was approved on
4 October 2013 (application reference A003449016). This application was approved by
Council as it is located on a site designated as a multi-purpose centre and was considered to
be consistent with the provisions.
27.
An application for a multi-unit dwelling (20 units) at 28 Mt Nebo Road, The Gap, was
approved on 20 August 2012 (application reference A002339994).
28.
Both applications were assessed against Brisbane City Plan 2000 requirements, and in
accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). Both developments are close to
public transport and also provided benefits in the form of housing choice for the area. The
Glen Affric Street development is also close to sporting facilities, promotes density within the
designated centre area and provides additional passive surveillance of the adjoining
park/sporting fields and shopping centre car park. The Mt Nebo Road development retains
significant vegetation on the site and provides two ecological corridors through the site.
29.
It is important to note that a neighbourhood plan would not necessarily prevent such
development applications being made or approved. Current planning provisions are in place
for high impact development or development in unsuitable locations, where proposed
development may conflict with a site’s area classification/zoning. Development applications
must demonstrate how they meet acceptable outcomes and minimise impacts. Approved
development also must comply with conditions of approvals and enforcement is undertaken to
ensure compliance.
30.
Eighty-three per cent of The Gap is zoned either low density residential or environmental
protection/park and as such, there are only a few sites where other types of development can
be considered. A mix of housing options within the suburb is desired, in accordance with
Council's Seniors Strategy and Brisbane Vision 2031, to encourage ageing in place and
housing choice for different life stages.
31.
The draft new City Plan identifies The Gap as a predominantly suburban living area, where
the scale of development is determined by local circumstances. While The Gap is not
experiencing significant transition at this time, it is recognised that there is a need for greater
housing options in the area for older and young residents, along with a strong desire by local
residents to participate in a neighbourhood planning process.
Consultation
32.
Councillor Geraldine Knapp, Councillor for The Gap Ward, has been consulted and supports
the recommendation.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 86 -
33.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 22 April 2014.
34.
DECISION:
THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL
CONSIDER A NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR THE GAP AS A PART OF FUTURE
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS BALANCED AGAINST THE NEEDS OF OTHER
SUBURBS. IT IS ANTICIPATED THIS WILL OCCUR AS PART OF THE 2015-16
FINANCIAL YEAR.
NOTED
C
PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REDUCE THE OUTSTANDING
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE RAMPATTAK INDOOR
SKATE FACILITY AT 393 BILSEN ROAD, GEEBUNG
CA13/661127
633/2013-14
35.
An electronic petition from residents of Brisbane and surrounding local authorities, requesting
that Council reduce the outstanding infrastructure contributions for RampAttak, an indoor
skate park facility, at 393 Bilsen Road, Geebung, was received during the Spring Recess
2013.
36.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, supplied the following information.
37.
The petition contains 1,002 signatures.
38.
Development approval was issued for the RampAttak site on 21 April 2010, subject to
conditions, including a requirement for monetary contributions to be paid to Council towards
the cost of water supply, sewerage and transport (Condition 6). The total amount payable at
the time of the approval was $134,910.28.
39.
On 22 July 2010, to reflect existing infrastructure in place, the infrastructure contributions
were reduced to $112,346.72. A subsidy of 35 per cent was offered at that time, provided the
approval took effect and the charges were paid prior to 30 June 2012. The subsidy reduced the
charges to $73,025.37.
40.
On 16 April 2013, an audit was conducted by Council’s Material Change of Use team and it
was revealed that the use of the development had commenced and that the monetary
contributions, as required by Condition 6, had not been made. Therefore, the owners of
RampAttak were non-compliant with the condition. Under the Sustainable Planning Act
2009, it is an offence to contravene a condition of a development approval and non-payment
of outstanding infrastructure contributions results in recovery proceedings against the subject
parties.
41.
A payment plan across four years was offered by Council, allowing the operators to continue
to operate their business while paying the charges. Based on the prevailing rate, the amount
owing was $123,947.74 for the 2013-14 financial year. The operators subsequently entered
into this monthly payment plan for the outstanding contributions and have been making
regular payments.
42.
It is recommended that Council does not waive or reduce the infrastructure contributions
associated with this development approval as previous reductions have been offered and
remained unpaid. Furthermore, it is recommended that Council continue to work with the
RampAttak owners in meeting the requirements of their payment plan.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 87 -
Consultation
43.
Councillor Victoria Newton, Councillor for Deagon Ward, has been consulted and does not
support the recommendation.
44.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 22 April 2014.
45.
DECISION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT
RESPONSE AS SET OUT BELOW BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA13/661127
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reduce the outstanding infrastructure charges
for RampAttak at 393 Bilsen Road, Geebung.
Council has the responsibility of providing the necessary infrastructure to service new
developments across the city without unduly burdening ratepayers. The method for providing
this infrastructure is that the developer pays infrastructure charges upfront. These charges are
a condition of the development approval and payment means that the developer is complying
with their development conditions.
These infrastructure charges formed part of the conditions of the development approval issued
in 2010. Further, in accepting the approval’s conditions, there was agreement to pay these
charges and lawfully comply with the development approval.
These charges have been outstanding for a number of years and during that time, Council has
offered a significant credit for the existing infrastructure, and then applied a further subsidy of
35 per cent. This effectively reduced the amount owing by half. Council records indicate that
no payment of the reduced charges was made. As such, Council again encouraged the
payment of the remaining charges, including those for the Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU),
which Council cannot set aside.
Council offered a payment plan, which was entered into across four years. Some of the
payments have already been made. This means that RampAttak can continue to operate while
paying the charges into the future.
If you have any further questions please contact Mr Paul Stone, Material Change of Use
Investigator, Brisbane Lifestyle Division on 3403 8888.
NOTED
D
PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO BLOCK THE MODIFICATION
OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE NUDGEE
CEMETERY SITE AT 493 ST VINCENTS ROAD, NUDGEE
CA14/9910
634/2013-14
46.
A petition from residents of Nudgee and surrounding suburbs, requesting Council to block the
modification of the development approval for the proposed crematorium, associated chapel
and tea room at the Nudgee Cemetery site located at 493 St Vincents Road, Nudgee, was
received during the Summer Recess 2013-14.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 88 -
47.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, supplied the following
information.
48.
The petition contains 30 signatures.
49.
The petition objects to the proposed staging of the development, the significant increase in
development size, and the lack of public advertising of this application.
50.
The original development application for a crematorium, associated chapel and tea room at
Nudgee Cemetery was approved on 8 October 2008 (A001884534). This impact assessable
application was assessed and approved by Council’s assessment team in accordance with the
requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), and against the relevant codes in the
City Plan.
51.
The original development application triggered impact assessment under the City Plan, which
required public notification to obtain local community comment. Public notification was
carried out from 16 January until 7 February 2008. A total of nine properly made submissions
were received. These submitters raised the following concerns including:
the crematorium’s proximity to residential development
the impact on air and noise quality
the impact on existing flooding in the area
the increase of traffic in the area
the overdevelopment of the site
the impact on the surrounding community’s values.
52.
The application provided the necessary supporting information and technical reports to
demonstrate that the approved development complied with the relevant provision of the
City Plan and, in particular, that it would not have any adverse impacts on the existing and
future adjoining landowners.
53.
Under the IPA, the original development approval was valid for a four-year period until
8 October 2012. However, Council granted an extension of this period until 1 June 2014
(A003159802). The extension of this period was assessed against section 383 of the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), where the applicant clearly demonstrated that the
approval was consistent with the current laws and policies, and that there were no changes to
the proposal that would impact on the community’s awareness of the approval.
54.
A request to change the original development approval under section 369 of the SPA was
lodged with Council on 14 November 2013 (A003752357). The intent of this request was to
stage the existing approval being:
stage one – the crematorium and associated area with a temporary driveway access
off Childs Road
stage two – the tea room, chapel, administration spaces, associated car parking and
permanent driveway off Childs Road.
55.
In the interim for stage one, services and gatherings for the cremations would be conducted
off-site.
56.
The request for minor changes to the original development approval was approved by Council
on 13 February 2014, following an assessment by Council’s planning officers against the
requirements of the City Plan and in line with the provisions of the SPA. As such, the request
to modify the original development approval did not require any public notification under the
SPA.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 89 -
Consultation
57.
Councillor Kim Flesser, Councillor for Northgate Ward, was consulted on 9 April 2014 and
does not support the recommendation below.
58.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 28 April 2014.
59.
DECISION:
THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT:
The original development application for a crematorium, associated chapel and tea room at
the Nudgee Cemetery site located at 493 St Vincents Road, Nudgee, was approved on
8 October 2008 (application reference A001884534). This impact assessable application was
assessed and approved by Council’s assessment team in accordance with the requirements of
the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), and against the relevant codes in the Brisbane City
Plan 2000 (City Plan).
A request to change the original development approval under section 369 of the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009 (SPA) was lodged with Council on 14 November 2013 (A003752357).
The intent of the request was to increase the floor area, make improvements to the back of
house spaces for the crematorium and to stage the existing approval being:
stage one – the crematorium and associated area with a temporary driveway access
off Childs Road
stage two – the tea room, chapel, administration spaces, associated car parking and
permanent driveway off Childs Road.
In the interim for stage one, services and gatherings for the cremations would be conducted
off-site.
The applicant then changed their request to staging of the original approval only. There were
no further changes to the original approved development, to ensure it was in accordance with
the permissible change provisions of the SPA.
The request for minor changes to the original development approval was approved by Council
on 13 February 2014, following an assessment by Council’s planning officers against the
requirements of the City Plan and in line with the provisions of the SPA. As such, this request
to change the original development approval did not require any public notification under the
SPA.
Council officers make their assessment with careful consideration of both Council’s planning
provisions and the requirements of Queensland planning legislation. While the original
development application was assessed under IPA, the current SPA provisions applicable to
this request did not change the assessment or triggers for public notification.
NOTED
ADJOURNMENT:
630/2013-14
At that time, 7.04pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor
WINES, 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 7.05pm.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 90 -
UPON RESUMPTION:
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor
Norm WYNDHAM that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee
as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2014, on matters usually coming under the jurisdiction of
the Field Services Committee, be noted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Just briefly, Madam Chair, there are two items before us at items A and B—
two petitions. The petition in the first instance for calling on Council not to
plant trees in a street: there were five petitioners and the decision has been
taken to not plant trees outside those residences. This is part of a street-tree
planting program and, regrettably, those residents don't want trees and that has
been agreed to.
The second petition was a petition in my ward opposed to a footpath—the
petition I presented here in January, I believe—and this petition followed an
initial support from the residents for a footpath in Mein Street, Hendra. But
those opposed were able to garner support opposed to the footpath. That
included some who had originally supported the footpath.
So be it. The majority of residents in this street have determined that they don't
want the footpath and so the money will be reallocated and that footpath won't
proceed.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to enter the debate on this report in
relation to item B. Item B, as Councillor McLACHLAN has just indicated, is a
petition calling on Council not to construct a new concrete footpath on the
even-numbered side of Mein Street, Hendra.
Now, Councillor McLACHLAN is the local councillor in relation to this
petition and I guess I just say this. Councillor McLACHLAN, in addition to
his role as the local councillor, is also the chairperson for Field Services
clearly in terms of his introduction to this committee. Part of his brief is to
manage the construction of footpaths in this city.
When the chairperson of the portfolio cannot manage the simple construction
of a footpath in his local ward, you have to call into question the competency
of the chairperson generally.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, I can't see that this is talking about the construction of
the footpath. It's talking the survey and the petition seeking residents' opinions.
It's not about the construction of the footpath.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, but Madam Chair, I draw your attention to paragraph 10 which is a
petition from residents of Hendra objecting to, quote, the construction of a
new concrete footpath.
Chairman:
I think you're drawing a very long bow, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor KING:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, I guess—
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON. Yes, Councillor KING.
Councillor KING:
Madam Chair, this is just a pointless personal attack again on a councillor on
this side of the Chamber. I'd ask her to come back to the actual—
Chairman:
Yes. I can't see the relevance of what you've said so far, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair, the relevance is this. School children are required to do
basic competency tests in their education.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 91 -
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor SUTTON:
Chairpersons…it does not—
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order, Councillor SUTTON. Yes, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
School competency tests have got absolutely nothing to do with this item
before us.
Chairman:
Yes.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
The councillor is clearly ignoring your order and I suggest you do sit her
down.
Chairman:
Yes. Councillor SUTTON, get to the content of this particular petition or I'll
sit you down.
Councillor SUTTON:
The content is this. Councillor David McLACHLAN decided and surveyed the
residents about building a concrete footpath. That is not just his role as a local
councillor but in his role as the chairperson—he is responsible for overseeing,
as all councillors do. If we have an issue with the construction of a footpath in
our ward, it is Councillor McLACHLAN that we have to answer to.
So where I talk about poor competencies, I would think that the responsible
chairperson for this portfolio should be able to manage the construction of a
footpath in his ward.
Councillor KING:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes. Another point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON. Yes,
Councillor KING.
Councillor KING:
This is another slanderous attack on a councillor on this side and going against
local residents and what local residents want.
Chairman:
Yes. Councillor SUTTON, I think you should resume your seat. You are not
dealing with what this petition is about. You are criticising Councillor
McLACHLAN about the management of the construction of the footpath.
That is not what this petition is about. I do not understand where you're going
because we had a petition from the residents and Councillor McLACHLAN
did a survey. I'm not going to tolerate just pointless and unsubstantiated
personal criticisms. There seems to have been a lot of that in here tonight.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair, the reality of it is this is a petition from the residents of
Hamilton Ward and the position of the councillor for Hamilton Ward is of
relevance. It is part of the debate on this issue. It clearly talks about Councillor
McLACHLAN's actions in this instance.
I guess my issue is that if he can't get it right in his own ward, how can he
profess to get it right—
Councillor:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Good idea, Councillor SUTTON, and I think let's have a little bit of decency in
future because that was a disgraceful speech.
Further debate? Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
I'm staggered, Madam Chairman—
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor McLACHLAN:
I'm staggered, Madam Chairman, by that slanderous attack, slanderous
attack…
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Order!
Yes, Councillor SUTTON, what's your point of order?
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 92 -
Councillor SUTTON:
It may have been a lot of things but it was not slanderous and a court of law
will uphold it.
Chairman:
Not far off it. Order!
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Madam Chairman, what Councillor SUTTON has suggested quite clearly is
that I should bulldoze against the wishes of the residents of this street, an
outcome that they—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair. I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
Wait until you're called, Councillor SUTTON, or you will be warned.
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor SUTTON. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Councillor SUTTON clearly believes that I should override the concerns of the
majority of the residents of this street. This was a fair and simple democratic
process that we all go through, all councillors go through. The fact that I am
the chair of Field Services and the Asset Services teams that report to me for
the construction of footpaths is entirely irrelevant in this particular point.
As we all do with the expenditure of the funds that we are provided with for
provisional footpaths, I surveyed the street, a petition was raised against it, I
presented that petition to this Council for consideration and it a clear majority
of the residents did not want this footpath. That has got nothing to do, nothing
whatsoever to do, with my administration portfolio and clearly Councillor
SUTTON just has decided to embark on a personal attack for whatever reason
she believes, which is an absolute disgrace, an absolute disgrace.
Chairman:
Misrepresentation, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair. At no time did I say that Councillor McLACHLAN sought
to bulldoze the opinion of his residents. What I said was that he couldn't
manage a simple footpath construction in his area or his portfolio.
Chairman:
Resume your seat. I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL NOT TO PLANT MORE STREET
TREES IN AUGUSTA STREET, ASPLEY
CA14/98033
635/2013-14
1.
A petition from residents of Aspley calling on Council not to plant more street trees in
Augusta Street, Aspley, as part of a street tree planting program in the area, was received
during the Summer Recess 2013-14.
2.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division provided the
information below.
3.
The petition contains five signatures. The petitioners believe the street already has a desirable
number of trees and more would compromise security and safety.
4.
Council’s Asset Services is initiating a community street tree planting program in the Aspley
area. As part of the program, residents received a notice advising the purpose of the planting
program and contact details if further information is desired. The notice also informed
residents that a blue dot is marked on the kerb to indicate the location of the tree planting on
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 93 -
the footpath. An inspection by a Council officer on 17 February 2014 determined that no
trees were to be planted in front of the properties of the petitioners. The officer also confirmed
that no blue markings were placed on the kerb in front of these properties.
5.
The Council officer contacted the head petitioner by telephone on 17 February 2014 and
confirmed that no trees would be planted at these locations. The officer also confirmed that a
resident could not object to trees being planted in front of other properties where the resident
has not objected to trees being planted.
6.
At the time of receiving the petition, Council had already planted street trees in
Augusta Street with no further objections.
Consultation
7.
Councillor Norm Wyndham, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and
supports the decision below.
8.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held
on 14 April 2014.
9.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO
PLANT STREET TREES IN AUGUSTA STREET, ASPLEY. HOWEVER, TREES
WILL NOT BE PLANTED ON THE FOOTPATH OF THE RESIDENTS WHO
SIGNED THE PETITION.
NOTED
B
PETITION - CALLING ON COUNCIL NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW
CONCRETE FOOTPATH ON THE EVEN-NUMBERED SIDE OF
MEIN STREET, HENDRA
CA14/137929
636/2013-14
10.
A petition from residents of Hendra objecting to the construction of a new concrete footpath
on the even-numbered side of Mein Street, Hendra, was presented to the meeting of Council
held on 18 February 2014, by Councillor David McLachlan, and received.
11.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
12.
The petition contains 40 signatures.
13.
Following a request for a footpath from a resident on the even-numbered side of Mein Street,
Hendra, Councillor David McLachlan surveyed the residents on the even-numbered side
requesting them to indicate whether they approved or disapproved of the construction of a
new concrete footpath on the even-numbered side. The survey of all residents on the even side
came back in favour of the construction of the footpath. The head petitioners then wrote to the
Lord Mayor objecting to the proposal. A letter was sent back advising them of Council’s
process.
14.
The head petitioners then contacted Councillor McLachlan to object to the construction of the
new concrete footpath. They were advised to submit a petition from the local residents who
wanted to support their objection. Some of the petitioners had originally supported the
proposal.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 94 -
Consultation
15.
Councillor David McLachlan, Councillor for Hamilton Ward, has been consulted and accepts
that a clear majority of residents on the even-numbered side of Mein Street do not support this
project.
Funding
16.
Funds will be transferred to another project within the Hamilton Ward.
17.
The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting
held on 14 April 2014.
18.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL NOT
CONSTRUCT A NEW CONCRETE FOOTPATH ON THE EVEN-NUMBERED SIDE
OF MEIN STREET, HENDRA.
NOTED
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE
Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor
Andrew WINES, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as
delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2014, on matters usually considered by Brisbane Lifestyle
Committee, be noted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I rise briefly to speak to item A of this report
which is a response to a petition regarding advertising for the upcoming
Brisbane Queer Film Festival, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I won't rehash some of the issues that have been discussed in
the committee and the Chamber tonight because I think we have had some
extensive debate and discussion around this issue. But, Madam Chair, I want
to say that there were 1,113 people who signed the petition who are very
concerned about Council's policy or Council's involvement in banning one of
the posters involved in the Queer Film Festival when it came to publicising it
on the JCDecaux CityCycle advertising signs in the CBD.
Madam Chair, I just want to say a few key issues in relation to this. Obviously,
Madam Chair, this Council does need to work more closely with the Brisbane
Queer Film Festival organisation so things like this don't happen again in
future. The last thing that we need is articles that say, and headlines saying,
that Brisbane is homophobic which was the end result of the discussion around
this particular poster which was a re-enactment of From Here to Eternity.
There was no need to ban this poster, in our view, but I guess at the end of the
day the way this was handled perhaps has caused more harm than good and I
think that perhaps we can learn a lot in terms of how we can manage this
better and do better in future. I think that's a clear message from the petitioners
who felt aggrieved by the way Council handled this whole process, Madam
Chair.
This is not a criticism. I'm not blaming this on a particular individual or
personalising this in any way, Madam Chair, but I think that if we're to stand
strong and proud and say we're an inclusive city that includes people of all
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 95 -
backgrounds, of all abilities and all different sexual orientations, Madam
Chair, we need to handle these things much better and with a better deal of
sensitivity and a maturity, Madam Chair, to be a world-class city.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have made many comments on this so I will
keep it very brief.
I agree totally that this issue was not handled correctly but the only people
that's just not handled it correctly was those opposite who continue to spout
the absolute non-truth that we banned a photo that went on to JCDecaux. We
asked for a hold on a photo for discussion but they came back and said due to
time restrictions, we need to move on, so they chose another photo.
There was no banning. That photo was used on the Powerhouse building itself,
in programs, in multimedia right across the city. They chose to keep moving
on the campaign for the JCDecaux. There was no banning. I'll say it for the
hundredth time. We are not the ones that did not deal with this issue correctly.
Chairman:
I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVERSE THE DECISION
TO PLACE A HOLD ON AN ADVERTISEMENT TO PROMOTE THE
BRISBANE QUEER FILM FESTIVAL
CA14/187637
637/2013-14
1.
An ePetition, requesting that Council reverse the decision to place a hold on an advertisement
to promote the Brisbane Queer Film Festival, was presented to the meeting of Council held on
11 March 2014, by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.
2.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, supplied the following information.
3.
The petition contained 1,113 signatories, representing residents of Brisbane and other states
across the country.
4.
The Brisbane Queer Film Festival (QFF) was held at the Brisbane Powerhouse from
28 March to 5 April 2014 as part of their annual event program. The Brisbane Powerhouse is
substantially funded by Council but also attracts revenue by providing a range of arts and
culture programs to the public, as well as dining options.
5.
The Brisbane Powerhouse proposed that three posters supporting the QFF would be shown on
CityCycle panels. Council’s logo appeared on all proposed posters for the festival due to
Council’s funding arrangements with the Brisbane Powerhouse.
6.
On 20 February 2014, Council requested a hold be placed on one of three proposed billboard
advertisements in order to refer the matter to the Advertising Standards Board. The aim was
to seek advice about whether the advertisement complied with industry standards and
community expectations for advertising on CityCycle advertising panels.
7.
After being advised of Council’s action, the Brisbane Powerhouse made the decision to
proceed with an alternate image depicting the same film ambassadors.
8.
The image in question was still used to advertise the festival through the festival program,
billboards at the Powerhouse as well as other advertising copy such as promotional posters.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 96 -
Funding
9.
Partial funding for the Brisbane Queer Film Festival is provided through Council’s Brisbane
Powerhouse contract under Program 4 Your Brisbane, Service 4.1.4.3 Brisbane Powerhouse.
Customer impact
10.
The festival will continue to promote images of queer couples as part of its advertising.
11.
The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting
held on 22 April 2014.
12.
DECISION:
THAT THE COMMITTEE TAKE NOTE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS
SUBMISSION AND ENDORSE THE DRAFT RESPONSE BELOW TO THE HEAD
PETITIONER.
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA14/187637
Thank you for your petition received by Council on 11 March 2014 requesting that Council reverse
the decision to place a hold on an advertisement to promote the Brisbane Queer Film Festival.
The Brisbane Queer Film Festival (QFF) was held at the Brisbane Powerhouse from 28 March to
5 April 2014 as part of their annual event program. The Brisbane Powerhouse is substantially funded
by Council under Program 4 Your Brisbane, Service 4.1.4.3 Brisbane Powerhouse, but also attracts
revenue by providing a range of arts and culture programs to the public as well as dining options.
The Brisbane Powerhouse proposed that three posters supporting the QFF would be shown on
CityCycle panels. Council’s logo appeared on all proposed posters for the festival due to Council’s
funding arrangements with the Brisbane Powerhouse. On 20 February 2014, Council requested a hold
on one of three proposed billboard advertisements in order to refer the matter to the Advertising
Standards Board. The aim was to seek advice about whether the advertisement complied with industry
standards and community expectations for advertising on CityCycle advertising panels.
After being advised of Council’s action, the Brisbane Powerhouse made the decision to proceed with
an alternate image depicting the same film ambassadors.
The image in question was still used to advertise the festival by way of the festival program,
billboards at the Powerhouse as well as other advertising copy such as promotional posters.
NOTED
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 97 -
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – Racial Discrimination
Act:
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
638/2013-14
The Chairman of Council drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion below, which was listed on the
agenda. She then called on Councillor DICK to move the motion.
PREAMBLE:
The Racial Discrimination Act was enacted in 1975 in a show of bipartisanship between Gough
Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser. The objective of this law was to protect the community from hate speech
and from racial, religious and cultural intolerance. It has been considered good law for almost four
decades.
Recently, the Federal Government signalled its intention to repeal section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act. The Federal Attorney General, Senator George Brandis, released an exposure
draft of amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act. The proposed changes will water down the key
provisions of the Act in a way which may render the law ineffective.
Brisbane is a harmonious multicultural community and Brisbane City Council is committed to ensuring
that it remains that way.
MOTION:
That Brisbane City Council:
(1)
Understands the fundamental importance of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
1975.
(2)
Recognises that section 18C provides protection to individuals from offensive behaviour
because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin.
(3)
Urges all levels of government to combat bigotry at every opportunity.
(4)
Requests that the Federal Attorney General to withdraw the Draft Exposure Amendment to the
Racial Discrimination Act.
Councillor DICK moved the motion and it was seconded by Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? Thank you, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to move this motion tonight and I
wish I didn't have to move this motion tonight as I'm sure I speak on behalf of
all councillors that will be uniting as one tonight, just as other local
governments around Australia have done to oppose the Federal Government's
radical changes.
Tonight I stand with some two-and-a-half million ratepayers across Australia
that have rejected and sent a very clear message to the Federal Government
about the changes they are putting on the table, in particular the draft changes
to the Racial Discrimination Act which would repeal section 18B, 18C, 18D
and 18E, meaning it will no longer be an offence to offend, insult or humiliate
a person based on their race, colour or national and ethnic origin.
Right from the beginning, Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge the work of
two individuals, Erin Chew and Kingsley Liu, who have begun a movement
across Australia, the Project 18C movement. This is a local government
campaign which has been rolled out across Australia since December last year.
We know that Brisbane is a multicultural city. We know that we stand on the
doorstep of G20 when we'll be inviting world leaders to the Brisbane
community and Brisbane will be on the world stage.
Madam Chair, I offer this tonight as a bipartisan approach to deal with this
motion which is consistent with the Project 18C movement which is the
standard set of words which have been adopted by local governments across
Australia, including, I'm pleased to see, the City of Sydney, the City of
Melbourne—under the strong leadership of the lord mayor of that city, Robert
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 98 -
Doyle, a former Liberal state leader—Darwin City Council, a whole range of
other local governments across Australia including the Blue Mountains,
Auburn, Ryde, Hurstville, City of Canada Bay, Holroyd, the Hills, Canterbury,
Parramatta, Randwick, Blacktown, Strathfield, Marrickville, Ashfield—which
is a mayoral minute—Darebin, Ballarat, Moreland, City of Yarra, Port Phillip,
Glen Iris, the Great Dandenong Council, Monash City.
I know that the other councils which are dealing with this at their next
upcoming or forthcoming meetings: Bankstown, Fairfield, Camden, Gosford,
Willoughby, Burwood, Waverley, Byron Bay, the City of Botany Bay,
Ashfield Council, Willaura Council, Whittlesea, Surf Coast, Wyndham,
Hume, Frankston City Council, Mandurah, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Hobart,
Huon Valley, Clarence, Fremantle.
Madam Chair, this motion tonight is about doing the right thing and saying in
the strongest possible terms that Brisbane won't accept discrimination. Madam
Chair, my team tonight will be voting for this motion because it is the right
thing to do. We want Brisbane to add its voice, which will then take the
movement to around three-and-a-half million Australians. This isn't about
politics tonight, it is about doing the right thing.
I am disappointed that no one from the LNP have broken their silence as yet,
just like conservative leaders like Mike Baird and Denis Napthine, who are
opposing these measures, standing up to George Brandis. We need to send a
very clear united message tonight.
The draft amendment to the Act released by the Abbott Government we know
will open the door to hate speech in our community and we, as community
leaders, working alongside our multicultural groups, simply cannot allow that
to happen. We know Australia is a diverse community and the core elements
of the proposed amendments, namely repealing those sections I've outlined,
show an alarming lack of understanding and appreciation of the dynamics of
our society. We know racial vilification fundamentally damages the notion of
an inclusive message.
In direct response to the Attorney-General George Brandis' comment that,
quote, people do have a right to be bigots, you know, I argue that the
Australian Government should never put the interests and freedoms of bigots
ahead of the interests and freedoms of everyday Australians who may be
offended, insulted or humiliated based on their race, colour, national or ethnic
origin.
In our city, we have around 28.3 per cent of the 1.13 million people living in
our city who were born overseas. Further, around 1.4 per cent who identify as
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. In my own ward, I represent
around 35.9 per cent of the 49,171 people living in the ward who were born
overseas and a further 4.4 per cent, or 1,930, identify as Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander descent.
In my local community, we teach the values, particularly to young people, to
celebrate their heritage and despite being from many cultures we are a one
community. I love nothing more than going to Harmony Days and
multicultural festivals in my own local community.
These Brisbane residents deserve legal protections against offence, insult and
humiliation—and changing the Racial Discrimination Act to repeal sections
18B, C, D and E opens the door for people to feel hatred in our community. I
believe it puts at risk the very foundations of Brisbane's and Australia's social
cohesion.
I want to read a couple of comments from community leaders into the Council
Chamber, in the record tonight.
Patrick Voon, the president of the Chinese/Australian forum says, “I think it's
important for communities to make it known to the Attorney-General that we
are concerned about this very drastic announcement, all because of” the,
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 99 quote, “Bolt law. I think protection must be available for all minorities against
being vilified on the basis of one's race or ethnicity”.
The head of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry says, “If you repeal or
water down this law, it sends a signal from the Federal Government that
racism is permissible to some extent. At the end of the day, the lesson of
history is that it just doesn’t stop with words, it develops into conflicts
between groups. It could lead to an example of the importation of hatred from
foreign conflicts in Australia and an introduction of that sort of strife in our
community.”
Madam Chair, I pay tribute to the current Liberal leader, Mike Baird of New
South Wales and also Dr Denis Napthine who both wrote submissions on
behalf of their governments and the Premier of Victoria says, “There is no
place for bigotry, there is no place for racial vilification. That's why we'll be
examining the Federal Government's proposal and putting in a strong
submission to make sure that our proud multiculturalism will be maintained
and enhanced.”
Madam Chair, for the benefit of all councillors tonight, I table my submission
to the Human Rights Policy Branch of the Attorney-General's Department
which I lodged on behalf of all Labor councillors. I'm unaware of whether the
LNP or any other LNP councillors have lodged submissions. I sincerely hope
they have on behalf of the thousands and tens of thousands of multicultural
groups in our community across Brisbane.
When I lodged this motion the other day and the subsequent media I've done, I
have been inundated by requests of support from our multicultural leaders and
various individuals offering their support and thanks for us as a Council
tonight debating this issue.
I suspect, by the LORD MAYOR's response today, that they may not be
supporting this motion. I sincerely, genuinely hope they do. I suspect that they
may be watering down the motion tonight. Madam Chair, I'm happy to
negotiate and work within the LNP administration to make sure that we do
send a very clear message. That is not my preferred option. That is not the
preferred option of the multicultural leaders in our community here in
Brisbane, Queensland and across Australia.
I want this Council to be a leader when it says no to hate speech. I want this
Council to show leadership—that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our
multicultural organisations. This is not an attack on the LNP, This is not an
attack on LNP councillors. This is simply about joining with other local
government leaders and state and territory leaders across Australia to say we
are as one, we reject these proposals, we stand united and we will always stand
up for racism in our community.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to contribute to debate on this
motion and it feels like Groundhog Day here again because once again we find
ourselves debating a motion that relates to a level of government that isn't
local government. But once more this opposition shows itself to be interested
in anything—
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor MURPHY:
—but issues to do with Brisbane City Council. It's astounding especially that
after a six-week recess, the one motion that they bring to this Chamber is to
discuss a Federal Government issue in the Attorney-General's portfolio.
Clearly, Councillor DICK is not content with conducting a review of the
Federal ALP. He now wants this to be a house of review for federal legislation
as well. This is potential legislation. It's important to remember that. We're not
being asked to debate a bill that's before the Federal parliament. It's not before
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 100 -
the House, it's not before the Senate. This is actually an exposure draft that's
been released for discussion.
So this is an absolutely pathetic waste of ratepayers' money. It continues to
show how out of touch this opposition is with residents on the streets here in
Brisbane. Madam Chairman, what does it say about the LORD MAYOR and
the performance of this administration over the last six weeks when this is the
one motion that the Labor Party brings to debate?
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor MURPHY:
Clearly, he did such a great job and this is such a vote of confidence in us that
they would bring this motion here rather than debate it via a submission, via
the appropriate forum. Now, make no mistake. This administration detests
racism. We detest it unequivocally. We think that racism—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor MURPHY:
We think that racism is the lowest form of human expression and it should be
condemned by public figures at every level of government. We on the this side
also recognise the breakthrough role that the Racial Discrimination Act has
played in helping to combat racism in this country but that doesn't mean that
the Act is above criticism.
Section 18C, the particular section that is being discussed in this motion
tonight, was not, if you read the preamble, a bipartisan move. It was actually
enacted in the dying days of the Keating Government in 1995, just under
20 years ago. It was not part of the original Act. It never enjoyed bipartisan
support and in fact multiple government reports recommended against
adopting laws along these lines. Indeed, a parliamentary library report in 1994
backed this up.
Now, I want to read section 18C for you: “It is unlawful for a person to do an
act, otherwise and in private, if the act is reasonably likely in all circumstances
to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people
and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of
the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.”
Now, whilst that is undoubtedly well-intentioned, the particular wording of the
section and the inherent nature, the subjective nature, of taking offence to an
act leaves this widely open to interpretation. It's been argued that this section
has the unintended consequence of being used as a tool for political censorship
when issues of race are openly discussed as a part of public debate.
Now, the Institute of Public Affairs decided the Eatock case, Eatock versus
Bolt, as an example of 18C being used in this way. Now, whether we agree
with that—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor MURPHY:
—is neither here nor there but we look at the exposure draft. Now, the
exposure draft that the government has released for comment seeks to repeal
not only that section 18C but also 18B, 18D and 18E. Now, these are the
sections of the Act that deal with being offended, insulted or humiliated. It
seeks to replace that with a section that preserves existing protections against
intimidation and creates a new protection against racial vilification.
It reads, “It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise and in private, if
the act is reasonably likely to vilify another person or group of persons or to
intimidate another person or a group of persons, the act is done because of the
race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of
persons.”
It goes on to clarify, for the purposes of this section: vilify means to incite
hatred against a person or group of persons, intimidate means to cause fear or
physical harm. Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effects specified
in subsection 1(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 101 -
reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any
particular group within the Australian community.
This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing, spoken,
broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course, participating in
the public discussion of a political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic
or scientific matter.
Now, I don't intend to just read the Act for everyone but it's important that
everyone hears how those sections actually read. These changes seek to
provide strong protections against racial intimidation and vilification whilst
preserving the rights of Australians to discuss sensitive issues relating to race
in public discussion and discourse.
It's important for those opposite to understand that enshrining freedom of
speech and protecting people from racial vilification are not inconsistent
objectives. Of course, racial vilification will never be acceptable in Australia.
However, laws which are designed to prohibit racism should not be used as a
vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech, as some would argue that 18C
has been used for in the past.
It's important to note that if these changes were made law that it will be the
first time that racial vilification is prescribed in commonwealth legislation,
sending a clear message that it is unacceptable in the Australian community.
Now, in his submission to the Attorney-General's Department opposing the
amendment of 18C, Councillor DICK wrote, racial vilification fundamentally
damages the notion of an inclusive society, and I agree. Yet Councillor DICK
in the same submission opposes amendments that would, for the first time,
make racial vilification unlawful. So is he in favour of making racial
vilification unlawful or not and I hope that you can answer that question later.
This is what happens, Madam Chairman, when you don't do your homework
on a motion and you simply copy and paste sloppy work from those that have
gone and done it before. Today Labor have put up a poorly-worded motion
with no attention to detail and no serious effort to make a contribution of
substance when it comes to dealing with the issue of race relations and free
speech in this city.
Accordingly, the administration councillors will not support a motion that is so
full of errors and so narrow in focus.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor MURPHY:
Instead, we offer up an alternative motion to the Chamber and I'd like to move
that now.
MOTION FOR AMENDMENT TO NOTIFIED MOTION:
639/2013-14
It was moved by Councillor MURPHY, seconded by Councillor WINES that the notified motion be amended
by the removal and insertion of such words so that the motion would read as follows:
That Brisbane City Council:
1.
Understands the importance of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
2.
Recognises that this provides protection to individuals from discriminatory behaviour
because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin.
3.
Urges all levels of government to combat racism at every opportunity.
Chairman:
Debate, Councillor MURPHY?
Councillor MURPHY:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, this amended motion makes a few key changes to the
incompetent and error-ridden motion that the Labor Party have tried to put
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 102 -
forward here tonight. Firstly, Labor's motion places an undue emphasis on the
importance of section 18C to the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Their motion places 18C firmly at the centre of anti-discrimination laws in this
country. The reality could be nothing further from the truth. 18C is but one
part of a 58-page act covering everything from industrial relations to housing
access, the right to join a trade union and the wording of advertisements.
The opposition need to get some perspective on this. Eighteen-C is an obscure
clause and it's not well understood by the public at large. In fact, the vast
majority of 18C cases never go to court—they never go to trial or are settled
out of court. Now, for decades this city has embraced multiculturalism and
diversity. I think it has done so before 18C was enacted in 1995 and if 18C is
repealed, it will certainly continue to do so afterwards and the tidal wave of
racism that Councillor DICK is predicting I don't predict will come forth.
Now, the second change we made is in the next paragraph and we replaced the
word offensive with the word discriminatory. It is the policy objective of the
Act to provide protections against discriminatory behaviour, not offensive
behaviour. The Act was never intended by its original drafters to provide a
remedy to being offended.
Now, in any case, given the relative obscurity of 18C to the general public, it
is doubtful, very doubtful, that it actually provides an appreciable level of
protection to everyday victims against offensive racist behaviour. Now, the
word discriminatory far better reflects Council's support for the Act, given that
the only place offensive behaviour is mentioned within the Act is in 18C.
Now, the next changes that we've made is to replace the word bigotry with the
word racism in the third paragraph. Bigotry is defined as intolerance towards
those who hold different opinions from oneself. It does not hold any special
meaning and reference to the Act and it can be used in a number of ways. I
could say that Councillor DICK is a bigot because he's intolerant towards LNP
members in this place and the political beliefs that they hold and likewise he
could probably say that we are intolerant of his beliefs.
Calling on all levels of government to combat intolerance towards those who
hold different opinions is sloppy wording at best and should be amended to
better reflect the motion's intent which is to make a stand against racism and
racist behaviour.
Lastly, we would remove the fourth paragraph from the motion. There is
nothing other than party political posturing in that paragraph and if Councillor
DICK really wanted bipartisan support from councillors of the administration,
he wouldn't have included it in his motion.
Now, the reality is that this administration has done more than any other
administration in Brisbane's history to foster a culture of inclusiveness and
harmony amongst the various cultural and ethnic groups of this city. The
reality is this: it is not the core business of Brisbane City Council to be
weighing in to a federal law reform process where currently there is no
legislation even before the House or the Senate.
Ultimately it will be up to each individual councillor here to form a view as to
whether the changes to 18C have merit. We are here on this side of the
Chamber because we are relentlessly focused on the issues that are important
to the ratepayers of this city. If Councillor DICK really wants to debate federal
legislation, then he should run for federal parliament which is where we all
know he really wants to be.
Madam Chairman, I commend the amended motion.
Chairman:
Further debate on the amendment? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the amendment because it will get
pushed through and then we'll be stuck with it as the amended motion. So,
Madam Chairman, I guess I'm a little bit concerned by Councillor MURPHY's
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 103 -
speech tonight and the glib way in which he has gone about debating this issue
which, regardless of your own personal politics, is obviously an important one
to the community.
For Councillor MURPHY to stand up and say this Council has no business in
dealing with this matter is absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong. It's not a waste
of this Council's time ever to debate the importance of ensuring that racial
discrimination and vilification does not occur in our community. As the largest
council in this country, we are community leaders whose views are important
to other levels of government.
If we took Councillor MURPHY's argument here tonight one step further,
we'd never ask for road funding because goodness me, we wouldn't want to
ask for something from the Federal Government or suggest that they might
fund something for us because that would be up to them to make a decision
about. We wouldn't want to, Madam Chairman, seek support for major road
projects, for example, like Legacy Way, because they should just know what
we think or they shouldn't care what we think or we shouldn't be bothered to
have an opinion.
That's not the way Council works, that's not the way politics works and that's
not the way, Madam Chairman, that democracy in this country works. Our
community expects that community leaders will stand up and be counted and
they expect that petty politics won't be played on matters like this that come to
the Council Chamber.
The changes that Councillor MURPHY is making here tonight are purely
political to this motion. Two-and-a-half million people have supported the
retention of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination in a petition. I was
interested to listen to Councillor DICK read out nearly every council in New
South Wales plus others in Victoria who are supporting this same, if I'm
correct, this is the same motion they've all supported.
So sloppy? Are we calling the City of Sydney sloppy? That is what Councillor
MURPHY did. Are we calling the City of Melbourne – thank you, I'll take the
interjection from the DEPUTY MAYOR who again is being glib and
demeaning to other capital cities that have supported this motion. I note that
the LORD MAYOR is out of the Chamber and they're a bit rudderless over the
other side because the narrow-minded and glib approach of Councillor
MURPHY is the one, Madam Chairman, that appears to be running the agenda
here this evening.
This amendment that's been put forward today is simply unnecessary. This
Council has as part of its key vision statement that we should be an inclusive
community. We do, as a council, make a big effort to include and respect and
support all cultures and races in this city and we are doing it as a council very
well.
But the threat of racism is ever present when community leaders do not stand
up and say no, it is not right. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is
an important part of that story and the Federal Government's decision to
remove it in this exposure draft is of serious concern to the community.
I don't think the Federal Government is going to fall over and tremble if
Brisbane City Council says we don't think what you're doing is a good idea.
That's all we'd be saying. I don't think that there is a big problem. I think
they've got other things on their plate today. For Councillor MURPHY to
stand up and say for political reasons, as he admitted himself, that we're not
doing this and it shouldn't be the business of this Council is wrong, it's wrong.
That's the only thing I can say about it.
The amendment I don't think is necessary. It certainly would be a show of
solidarity with every other community in this country if we could all sign and
support the same motion. I think there is value in that and I would've thought
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 104 -
that it would be a good thing for the city councils of the three largest cities in
Australia to be in firm agreement on this motion before us today.
So, sadly, what Councillor MURPHY is doing here for purely political reasons
is undermining what is otherwise, I think, a good intention to make sure that as
a community and as a country we have a consistent voice in suggesting to the
Federal Government that they've got it wrong on this occasion and that they
should be rethinking it.
Chairman:
Further debate on the amendment? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I will take it through point by point. The first amendment is to
remove section 18C from this Council understanding the importance of 18C
which basically very clearly states that it is unreasonable to offend, insult,
humiliate or intimidate another person.
Madam Chair, the LNP argument for ignoring that very clear statement was
because there was a difficulty in interpretation of what offence meant. Offence
was one of those issues I raised, Madam Chair. Can I restate them? To
insinuate, to insult, humiliate or to intimidate. So why, if one is only worried
about the interpretation of offence, would one of the administration
councillors, only one because no one else has spoken on it, wish to get rid of
that section?
That section, which is known in the community to be against hate speech, hate
talk, because, Madam Chair, we can talk about the finer details, as I've just
had, of this legislation but the relevance and the strength of this piece of
legislation is what the person in the street understands it to say. They
understand it to say you can't talk about hate speech on race, on even religious
background. That is happening and it is against the law.
So the fine point that we've just heard from the LNP councillor is that they're
concerned about the interpretation of offence is spurious. Madam Chair, the
other one says it recognises the protection…well, because it doesn't actually
mention the legislation at all, in the next section number two, it just refers to
‘it’. A something that recognises that we're protecting individuals from
discriminatory behaviour but it doesn't put anything about legislation in that
second point, therefore it just is hanging loosely and has no context.
Because the reason why section 18C was in one motion was so protection was
tied to a piece of legislation. Take that section out and it's just a statement
hanging in the air which is nothing worse than not a parenthood statement.
The next amendment is rather than bigotry, which is the basis of
discrimination, we move that into racism. I would suggest racism is a form of
bigotry but bigotry is primary. So the amendment is watering down and taking
the legislative background away from the motion that was before Council.
I wish to argue about the strength of the motion that was before us because it
has been passed by 25 local governments. If that's the case, this is the business
of local government in other states and therefore it should be in this Council
because don't we think we're one of the biggest and best local governments.
Well, we may be in our budget quantum, not in our budget allocation, and
certainly not in this motion and our thinking in terms of anti-hate speech.
Twenty-three other local governments will sign up to this motion. I would
suggest to you that is showing a movement, a trend, where those local
governments are looking to their constituency. So for the LNP councillor to
say we are super when it comes to multiculturalism, a black-and-white
statement, no supporting information - it not true. It is absolutely spurious
when they water down even worse than what Senator Brandis was going to do
on section 18C with this amendment.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 105 -
Madam Chair, I would then like to clearly say did the existing motion actually
work because part of this proposal, part of this amendment, was it didn't work
at all. Well, Madam Chair, the Australian Human Rights Commission clearly
says that in one financial year the Commission had 59—so let's call that
60 per cent—increase in complaints under this section 18C, not any other
section, not under any other section of the Racial Discrimination Act but this
section that that administration is determined to get rid of.
Fifty-three of those complaints were resolved through conciliation. Now, that
is not the weakness of the legislation, that is the strength of the legislation
because this legislation is to educate, it is not to put people in gaol. It is not to
fine people but it is to make them aware of what racial-hate language is all
about.
Four of the complaints were determined as being trivial so that means it is
actually working. People are not misusing this legislation, they know exactly
its strength and how they are using it and less than three per cent proceeded to
the court in one year. Madam Chair, why do we need to have a motion to
water down the support that other local governments are doing if we have the
information that the legislation is working?
Madam Chair, also inherently behind this amendment is yet again this
information which is the interpretation of an offence. May I read what the
Australian Human Rights Commission says very clearly on that?
It says that they found when they undertook an enquiry into racial hatred and
vilification that seemingly ‘”low-level behaviour can soften the environment,
make it legitimate, for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation and
violence by implied condoning of the acts”. In other words, it's the background
information which says it's legitimate that leads to major issues of racial hatred
language and even outcomes such as we saw with the Cronulla violence. That
was the determination.
So it doesn't become us to say that it is the interpretation of the offence and we
can only consider vilification as to be legitimate because that is not the
experience of this point of law and this point of law is the one that we believe
should be protected and every local government should protect it.
Where did this law come from? Well, it came out of our obligations under the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Surely we would support
that. It also came out of the International Convention of the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. I support that and I believe everyone in this
Council Chamber should.
Further, it had a local national application and that was the Royal Commission
into the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody where they found the hate language.
That may not be vilification but hate language was the core of so much
emotional and psychological harm to their targets. I would argue that the
Melbourne AFL player who, when he was called by a 13-year-old girl on the
sideline of the game was able to not go to court but on that field show his
pride, his ability to stand above what she was saying, was a direct consequence
of this legislation.
It is why that I know just last week someone spoke to me about monkeys and
they were referring to people in another country that didn't have English as
their language. That is the level of hate language that there is in our country. If
anyone denies that and thinks that the one piece of legislation, section 18C of
this Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, should be watered down, I just cannot
believe it.
Finally, to refute again this amendment: we haven't spoken sufficiently of 18D
which is the yin to the yang part of the legislation. So while it is unlawful in
all of the anti-discrimination and hate language—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, your time has expired.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 106 -
Councillor ABRAHAMS interjecting.
Chairman:
Before we continue, councillors, as the time is nearing 9pm.
640/2013-14
At that time Council resolved to continue sitting until the conclusions of the business set out in the agenda.
Chairman:
Further debate on the amendment? Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair. Since no one has risen from the LNP side of the Council I
enter the debate at this time.
Madam Chair, I listened really carefully to what Councillor MURPHY had to
say and having listened to what he did say, I have only one thing to say to him:
he needs to get himself to the Emerald City and get himself a brain as quick as
lightening.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor KING:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes. Point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON. Yes, Councillor KING.
Councillor KING:
This is a habit again tonight from Councillor SUTTON. It is again deliberately
attacking a fellow councillor on this side of the Chamber. May I ask that she
withdraw that comment?
Chairman:
Yes. It was a fairly offensive comment, Councillor SUTTON. Please temper
your language to be suitable for this place.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, and isn't it amazing the Liberal councillors demand higher
standards in this Chamber than what they would for the general public. For the
general public out there, are for the people who—
Chairman:
Get onto the debate, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—they demand higher standards, they demand higher standards in this place
when it comes to protecting the rights of a privileged private school
schoolboy—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, resume your seat.
Councillor KING:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor SUTTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
I have directed you to resume your seat. Now resume it.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor KING.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor KING.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, can I have a motion for adjournment, please?
ADJOURNMENT:
641/2013-14
At that time, 8.57pm, it was resolved on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by Councillor
MURPHY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 10 minutes.
UPON RESUMPTION:
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 107 -
Debate on amendment continued
Chairman:
Further debate on the amendment? Councillor HUANG.
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, prior to you seeking an adjournment of this place, two
councillors were screaming at each other across the Chamber. You have not
warned them or ejected them from this place or noted their inappropriate
behaviour in the council minutes. You have done all three of those things to me
in this place for a lot less than that and it undermines the integrity of your
chairmanship of this Council if you do not take action against them in
accordance with the standing orders.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, there is considerable difference between what has
happened tonight and your behaviour on many occasions, and the behaviour of
both councillors was unacceptable. The one on the opposition side was far worse
than the one on the other side.
But that's why I called an adjournment, and it's high time that councillors started
behaving appropriately. We are supposed to be civic leaders of this city and not
sitting here and hurling insults. I mean, it makes a mockery of this motion that
you've put forward, the behaviour that we've seen here tonight.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, after the adjournment was called Councillor JOHNSTON did
scream out in the Chamber and stated that your chairing of this meeting was a
joke. Whilst that wasn't necessarily on the public record, I think that her
behaviour was casting improper reflections on your character and I seek your
ruling.
Chairman:
Thank you Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, I recall that comment and it's rather
hypocritical that Councillor JOHNSTON would get up and make the speech that
she just made, criticising my rulings—
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman:
—given her own behaviour in this place. Is there further—
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman:
Would you like another adjournment?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Sure, why not? Let's do it, let's stay here all night.
Chairman:
Councillor HUANG.
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sorry, I can't stop feeling like I'm debating a
motion in the federal parliament here.
Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment of Councillor DICK's
motion and supporting Councillor MURPHY. I honestly can't remember how
many times Councillor DICK is trying to step into other levels of governments—
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor HUANG:
—and debate issues—
Chairman:
Point of order—just a moment, Councillor HUANG. Yes, Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
I’m happy for a free debate but this is about the substantive—the amendment to
my motion. It's not about—
Chairman:
Yes.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 108 -
Councillor DICK:
—my intentions—
Councillor HUANG:
Yes.
Chairman:
It's about the amendment to the motion.
Councillor DICK:
That's right.
Chairman:
Yes, that's what Councillor HUANG said.
Councillor HUANG:
Yes, I'm supporting Councillor MURPHY's amendment.
Chairman:
Yes, that's exactly what he said.
Councillor HUANG:
Yes, and I'm just—
Chairman:
Thank you Councillor HUANG.
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you. And yes, I think we're not here to debate issues that are beyond and
often irrelevant to the confine of Brisbane City Council. I understand and accept
Councillor DICK has ambitions towards other levels of politics but as a member
of this Council I would urge Councillor DICK and his fellow Opposition
councillors to focus on how to strive and care for the welfare of this city and its
people—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HUANG:
—as stated at the beginning of every Council meeting, and not to meddle in the
issues of other levels of government.
Madam Chairman, I think everyone in this Chamber would agree, Brisbane City
Council is a higher achiever amongst local governments in Australia in terms of
access and inclusion. Of course, access and inclusion is a subject broader than
just racial discrimination. But his city council does not tolerate any form of
discrimination, whether it's based on age, gender or ethnicity.
As someone who has personally benefited from the equal opportunities this city
has offered, I notice many cultural rifts are often the result of misunderstanding,
and this Council is doing what we can in bringing our communities together.
This Council has continued to support our multicultural communities with
programs such as the multicultural communities program and supporting
important cultural events which are vital in providing the people of this city the
opportunity to enjoy and appreciate the different cultures that have taken root in
our city.
The LORD MAYOR has also continued to lead by example by bringing
different cultural groups together. The LORD MAYOR has continued his
support through initiatives such as the Multicultural Business Scholarship—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HUANG:
—the Multicultural Round Table, the Multicultural Awards for Business and not
to mention attending International Friendship Ceremonies—
Chairman:
Councillor HUANG—
Councillor HUANG:
—where our LORD MAYOR continues to—
Chairman:
Councillor HUANG, are you getting to the actual amendment of the motion?
Councillor HUANG:
Yes, that's right, yes.
Chairman:
If you could get to the amendment of the motion, please?
Councillor HUANG:
Yes, sure. Yes. Yes, I'm just here to say why this amendment meets Councillor
DICK's standard, if you would like to put it this way. Yes look, these efforts, all
I have just mentioned, received bipartisan recognition in this Chamber.
Councillor DICK in his submission to the federal Attorney-General's department
wrote—
Councillor interjecting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 109 -
Chairman:
Yes, point of order, Councillor DICK, yes?
Councillor DICK:
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I understand this is a free debate but could you please
bring Councillor HUANG to the specifics of the amendment? He's welcome to
speak on the substantive motion.
Chairman:
Yes, thank you, Councillor DICK.
Yes, Councillor HUANG, maybe your debate is for the substantive motion as
opposed to the amendment?
Councillor HUANG:
Yes.
Chairman:
You need to be talking about the actual changes that Councillor MURPHY has
made to the motion and why they're being made.
Councillor HUANG:
Okay. Look, this amendment to the motion will safeguard the cohesiveness and
also the social inclusion which we currently enjoy as a friendly and open society
in Brisbane, and this is a very proactive approach in dealing with this issue. I
would urge councillors on both sides of the Chamber to support this amendment.
Thank you.
Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to oppose the amendment because unlike, as
Councillor HUANG just said, this doesn’t safeguard the issue of racism in the
community, it waters it down.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
It waters it down. Point one: understand the importance of Section 18(c). Well
taking out Section 18(c) of this motion says you don't think Section 18(c) is
important.
Councillor:
That's right.
Councillor DICK:
Well, I do, and so do 2.5 million people who through local governments across
Australia have just had a gutful of the LNP lecturing about my motives and all
the rest. And Councillor HUANG, through you, Madam Chair, well we know
you didn't want to be here in the first place. You ran for state parliament before
you came here.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, get back to the motion.
Councillor DICK:
Well, I've had a gutful of everyone's lectures—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's right, Madam Chair, they can say one thing to me but as soon as I raise
the facts with them they don't like it.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Madam—and says Councillor MATIC interjecting, who also ran for state
parliament before he came to this Council Chamber.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's right. That's right.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
And Councillor MURPHY. You know, talk about hypocritical.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Give me a break. Give me a break. They're the only ones who run for other
levels of government, Madam Chair.
Councillor interjecting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 110 -
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, the issue—and lost—the issue of—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor DICK:
The issue of removal of Section 18(c) as part of tonight's motion is an insult to
the multicultural groups and the people we purport to represent.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
The pathetic lecture from Councillor MURPHY—and getting his cheat notes
from Senator Brandis' office, we know that is his political mentor—speaks
volumes. Rather than speaking at a Young LNP convention he should actually
read through what other leaders and civic leaders, who he's happy to rubbish
tonight, have actually agreed with this set of—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Yes, yes. Radical people like Robert Doyle, yes.
Madam Chair, we need to ensure that Section 18(c) is protected—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
By listening to the LNP tonight they do not think those provisions are important.
Well, two-and-a-half million people do. The premier of Victoria, the premier of
New South Wales, local governments across Australia, other capital city lord
mayors—
Councillor:
Yes.
Councillor DICK:
—all agree with this. They don’t think it's sloppy, they don't think it's bad. They
support the rights of individuals being protected by 18(c).
So, Madam Chair, I don’t want any lectures from the LNP tonight. They've got
the choice. If they support a harmonious community and, as they claim to say,
they don’t support racism in the community they should reject this amendment,
and I note no one from the Civic Cabinet is signing up to this, no one is actually.
No one is actually speaking it. The LORD MAYOR has vanished when it comes
to this issue. He dodged the question in question time today. I'm not surprised
that he's embarrassed and he's not supporting my motion tonight and that he sent
in the junior councillors to advocate their position, their extreme position, their
extreme ideological position, rather than actually looking at what the other civic
leaders, the other civic-minded leaders, have done right across Australia and
supported the retention of 18(c). I reject this motion tonight. I reject the
amendment tonight. I think it's absolutely disgraceful and Councillor MURPHY
should be ashamed of himself.
Chairman:
Further debate on the amendment? Councillor MURPHY, would you care to
sum up?
Councillor MURPHY:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank councillors from both
sides of the Chamber for having their say on this amendment. Look, Councillor
ABRAHAMS made the point that hundreds of councillors have passed this
motion around the country. But there are thousands of councils in this country.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order. Yes, Councillor ABRAHAMS?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, I think I gave the numbers very clearly and I will, when I'm
giving my point of order, restate the numbers.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, are you claiming misrepresentation?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair—
Chairman:
I think it's a bit of a long bow.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, I claim misrepresentation. I did not refer to a hundred.
Chairman:
Okay. Councillor MURPHY? Councillor MURPHY?
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 111 -
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Chairman, the point that I'm asking with that is that there are thousands
of councils around this country that haven't passed a motion with regards to
this—thousands of councils in this country that are focused on their core
business which is delivering service for their ratepayers—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
—not focused on exposure drafts that the federal Attorney-General has issued. I
think we would have a far better politics in this country if each level of
government did focus a little bit more on what they have to do, and I know that
that's what the Brisbane City Council does, Madam Chairman, and that's what
Administration councillors do.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
But look in any case I want to thank particularly Councillor SUTTON for
providing a perfect illustration of how a bigot operates tonight, Madam
Chairman. Completely intolerant, tonight, she's been of retiring councillors,
completely intolerant she's been of Councillor McLACHLAN, insulting his
education. Completely intolerant she's been of me, because I attended a private
school.
Look, none of us have any issue with that.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
None of us have a problem with that because this is a place—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY
Because this is a place of political debate, and as politicians we are all
thick-skinned.
But as the meeting resumed before, Councillor SUTTON was heard to say
something quite extraordinary, Madam Chairman. She was heard to say where's
Steve HUANG on this, standing up for his Chinese? Now I hope Councillor
SUTTON gets up and corrects the record on that, because someone corrected her
and said, no, he's actually Taiwanese. Then she said, oh, whatever.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Chairman, that is what she was heard to say, that is what she was heard
to say. Now, I hope she gets up and says that that's wrong.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
That is what she was heard to say. Now, under 18(c), if Councillor HUANG took
offence to what was said, to that statement, then she—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
—then she could be in breach and could have committed an unlawful act under
18(c).
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY:
Now, not that I'm trying to make the point for those opposite but you'll
remember that I haven't actually advocated a point either way when it comes to
18(c) because councillors on this side of the Chamber are free to form their own
opinions when it comes to 18(c) and are free to make a submission to the
review—and I don’t know if councillors have made a submission to the review
on this. But they were free to do that because unlike the ALP we don't control
what our councillors do and say. We allow them to make submissions.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor MURPHY:
We allow them to interact with the Federal Government, Madam Chairman.
Councillor interjecting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 112 -
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Chairman, in any case, clearly there is a double standard here that's
being displayed by the ALP when it comes to talking a really big game on racist
and offensive behaviour but not backing that up by the things that they say and
do right here tonight, Madam Chairman, and that is an absolute disgrace.
I urge all councillors to support this commonsense amendment that takes the
politics out of this motion and gives us a clear way forward on this issue. Madam
Chairman, I want to commend the motion.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Misrepresentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor MURPHY said that I
said hundreds of councils had signed up to that. I in fact itemised that there were
25 who'd done so and 23 that intend to.
He also said that thousands were opposed to it. Madam Chair, I'm sure you
would know that there are only 565 councils in Australia.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, that's not part of your misrepresentation. Sit down.
I will put the motion for the amendment only.
Amendment put:
The Chairman put the motion for the amendment to the notified motion to the Chamber resulting in its being
declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors DICK and ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in
the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 17 -
The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON,
Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Debate on substantive motion
The Chairman then called for debate on the substantive motion, which read as follows:
That Brisbane City Council:
1.
Understands the importance of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
2.
Recognises that this provides protection to individuals from discriminatory behaviour because
of race, colour, national or ethnic origin.
3.
Urges all levels of government to combat racism at every opportunity.
Chairman:
Debate on the amended motion.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the amended motion tonight and for many
people in the City of Brisbane the issue of racial discrimination—discriminatory
behaviour because of race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin is a very serious,
important and personal issue.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 113 -
Having many interactions with people from multicultural backgrounds across
this city I do know the extent of the hurt when they are subjected to certain acts
that they have experienced many times before coming to our city. Having
discussions with many different refugee groups and having a friend who has
been a refugee, and knowing what she has suffered watching members of her
family being slaughtered, seeing her friend being raped, that is the sort of act that
some people who live in our city have personally experienced.
What we have to be conscious of is when we are having discussions on this level
about this type of issue it really runs deep for many, many different people.
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 needs to be taken for its intent as a whole
and not just individualised parts. It is very important that we do look at all of the
aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act and that we as a level of government do
what we can to combat racism at every opportunity.
Madam Chairman, the focus of our city is tolerance and respect through greater
understanding, which enhances the harmony of our city. This is what we need to
strive for to ensure that our core business of Council is not trying to dictate what
federal legislation is but is in line with our access and inclusion policy. Madam
Chairman, I just want to read part of that access and inclusion policy into the
record because it is relevant specifically to this motion.
It says, and I quote, “We want all Brisbane residents and visitors to experience
Brisbane as a socially cohesive and connected city, where people show willing
friendship and compassion by helping others, welcoming new residents, taking
care of people who are disadvantaged, celebrating cultural diversity and holding
high regard for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities”.
Madam Chairman, our city council goes a long way through our Welcome to
Refugee ceremonies, our citizenship ceremonies also go a long way to
welcoming new people to our city. What we have a responsibility to do as a
council is to make sure that we put in place mechanisms that are relevant to our
core business so that we can support different multicultural communities in our
city through things like funding our multicultural festivals. What those festivals
do is they show the individual multicultural communities that they have a
capacity in a democratic society, in a democratic city, to celebrate their specific
events and to do so without being subjected to denigration, condemnation,
denunciation or any form of abuse.
We bring those festivals into the wider Brisbane community for the very purpose
of breaking down barriers, to make sure that these people are welcomed to our
city and that the wider communities understand that many people have different
cultures and traditions and they also have a right to celebrate them here in our
city.
Madam Chairman, there have been many comments tonight in respect of
vilification and hate speech. For the purpose of this debate tonight I really want
to clarify the definition of vilification. It is abusively disparaging speech or
writing. It is to make vicious and defamatory statements, it is a public act that
encourages or incites others to hate people because of their race, nationality,
country of origin, colour or ethnic origin.
Vilification will be included in the Racial Discrimination Act and I think as well
that when you hear some of the comments that have been made by those on the
opposite side of the Chamber, and I have listened very carefully to some of the
comments that have been made tonight, and I'll just quote Councillor DICK. He
made the comment that a community leader had said that they wanted, and I
quote: protection for all minorities against being vilified.
I also took the time to read the document of Councillor DICK's submission that
was tabled and Councillor DICK stated in that, and I quote: “Brisbane is about
supporting and inclusion and also our community encourages interaction and
acceptance, not isolation.” That is what I've been talking about in our access and
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 114 -
inclusion policy. That is what combatting racial discrimination at every
opportunity is all about.
It is not just a narrow focus. It is a wide open look at how we as a council can
work with the community to ensure that the best results are the actual outcome.
Now, I note that comments also from Councillor DICK and Councillor
ABRAHAMS are claiming that changes will open the door to hate speech and
the words anti-hate speech comments and racial hatred and language. Well, those
comments came out of the mouths of Councillor DICK and Councillor
ABRAHAMS and if you check the record, Councillor ABRAHAMS, you'll see
that I am right. You made the comment and I quote—
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor—yes?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
I hope it is misrepresentation. Thank you.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I wrote it down when Councillor ABRAHAMS said it. She
used the phrases anti-hate speech and also the phrase racial hatred and language,
and once the transcript is provided I'm sure she will see that I'm correct.
Madam Chairman, what this amended motion is about tonight is not about being
party political. It's not about political spin. It is about what is relevant to us as
Brisbane City Council, what we can do in our city and what we have been
achieving through access and inclusion. Many other councils do not even have
an access and inclusion policy—they do not have the foresight to address this.
We have been practising it and we are working towards better outcomes.
This amended motion looks at what we can do. We cannot enact federal
legislation in this place but what we can do, as a level of government, is combat
that racism at every opportunity. We can support the whole intent of the Racial
Discrimination Act and we do recognise that that Racial Discrimination Act does
provide protection to individuals from discriminatory behaviour because of race,
colour, nationality and ethnic origin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Yes, Madam Chair, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR said that I said there would be
the opening of the flood gates with this removed. I did not say that. I said it
prevented against it and I gave examples where it would be used and I cited
documentation where it had been used successfully. She put her words into my
statement.
Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the debate on this motion.
Fundamentally, this motion is about leadership and it's about the type of
community we want to live in, and if we want to live in a community that thinks
it's okay to offend, insult and humiliate a person based on their race, colour or
nationality or ethnic origin, we'll support what George Brandis is currently
proposing. I'm not going to stand idly by and not add my voice to the dissent in
the Australian community about exactly what Senator Brandis is proposing.
Because the reality of it is that more than 28 per cent of the people who live in
this city were born overseas and I want to make sure that each one of them
knows that myself and the Labor councillors do not believe it is okay for anyone
to offend, insult or humiliate them based on their race, colour, nationality or
ethnic origin.
Other people in this place have a different view, clearly, based on the
amendment that was moved and voted on in this Chamber. The very nature of
that comment having been thwarted by people in this Chamber necessarily
means that they support the removal of a clause that sways it's not okay to
offend, insult and humiliate a person based on their race, colour and nationality.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 115 -
This motion was meant to be about doing the right thing. It is about saying that
racial vilification fundamentally damages the notion of an inclusive society. We
have as one of our corporate goals in Brisbane City Council an inclusive society,
yet when a motion is put to this Chamber we baulk at supporting it simply
because we are afraid to offend the political sensitivities of the national Liberal
Government.
I don’t think that's appropriate. I think that that shows great weakness and great
lack of conviction in the people who supported the watering-down of this
motion.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, it's not this motion any more. It's a brand new motion. It's
the amended motion that we are debating.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam—
Chairman:
Not the original motion.
Councillor SUTTON:
I understand that, Madam Chair, and I take that and what I guess I'm saying is
that whilst we will support this amended motion it is fundamentally a
significantly watered-down motion and we have the opportunity here as the
largest local government in Australia to send the strongest message possible, on
behalf of a city that is made up of almost one-third of people who were born
overseas, that we will not stand for racial intimidation. We will not stand for
racial vilification, but instead we blinked, we baulked and we watered it down,
and I will not stand for that.
As former New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell said, someone who
has been quoted as being a highly respectable man by the Prime Minister of this
country, he said that vilification on the grounds of race and religion is always
wrong. There is no place for inciting hatred within our Australian society. No
government, no organisation, no citizen can afford to be less than vigilant in
combating bigotry, intolerance and hatred and, frankly, our way of life depends
on that vigilance. This council, this LNP council, has chosen tonight not to be
vigilant, and that is disappointing.
What we need to be doing is doing exactly the same as what the 25 other local
councils have done in this country and send a strong message.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR talked about the intent of the racial vilification act.
When you water down the intent, you water down the strength. We should be
standing by the racial vilification act as it currently stands. This is an act that was
introduced in 1975 so for 40 years no government of any political persuasion has
thought it needed amendment or watering down.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON—
Councillor SUTTON:
—until the—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, can I remind—
Councillor SUTTON:
—Abbott Government—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, can I remind you we have a new motion here and you
should be debating the merits or otherwise of the current motion that we are
debating.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, and the current motion talks about urging all levels of
government to combat racism at every opportunity, and it also talks about
understanding the importance of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Chairman:
Yes, that's right.
Councillor SUTTON:
My comments are in relation to understanding and putting a focus on the
importance of that Racial Discrimination Act, which has served us well for the
past almost 40 years. It is also about urging all levels of government, all levels of
government, and to say that this Council does not have a role in debating this
issue is highly limiting in the perspective of those opposite.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 116 They don’t baulk, they don't blink, about introducing motions that suit their own
political purpose when it comes to, I don’t know, lock-out hours in the Valley.
It's okay for us to debate state issues here. It's okay to debate the federal carbon
tax here when it suits their political agenda but for some reason now the issue—
an issue that affects almost a third of the Brisbane community—has no place for
debate in this Chamber—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON—
Councillor SUTTON:
—which is what—
Chairman:
—can you please get back to the motion? I mean, we've been debating it over an
hour. I just don't know where you're coming from.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair, I guess this this is the point. I think that there are very few
people in this place, and I guess my comments before when we were debating
the amendment motion, it is, you know, when we're debating the amendment, is
that when you are a white, middle-class male in this country you are unlikely to
come up against the types of discrimination that many people from ethic origins
face. So you are perhaps not best placed to put those arguments forward.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
And my point in that last debate was that when other people in this Chamber are
targeted with comments that are offensive to them, the reaction is far greater
than what they would allow to happen to others who are not, who have not had
such a privileged background.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, I think you're getting back to where you were before and
your comments—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order. Your comments are bordering on offensive once again.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair, but again this is the subject matter. You are saying that it is
not appropriate for me to come in here to this place and say anything almost
nearing offensive to anyone in this Chamber.
However, we will stand in this Chamber as the LNP will stand in this Chamber
and defend to the hilt the rights of others to offend, insult or humiliate a person
based on their—
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor SUTTON:
—race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON.
Yes, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, the amended motion does not refer to offence in any way,
shape or form. Please could Councillor SUTTON come back to the amended
motion?
Chairman:
And it doesn't refer to—
Councillor NEWTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
I'm dealing with one point of order at a time. Thank you Councillor NEWTON,
resume your seat. Nowhere in this motion do I see anything about white,
middle-class males who had a privileged upbringing either, Councillor
SUTTON. So can you please stick to the content of this and stop imputing and
slurring and I know exactly—everyone in this Chamber knows exactly—what
you are referring to and it is offensive.
Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes, point of order, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, we're debating the amended
motion, which talks about understanding the importance of the Racial
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 117 -
Discrimination Act 1975, which my understanding still to this day includes 18(c)
which includes the offence—
Chairman:
No.
Councillor NEWTON:
It does, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes.
Councillor NEWTON:
It does include 18(c) still. Senator Brandis hasn't successfully removed that from
the Anti-Discrimination Act. So, Madam Chair, when Councillor SUTTON is
referring to—
Chairman:
What's your point of order?
Councillor NEWTON:
My point of order is, Madam Chair, that Councillor SUTTON has every right to
relate to matters pertaining to 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975,
because that's in the motion we're debating currently.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor NEWTON for her point of order
because she’s exactly right. The first dot point of the motion does actually refer
to understanding the importance of the Racial Discrimination Act, which
currently does include Clause 18(c). I guess what I'm saying is that that's great
that we are trying to understand the importance of that but I think that in
understanding the importance of that you cannot remove that from the current
political debate in this country—that is a proposal from the Liberal Government
of this country to remove Clause 18(c).
I want to add my voice to the huge number of councillors across this nation, the
City of Melbourne, the City of Sydney. I understand the Fremantle Council in
WA (Western Australia) will soon pass the motion. The Hobart City Council, the
Darwin City Council. You know, if every other capital city in this country can
support this motion—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON—
Councillor SUTTON:
—why is it—
Chairman:
—your time has expired.
Councillor SUTTON:
—that this Council can't.
Chairman:
Councillor SCHRINNER.
Councillor SCHRINNER:
Yes, Madam Chairman, just briefly, this new amended substantive motion that
we've got in front of us now is very clear and not open to misinterpretation. The
original motion I believe as, which is why it's been changed.
We are a city—and we want to make it very clear by moving this motion and by
supporting this motion—that does not support racism, that does not support
racial discrimination. The wording before us clearly says that. I want to read it
again so everyone can understand and see the importance of what we're voting
on today: that the Brisbane City Council understands the importance of the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Not just one section of the Racial
Discrimination Act, the whole Act. That's been clarified.
Point two recognises that this provides protection to individuals from
discriminatory behaviour because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. Once
again, not just one section of the Act, the whole Act. Finally, point three urges
all levels of government to combat racism at every opportunity.
This is what this is fundamentally about. This Act is not about bigotry, and I
think people have become confused about what this is about. It is not about
bigotry, it's about racism, fundamentally two related but different things.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 118 -
You can be a bigot without being a racist. You can't be a racist without being a
bigot. But they are two separate concepts and we want to make sure that what we
pass through this Chamber is very clear, not open to confusion or
misinterpretation or misunderstanding, and this motion, as it stands, is
unequivocal. The Brisbane City Council does not support or tolerate racism.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SCHRINNER:
We are an inclusive city and we are proud to be a city amongst which we've had
councillors from both sides of politics which have been from diverse ethnic
backgrounds, including in recent years the first indigenous councillor Robbie
Williams and our first Taiwanese councillor, Steven HUANG. This is the type of
city that we are, that embraces all cultures.
Many of us have backgrounds which include cultures that are not necessarily
from Australia. My own father was not born in Australia and I know many other
people are in the same boat.
So we support a diverse, tolerant, inclusive city and this motion in the way it's
worded very clearly says that we do not support racism. It's as simple as that and
I urge all councillors to support the motion.
Motion that the motion be now put:
642/2013-14
It was moved by the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by Councillor WINES, that the motion for the amendment
be now put. The motion was declared carried on the voices.
Substantive motion put:
Chairman:
There's no summing up permitted because it is an amended motion so I will put
the motion for the motion itself.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the substantive motion was declared carried on the
voices.
Thereupon, Councillors OWEN-TAYLOR and DICK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted
in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 25 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM, and the Leader of
the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS,
Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and
Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: Nil.
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any petitions? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I have a petition with 225 signatures—I won't
say residents because some people from Japan signed it—regarding two bird
issues in the local area. This is actually the same petition as an e-petition that
closed during the recess, and I don’t know if it's possible but I'd like to have this
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 119 -
combined if possible with the e-petition, the paper petition and the e-petition
simultaneously.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition signed by stallholders and
attendees at the Chandler Markets, calling for assistance with the relocation of
the Chandler Markets.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, I have a petition here to present regarding
parking in Fig Tree Pocket.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition for an improvement to an off-leash
dog park and a petition regarding a development at Darra.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm tabling a petition calling on LNP councillors,
LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK and Brisbane City Council to immediately
release the details of zone plans for the proposed Wynnum Road-Shafston
Avenue upgrade, all stages.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have three petitions. One—and it keeps
coming—is saying no to the $10 residential parking permits. The second one,
Madam Chair, is for seeking a new park in West End on the distant education
site or its equivalent, and the next one is from residents of Stones Corner who
are seeking to have change for residential parking permits in the vicinity of the
Stones Corner busway. Thank you.
Chairman:
Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition relating to an intersection at Lacey
and Beams Road.
Chairman:
Further petitions? Councillor MURPHY.
643/2013-14
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor MURPHY, seconded by Councillor NEWTON, 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.
CA14/394586
Councillor
Victoria Newton
CA14/394662
Deputy Mayor
CA14/377315
Julian Simmonds
CA14/394893
Milton Dick
A003657550
Milton Dick
CA14/395123
Shayne Sutton
Topic
Requesting that Council address issues regarding the
Einbunpin Lagoon
Requesting Council assist in the relocation of the
Chandler Market
Requesting that Council improve the parking in Fig Tree
Pocket Road, between Botticelli and Ormsby Streets at
Biami Yumba Park
Requesting that Council improve lighting for the dog off
leash park at Englefield Road
Requesting that Council reject the proposed development
at 109 Harcourt Road, Darra (This petition is being
processed as a formal submission on the development
application)
Requesting that Council release the detailed design for the
proposed Wynnum Road – Shafston Avenue upgrade
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 120 -
CA14/395173
Helen Abrahams
CA14/396498
Helen Abrahams
CA14/39569
Helen Abrahams
CA14/415309
Amanda Cooper
Calling on the Lord Mayor to reverse the decision to
introduce paid residential parking permits
Opposing any proposal to resume residential homes in
Rogers and Raven Streets, West End, for new public
parkland and calling on the Lord Mayor to deliver a new
public park on the one hectare site at 405 Montague Road,
West End
Requesting that Council change the street parking
restrictions around the Stones Corner Busway to include
resident permit parking exemptions.
Calling on Council, in conjunction with the Queensland
Government, urgently attend to improving traffic and
pedestrian safety in the area around the Lacey and Beams
Roads intersection, Carseldine
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of the Councillor
Conduct Review Panel order? Are there any items of general business?
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t get a chance during the remainder of the
debate when the LNP gagged the motion that we've just dealt with before. I'm
speaking about the amended motion that was put before this council Chamber a
moment ago.
Look, I wanted to sum up in the debate today. Obviously, I wasn't able to do
that—
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, point of order.
Chairman:
Yes, point of order against you, Councillor DICK.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
I just want to seek clarification that I understand that once a motion's been
debated on and voted you can't speak on it again in that meeting. Is that correct?
Chairman:
I think that's probably right. I'm just checking.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
I'm talking about the Racial Discrimination Act, if that helps out.
Chairman:
There are some restrictions but yes, I think just rephrase it, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK
Sure. I’m happy to speak on the Racial Discrimination Act and the proposed
amendments by the Federal Government.
Chairman:
Okay.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I wanted to make some final remarks on this
issue. This is an issue that I know has affected many in the community. I'm
really thrilled that this Council has joined with my call to protect those 18(c)
provisions. Ideally, not what I probably would have wanted but I think this
Council, now that we have voted together on a bipartisan motion to protect the
Racial Discrimination Act which of course includes 18(c), really sends a very
clear message to the Federal Government that we stand united, that we as one
Council want the 18(c) provisions protected and as the largest local government
in Australia tonight we have made history by saying that we support Racial
Discrimination Act, which of course includes…
Councillor interjecting.
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 121 -
Councillor DICK:
Sure—that we understand that united as councillors that we support the Racial
Discrimination Act, which of course includes the relevant sections, 18(c), which
we've spoken about, and of course a number of other provisions.
So as a result tonight we have taken a historic vote. I'm really thrilled, ideally not
probably where I would have wanted the Council to have gone, particularly in
light of other local governments, but nonetheless even though it was watered
down, the provisions—I know that the LNP would have been under enormous
political pressure by their political masters in Canberra—that I'm happy to have
worked with them and shown them that it is possible to stand up for
multiculturalism in our city. I congratulate the LNP for joining forces with over
two and half million voters across Australia with tonight, with the amended
motion that as one we send a very clear message to the Federal Government that
we support the retention of 18(c).
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Further general business? Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to talk about a development application that has
recently been approved at 82 Stephen Street, Camp Hill. This was a development
application that was for a subdivision—it was basically wanting to split one
block into two 350 square metres side-by-side. There was quite a reaction to this
development application in Stephen Street and the surrounding streets, including
Bruce Street and Perth Street, Camp Hill, and there were 18 submissions by local
households against that development application.
The key concerns raised by the local residents was that it would change the
character of the streets and the neighbourhood, that there were safety issues
relating to the school precinct, with children walking to school. That there were
parking issues because the property is on a corner that has yellow lines. That it
would lead to an increase in traffic, a loss of privacy, a loss of natural light and
air flow, a lot of view of local trees, decreased property value and was not in
accordance with the low-density demolition-control and character-housing zone.
Well, Madam Chair, despite the concerns raised by myself as local councillor as
part of the assessment process and despite the concerns of the submitters in
relation to this development application, Council has gone ahead and approved
this particular development anyway.
So we now will have two blocks of 350 square metres side-by-side in Stephen
Street. I guess this is perhaps, you know, this is a development application which
was approved in view of the new City Plan that is currently coming into play. As
much as I tried to act on behalf of the local residents in raising concerns about
the development application, the thing that I have to say to them as a
consequence—say to them, to the residents of Stephen Street—is that
unfortunately they are likely to see more of this development, this kind of
development application in their neighbourhoods.
All of the concerns that they have raised—as a consequence of the new City Plan
they are likely to see more and more of this happen, because as we all know the
new City Plan has reduced the size of the standard blocks in low-density areas,
and they can be as small as 300 square metres with a 7.5-metre frontage in
low-density areas where they are close to a 2,000-square-metre shop.
Whilst they knew about it, the residents in this particular case were able to lodge
objections to this development application because they were notified of it.
Because there was a little white sign that went up in front of the development
that notified residents that there had been a DA (development application)
lodged with Council and they could get online and have a look at it and lodge
submissions about it. They took up the advantage of that—18 of them, 18
households that did that.
But under the new City Plan, they will not know when future development
applications are lodged with Council because the new City Plan removes their
rights to have a say in the development approval process. So what I will be
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 122 -
telling the residents of Stephen Street, Camp Hill, is that even though I backed
them as their local councillor and said that I did not support this development
application because the lot sizes were too small, and I backed their concerns, the
only thing that they have to look forward to is the fact that this is going to be
happening in their residential streets over and over and over again.
The only difference will be, when the new City Plan comes into place, is that
they actually won't know about it until the houses are starting to be constructed.
That is a direct consequence of the City Plan, voted on and endorsed by this LNP
Council.
So I will be saying to the residents of Stephen Street, Camp Hill, and those of
Bruce Street, Camp Hill, and those of Perth Street, Camp Hill, that took the
opportunity to lodge these submissions that it is the Liberal National Party
Council in this place that they have to blame for the fact that this development
application has been approved because this is the type of development
application that this Council is allowing to be approved more and more.
And I will defend their opposition to this development application for as long as
I am the councillor in this place. I do not believe that this Council should have
approved this development application and that is why I am rising to my feet
tonight to say this is the first development application of many that I believe I
will see in my ward, that I believe Councillor KNAPP will see in her ward,
because even though she is low-density—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
—even though she has got 83 per cent of her ward as low-density zoning, she
will get development applications like this—
Councillor KNAPP interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor SUTTON:
—with more—
Chairman:
Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you for your protection, Madam Chair. Are you done? What this Council
and all councils will see is an increase in incidents where their local residents try,
in vain, to stop these types of development applications from being approved,
and they will be powerless to stop them. They will be powerless to stop them
because they will not even know that they have been lodged with Council and
they will not have the right to lodge submissions. That is a fundamental right that
this LNP Council has taken away from the residents of Brisbane. This is the first
opportunity, this is the first example here in Stephen Street, Camp Hill, but
disappointingly it will not be the last. It is those people on that side of the
Chamber that are to blame for this.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Further general business? 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 (received on 7 May 2014)
Q1.
How many notice boards are there in Council parks or dog off-leash areas?
Q2.
How many notice boards have been removed from Council parks or dog off leash areas for
misuse regarding the posting of inappropriate or commercial notices in the past five years?
Q3.
How many infringement notices has Council issued for the inappropriate or commercial use of
notice boards in Council parks of dog off-leash areas?
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 123 -
Q4.
Has the South-west Corridor Study transport study regarding Oxley Road been completed? If
not, when is it expected to be completed?
Q5.
Will Council reconsider its decision to refuse community use of the southern pylon of the
Walter Taylor Bridge, should further submissions from the community be proposed?
Q6.
How many grass cuts in Council parks are proposed or were delivered for the following years:
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Q7.
How many grass cuts along Council footpaths and road verges are proposed or were delivered
for the following years:
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (received on 8 May 2014)
Q1.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications were received in the 2012/13
Financial Year?
Q2.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications were approved in the 2012/13
Financial Year?
Q3.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications were refused in the 2012/13
Financial Year?
Q4.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications have been received (to date) in the
2013/14 Financial year?
Q5.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications have been approved (to date) in the
2013/14 Financial year?
Q6.
Can the CEO advise how many Development Applications have been refused (to date) in the
2013/14 Financial year?
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 Victoria Newton (from meeting on 1 April 2014)
Q1.
Can the CEO please advise how many buses are at each depot and are not being used during
weekday peak hours?
Carina
Upper Mt Gravatt
Sherwood
Eagle Farm
Virginia
Willawong
Toowong.
Q2.
Can the CEO please advise how many river ferries are not used during weekday peak times?
Q3.
Can the CEO please advise how many CityCats are not being used during weekday peak
hours?
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 124 -
Q4.
Can the CEO please advise of the number of complaints lodged with the Brisbane City
Council’s Contact Centre for each of the following financial years?
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14 (year to date).
Q5.
Can the CEO please advise of top ten issues raised with the Brisbane City Council’s Contact
Centre for each of the following financial years?
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14 (year to date).
A1 to A5.
Q6.
Information being compiled.
Can the CEO please advise of the number of wandering dogs reported with the Brisbane City
Council’s Contact Centre for each of the following financial years?
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14 (year to date)
A6.
10-11 FY
11-12 FY
12-13 FY
13-14 FY (year to date)
3,654
4,289
4,002
2,944
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from meeting on 18 March 2014)
Q2(a) Could the CEO please advise if Council is responsible for the dredging of the Kedron Brook
Floodway for flood mitigation purposes.
A2(a)
Yes.
Q2(b) If so, could the CEO please advise when it may be likely Council will re-dredge the floodway
back to the original channel profiles, to reduce upstream flooding of Kedron Brook during rain
events?
A2(b)
Engineering assessment of the brook indicates that dredging for flood mitigation purposes is
not currently required. Council continues to monitor the brook to determine when works may
be required.
Q3.
Can the CEO please provide the total amount of funds collected through development
contribution for parkland from development in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood
Plan PIP area since 2009?
Q4.
Can the CEO please provide the total amount of funds collected in the 2012-13 financial year
through development contribution for parkland from development in the South Brisbane
Riverside Neighbourhood Plan PIP area?
Q5.
Can the CEO provide the total amount of funds collected through development contributions
for parkland from development in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan, that has
been sent on parkland acquisition or embellishment since 2009 and can those expenditures be
itemised against specific parks?
A3–A5. As Infrastructure charges revenue is not apportioned, received, monitored or reported
according to Neighbourhood Plan areas, the information requested is not immediately
available and would take an unacceptable amount of time to collate. Retrieval and collation of
the material will cause an unacceptable increase in the workload or delay in the performance
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]
- 125 -
of normal day to day services of Council officers.
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from meeting on 29 October 2013):
Q1.
The Lord Mayor claimed the introduction of the Carbon Tax would add $15.8 million to
Council Rates needed to be collected in the 2012/2013 financial year. Accordingly, could the
CEO please provide a full break-down of costs to Council attributed to the Carbon Tax for the
2012/2013 financial year?
A1.
Council’s estimates on the cost of the carbon tax were based on the expected CPI increase
which was announced by the former Gillard Government as part of the Carbon tax modelling
undertaken by the Federal Treasury.
The increase cost on Council’s capital works program through the purchase of materials
through to contractor costs passed onto purchasers, such as Council, as a result of the
Carbon Tax is not able to be individually calculated.
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from meeting on 22 October 2013):
Q11:
Can the CEO please advise of the total cost of providing catering for Establishment and
Coordination meetings held in 2012/13 financial year?
A11.
$15,401.
Note: This includes morning tea and lunch. Wine is not served at Civic Cabinet meetings.
Catering for Civic Cabinet has been a long standing practice under all administrations
including the 2004-08 joint Liberal and Labor Cabinet which included Cr. Helen Abrahams,
Cr. Kim Flesser and Cr. Victoria Newton.
RISING OF COUNCIL:
10.05pm.
PRESENTED:
and CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN
Council officers in attendance:
Angela Holmes (Team Leader, Council and Committees Support)
David Redding (Council and Committees Support Officer)
Jo Camamile (Council and Committees Support Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
[4434 (Post Recess) meeting – 13 May 2014]