MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4410 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 30 July 2013
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committees Support
Chief Executive’s Office
Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4410 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 30 JULY 2013
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESENT: ______________________________________________________________________ 1
OPENING OF MEETING: __________________________________________________________ 1
APOLOGY: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
MINUTES: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: __________________________________________________________ 2
QUESTION TIME: ________________________________________________________________ 6
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: _____________________________________________________ 15
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report) _________________________ 15
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report) ___________________________ 33
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION
COMMITTEE: __________________________________________________________________ 45
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Report of 29 July 2013) ______________________ 45
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: _____________________________________________________ 87
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE _______________________________________________ 87
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________ 98
GENERAL BUSINESS: ___________________________________________________________ 100
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: _______________________________ 102
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ____________________ 103
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4410 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 30 JULY 2013
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Acting Chairman of Council) – 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)
Kim MARX (Karawatha)
Peter MATIC (Toowong)
Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
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)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Acting Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, opened the meeting with prayer, and then
proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
APOLOGIES:
1/2013-14
An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Margaret de WIT, and she was granted a leave of absence
from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX.
2/2013-14
A further apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and she was granted leave of
absence from all meetings of Council from 30 July to 3 September 2013, inclusive, on the motion of Councillor
Victoria NEWTON, seconded by Councillor Kim FLESSER
MINUTES:
3/2013-14
The Minutes of the 4407 (ordinary) meeting held on 11 July 2013, the 4408 (Budget) meeting held on 12 July
2013 and the 4409 (Special) meeting held on 20 June 2013, copies of which had been forwarded to each
councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded
by Councillor Kim MARX.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
2
Acting Chairman:
Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Just before we commence today, in case you need to seek some advice, we
received an attachment today outlining the documents that are commercial in
confidence for today's Council meeting, and I refer to attachment that is marked
Commercial in Confidence. That outlines a table which lists all the documents
that Council has indicated are commercial in confidence for the purposes of
today's meeting. Can you confirm that that is the list of documents that is
commercial in confidence, and if there are any other documents that we haven't
been advised about? I am just confirming that that is the list of documents that is
commercial in confidence.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I can confirm for you that the items that are
commercial in confidence have been marked on the relevant files which have
been available for viewing since Friday, through the Clerks. The actual items
that are commercial in confidence were shaded in green on those documents and
they are the items in particular that cannot be referred to during open session of
Council.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mr Christopher Taylor - Proposed development of a Bunnings Warehouse at 481 Settlement Road,
Keperra
Acting Chairman:
I would now like to call on Mr Christopher Taylor who will address the
Chamber on concerns surrounding the proposed development of a Bunnings
Warehouse at 481 Settlement Road, Keperra. Orderly, please show
Mr Taylor in.
You can sit or stand, whichever is most comfortable. Please proceed, Mr Taylor,
you have five minutes.
Mr Christopher Taylor:
Madam Chair, LORD MAYOR, and Councillors; thank you for the opportunity
to make this address today. I am here today to convey the concerns of a number
of local residents to the development application by Bunnings from May of this
year to build one of its largest ever stores on the quarry on Settlement Road in
Keperra, a site which is next to an established residential area and which is on
the edge of Brisbane's green wedge of protected bushland and national park.
The objection to the current application is not limited to the 112 residents who
have made formal submissions, it extends to hundreds and hundreds of people
who have signed a petition expressing their concern as well as those who have
reached out to their local Councillors and put signs and banners up in front of
their homes. The concerns of residents are compelling, so much so that they
have resulted in local Councillors who were initially indifferent to the proposal
now writing to their constituents to express their concerns. They have also
resulted in Campbell Newman, the State member for Ashgrove, writing directly
to the LORD MAYOR with his concerns.
I would like to bring two of the key concerns regarding the current application
to Council's attention. I would also like to address some concerns regarding an
application over the site from 2007. In terms of the key concerns, the first is
zoning and City Plan compliance. The proposed development conflicts
extensively with the planning scheme. It conflicts with the current extractive
industry and rural zoning for the site. It constitutes out of centre development in
the absence of overwhelming community need, and it conflicts with the specific
intent for the site identified in the Enoggera District Local Plan which only
contemplated low density residential development and the potential for small
scale non-residential development providing local services.
The Bunnings Warehouse proposed for this site would be the largest hardware
store by footprint area in Australia, having a frontage length nearly two times
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
3
the length of the playing field of Suncorp Stadium. Councillors, the proposed
development is not small scale.
The second concern is traffic. Just like the Bunnings Warehouse in nearby
Stafford, the traffic impact of this development will be significant. But unlike
most Bunnings stores which are located on arterial roads near freeways, this
store is proposed on Settlement Road, a suburban route which runs right past a
significant number of homes and primary schools. Traffic generated by this
development is expected to increase by approximately 15 to 60 per cent during
peak periods. The current organic traffic growth on this road is only 1½ per cent
per annum.
Council should be concerned that adding this much traffic will bring forward the
June 2026 upgrade date for Settlement Road identified in the Priority
Infrastructure Plan. Upgrading this road through the Keperra Pass may cost as
much as $30 to $50 million, considerably more than the $6 million of
infrastructure charges which could be collected from Bunnings. I would expect
that Brisbane ratepayers would not be happy to subsidise the impacts of private
development.
In terms of the 2007 approval, respected Town Planner John Venn stated that
the application by Bunnings is confusing by intent, represents a piecemeal
approach to development which is not supported by adequate or appropriate
information or justification. Some representatives from Council have pointed to
the fact that there is already an approval for development on this site from 2007.
While this is true, the existing approval was not only for a development of a
slightly different nature, it should also have expired on 13 September 2011.
An application to extend this approval was filed on 3 August 2011, but a
decision was not made during the prescribed 30 business day period, and still
has not been made nearly two years later—an unreasonable period of time
which resulted in the 2007 approval being artificially extended well beyond its
expiry date, as approvals do not lapse until a decision is made, under section 390
of the Sustainable Planning Act.
Time limitations are imposed on development approvals because community
sentiment and town planning laws change over time, and development approvals
should not be permitted to continue indefinitely in spite of these changes.
Council has also stated in correspondence that infrastructure charges would need
to be paid by the applicant in order to proceed with their application. I query
what relevance these payments have in light of section 388 of the Sustainable
Planning Act which limits what can be considered in deciding an extension
request to consistency with town planning laws applying at that time.
Council is also considering a separate application by Bunnings made in
September last year, just three weeks after the Masters Hardware Store was
approved in Everton Park, to make a permissible change to the 2007 approval
without public consultation. The plans for this permissible change request are
identical to the ones submitted in the new development application I mentioned
earlier.
Despite the fact that the change could not constitute a permissible change
because it would result in a substantially different development, and would be
likely to give rise to objections, given the fact that objections have been made on
identical plans in the new application, Council has still not rejected this
permissible change application. I believe that allowing a dual track approach to
development undermines the community's confidence in the town planning
process.
Local residents are not opposed to a development on this site, so long as it
adheres to town planning laws and does not unreasonably impact the lifestyle
and amenity of the surrounding area. The development currently proposed for
this site does not meet either of these requirements. Thank you very much for
your time, Councillors.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
4
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Mr Taylor.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
5
Response by Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee
Acting Chairman:
Councillor COOPER, would you care to respond, please?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much to the Acting Chair, and thank you very much to Mr
Taylor for coming in and speaking to Council. Certainly it is a good opportunity
for you to have your say, and certainly to convey your passion for your local
community. In relation to this application, it is important to note this is an
application which is currently being assessed by Council. It was lodged with us
on 1 May this year by Bunnings. I have actually been informed that they are not
the landowner but rather Brookfield Multiplex owns the land and it is Bunnings
who have lodged an application as they are entitled to do.
This is an impact assessable application, as you know. It went out for public
notification from 4 June to 26 June, and I believe that you actually have a
photograph of the public notification board that was placed on the site in
accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act. Officers have advised me that
there are 116 valid submissions. I think there were a couple that were actually
received after the public notification period closed, and Council officers I
believe actually contacted them to let them know and asked them if they wanted
their submissions to be made valid because there was potentially an issue as to
whether that met the correct timeframe or not.
So, Mr Taylor, I understand you are a formal submitter to the application, and of
course consequently it is probably not appropriate for me to make much further
comment, other than to say Council is going through the process right now.
There has been no decision made about this application, and there are significant
issues that need to be dealt with before Council is able to make a final decision.
You particularly have flagged some concerns relating to assessment of local
flora and fauna, and I note that those have been conveyed on to the assessment
team for them to deal with. But it is important to note the site itself is actually
often referred to as the old Keperra Quarry, so those of us who are familiar with
this side of town, it has been unused for some time now. It sits right next to the
Great Western Shopping Centre with Settlement Road running along the front of
that quarry site. I have actually been on the quarry site, had a look at it, and
there have been quite a bit of increased production of extraction of materials
from that site in order to facilitate some future development opportunities.
I note you raised a point about gross floor area (GFA). There is, as you noted
already, an approval that has been made over this site, and that was for identical
gross floor area, so the gross floor area for a four-building approval has been
changed, but the total amount of gross floor area remains constant. That is
something that is important to know. I think it is just under 26,000 square
metres. I think it is actually 25,320 square metres, as the officers have indicated
to me.
This was an application which was assessed during that split period of Council
when there was an Administration that was controlled by the Australian Labour
Party, and I note that Councillor Hinchliffe was the Planning Chair at the time.
Councillor interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
Councillor COOPER:
He presented that application, and he noted—and we have got minutes there to
reflect there had been very careful consideration of the application by officers,
and that was endorsed both by Councillor Hinchliffe, and I believe he conveyed
there was support from his team at that time.
So, Madam Chair, it is important that we have had Mr Taylor in here to convey
his concerns. They are very legitimate concerns, and they will be carefully
assessed by the Council officers in making a decision for this site. But it is
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
6
important to note that we have not made a decision at this time. I thank you for
coming in here this afternoon.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor COOPER, and thank you, Mr Taylor, for coming in
today.
QUESTION TIME:
Acting Chairman:
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the
Standing Committees? Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. I
understand that major construction works have commenced on the Brisbane
River. Can you please provide an update for the Chamber on this important
initiative which will link New Farm and the city centre?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Acting Chairman, and I thank you, Councillor
HOWARD. I met this morning with the Federal Member for Moreton,
Graham Perrett, the local member Teresa Gambaro, and Assistant Minister
Cavallucci to, I suppose launch, if you like, the next stage of Riverwalk. This
project is an 850-metre long project linking Howard Smith Wharves to New
Farm, and what we saw this morning was the barge in place, and also a large
crane, a 280-tonne crane, together with that of piling equipment, a 130-tonne
piling rig, ready to go, to make sure that the 37 piles are driven in to the bedrock
of the Brisbane River to see the start of Riverwalk construction.
John Holland, who have a proud record in this city, the producers of the
Eleanor Schonell Bridge, will be the constructing body. They will be getting on
with the job. So all of the gear is ready to go. The first of those piles will be
driven tomorrow. It will be a nine-month period in terms of total driving. There
will be a substantial number done in the first two or three months, but then there
are some trickier aspects of that piling, and the full piling phase will be a ninemonth period.
This project is on track for completion in June next year. Of course, it will be a
great addition to have it back as a fixed structure with a one in 2,000 year flood
resilience. Before we saw it float away during the January 2011 flood, it was
carrying some 3,000 cyclists and pedestrians every day. What will be very good
about this project is that, when we see the completion of the Howard Smith
Wharves upgrade in the future, it will provide a great link to what we vision will
be a very activated space in Howard Smith Wharves. That will lead to a greater
usage for years to come.
The particular project is a very significant one for the city. It is one where the
Federal Government set aside $72 million, together with the State Government,
under the NDRRA arrangements. Whilst I am very, very confident that we will
have change back to the Australian and Queensland taxpayers, we will continue
to project manage that as if we were putting in every dollar, making sure that we
drive value for that project into the future.
It will, of course, cover a very similar alignment to that of the original floating
walkway. It will be slightly different, but not significantly different. It will,
however, be located 3.5 metres above the river level, and that of course is to
take into account the fixed nature of this structure. Madam Chairman, the barge
that is on the Brisbane River is a very significant one, a 55-metre by 18-metre
barge. There are two methodologies that they are using. The first involves
driving a steel outer shell into the rock to the required depth. They will then be
excavating the inner section when pouring concrete into the shell to construct
the pile. The majority of Riverwalk's piles will be constructed using that
methodology.
But there is a second method, and that involves screwing an over-sized steel
outer shell into the rock and supporting it with chains and anchors. Once the
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
7
inside is cleaned out, the bottom few metres of the shell will then be filled with
concrete. Also, the company, John Holland, will be constructing all the pier
aspects to Riverwalk on site. They will be using a rail line method, having
constructed those sections of the walkway, and then roll them down to the river's
edge for placement on Riverwalk itself.
The great thing about this project is that we will have separated pedestrian and
cycling movements. We will also have lighting, so there will be safe night time
opportunities, and CCTV cameras will be also a feature of the new Riverwalk.
The project also will have several lookout points, so that people can enjoy the
vista of the river, looking back across to the CBD, the Story Bridge, and that
will be an added feature to this particular reconstruction after the flood of
January 2011. The width of this Riverwalk will be 3.4 metres, as opposed to the
previous width of 2.5 metres.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR, Councillor DICK, your question please.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR.
Brisbane's ratepayers have a massive $2.5 billion toll road debt after this
Council was debt-free just four years ago. Debt repayments are now costing
ratepayers around $138 million a year. How will these payments be met if
Council sells off all the tolling rights for the toll roads that generated this debt?
Will you give a guarantee that ratepayers won't be left with increased rates and
charges as a result of your QMH deal?
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much, Councillor DICK, for the question. Madam Chairman,
yes, I can say that the debt of the Brisbane City Council will come down after
this financial year. What we will do—and I think this was all laid out in the
budget this year—we will see annual reductions in debts for years to come.
What we will see obviously is when the Federal government provides their extra
$400 million of outstanding contribution towards Legacy Way, we will see that
sum immediately come off the city debt. We have plans in place to reduce debt
over the next few years also, to reduce that number.
It was Councillor Hinchliffe again—his name seems to be coming up regularly
today, but it was he who said, 'a public debt for public infrastructure is good'—is
good. I think that is the important message that we need to deliver here today.
That is, that the borrowings that this Council has undertaken have been for the
good of this city, have been for projects which provide a long-lasting benefit to
the needs of this city.
So it is with these 100-year assets that we have been building, it will set this city
up for the long term. This is something that Labor never did while they were in
Administration. They took the easy road. They took the road which suggested
that if you didn't build any new roads, people would somehow clamour on to
public transport. Well, they proved that theory was absolutely wrong.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Councillor, I will tell you why it was wrong. Because while population
grew by 20 per cent from 1991 to 2004, there was just an 8.5 per cent increase in
public transport, in bus usage, during that period of time. That was because
Labor had neither invested in road nor public transport infrastructure at that
time.
So, Madam Chairman, Councillor DICK, you need to sleep well at night. The
debt of this city is not only lower now on a per capita basis than what it was
during parts of the Labor years, previous Labor Administrations, but it is on a
road where it will be in a downward spiral over the coming years. So this is
something for which the ratepayers of this city can also take comfort, that there
will not be any burden in terms of their rates, in terms of those borrowings into
the future.
We have a respectable level of borrowings. We have an asset base of around $20
billion in this Council. So, what we will see is a declining indebtedness over the
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
8
years to come. I think, though, the important point is that we now have a city as
a result of the investments made where it has been recorded recently that the
travel times in significant parts of this city have come down. We have plans
through motions that we will discuss later today to build further infrastructure,
to further improve those outcomes on our road network.
So, sleep well, Councillor DICK: it is all under control. The debt will be coming
down, but the infrastructure will be onwards and upwards.
Acting Chairman:
Further questions, Councillor McKENZIE.
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman, my question is to Councillor
SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee. Can you please
update the Chamber on new infrastructure projects currently planned for our
city?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you for the question, Councillor McKENZIE. Last month, in June, the
Federal Government released a national infrastructure plan which I have a copy
of here. This document was very important, because it sets the agenda for
infrastructure across Australia at not only the federal level but the state and the
local level as well. That infrastructure plan had some very interesting bold
actions and reforms that it proposed.
I will cut to the chase here and go directly to a couple of these which are very
relevant to our city. Reform no. 2 was to use government budgets innovatively.
This is essentially to use new funding models aimed at leveraging more private
investment in infrastructure. Reform 3 is to recycle capital for new
infrastructure. This reform aims to release the capital tied up in assets for
investment in new infrastructure projects.
This is exactly what we are talking about today with the proposal to lease the
tolling rights to Go Between Bridge and Legacy Way. We are at the forefront of
what other levels of government are telling state governments and councils
across Australia to do. What we will do today, if we approve the submission, is
to be the first of a new round of PPPs. We will be the first, the innovators, to
deliver a new model of public private partnership to deliver infrastructure.
Your question, Councillor McKENZIE, is about what we are going to put that
money into. We are very clear about the fact that we cannot afford to sit on our
hands and wait. Infrastructure is something we need to continue to invest in,
particularly the infrastructure like Kingsford Smith Drive. This is a key project
for our city economically, socially and also from a congestion point of view.
Kingsford Smith Drive carries around 63,000 vehicles a day at the moment, but
this is expected to increase by 50 per cent by 2026. In addition, freight
movements across the state are expected to double by 2020.
So, in just a relatively few short years, we will see extra freight traffic, with
predictions of doubling of freight traffic on our road network, particularly roads
like Kingsford Smith Drive. We know that Kingsford Smith Drive is a key link
into the Airport, the Port of Brisbane and the Trade Coast area. We also know
that there is massive new development and revitalisation planned in the
Hamilton Northshore area. So we need to get on and invest in this infrastructure.
If we take the approach that Labor took in the past, which was to sit and do
nothing, and to go on a roads diet, what we will see is our city fall into chaos
from a traffic point of view, but most importantly, our economy will suffer, and
that means jobs in our city will suffer, that means average incomes in our city
will suffer, and the overall productivity of our city will decrease.
So, we need to get on with the job of investing in Kingsford Smith Drive, and
this deal that we have on the table today will allow us to get on with that project.
We know, for example, that the Airport itself is expected to grow significantly.
We know that there's investment in a second parallel runway proposed, and we
are expecting passenger movements to grow from their current around 18
million or 19 million trips per year to 45 million trips per year by 2028. The
number of jobs at the Airport is expected to increase as well, from 16,500 at
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
9
present to more than 50,000 over the same period of time. So, this is a key
economic project for our city.
In recent times, we have been out to the community and talked about options for
the upgrade of Kingsford Smith Drive. We put five options out there which
included tunnels, building out over the river—Riverside Expressway style; and
we also had an option which included a retaining wall structure into the river.
Obviously Kingsford Smith Drive is very constrained. On one side we have the
river; the other side we have houses and in some cases large cliffs.
The option that the community came back to us with was the retaining wall
structure. We are proceeding now with work on the concept design for this
project. We will see a new river wall of about 1.65 kilometres long built along
Kingsford Smith Drive to allow us to expand the road from four lanes to six
lanes. We will also make provision for pedestrian and cycling access along that
key route. It is a key link into the city from the eastern suburbs there, Madam
Chairman, and a key piece of vital infrastructure, not only from a traffic point of
view—
Acting Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—but from a pedestrian's and cyclist's point of view.
Acting Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chair; my question is again to the LORD MAYOR.
In the past you said it would have been crazy and not in the interests of
ratepayers to negotiate exclusively with a single contractor, to construct with
major infrastructure projects like Legacy Way. Why have you done exactly that
with your deal with QMH Limited? Surely for ratepayers to be assured your
proposal stacks up, this deal should have been at least put out to the open market
to see if there were any higher bidders.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Councillor DICK for the
question. The matter that Councillor DICK refers to was of course a PPP that
was proposed in relation to the construction of Legacy Way. At that time there
was a single bidder left in the field, and that was at the time Leighton
Constructions. It was a bid which we believe we were not going to be in a
position to get a successful outcome.
I think time proved that to be correct, because what we were going to be
confronted with was, whilst we were losing traffic risk, we were going to be
confronted with a very, very significant bill. I think later today when we debate
the issue of the QML, the Queensland Motorways Limited deal, to which
Councillor DICK is clearly referring, we will see that the numbers, in terms of
the difference, is very, very significant.
I think what we are saying is that we have gone through proper due diligence
with the QML arrangement. I might say, they approached us initially; we did not
approach them. It is fair to say probably we had a lukewarm response at first,
but the more we got into it, that then led to me making an announcement in
January of this year that we would then proceed to formal negotiations. We felt
that there was enough in it to reach that point.
It has taken all of that time to reach a settlement in relation to it, and not before
and not without significant contributions from companies in this city advising
us. So we didn't rely on our own staff in terms of this matter; we sought
professional advice in terms of the companies in the infrastructure fields that
could give us proper advice around the suitability and the commerciality of such
an arrangement before this Council today.
So, Madam Chairman, the difference of course if we had accepted the single
tenderer at the time when Legacy Way was being built is that we would have
been out of pocket to the tune of $700 million in that particular deal. This is a
very, very different situation. This is a situation where the asset remains in the
hands of Brisbane ratepayers. It is a situation where we have engaged those
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
10
companies to give us the commercial advice—companies that are working in the
infrastructure field on an ongoing basis.
I am very comfortable with what is on the table today. It meets a yes/yes
outcome. It means a win/win outcome in terms of what is available. I think the
important part about what we are putting to this Council today is that it will deal
in the real. In other words, it deals in the real traffic outcome. So, some fixed
payments and some payments based around actual traffic movement, not based
on estimates, not based on one or the other party carrying all of the risk, and that
is the benefit of the deal that we have before this Council Chamber today.
So, Madam Chairman, in answer to Councillor DICK, we are talking about very
different sets of scenarios, very different, and I am very comfortable with what
we will be putting to Council today, and given its approval, we will then of
course be going to the state and federal governments for their approval.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Further questions; Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, Councillor
COOPER. I understand that public submissions regarding the new City Plan
close today. Can you please update this Chamber as to how this Administration
has ensured that all Brisbane residents have had an opportunity to provide
feedback and obtain information on planning strategies for Brisbane?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much Madam Acting Chair, and I thank my Deputy Chair for
the question, because she certainly has been alongside me when we have
attended a number of these particular events that have been held across the city.
The LORD MAYOR has been very clear in his intentions for us to create every
opportunity for the residents of Brisbane to come along and talk to us about the
draft new City Plan document.
In relation to this requirement, of course, we have been out there for 60 business
days, and the community have come along to talk to us about what it exactly
means. I know that Councillors, particularly on this side of the Chamber,
themselves have been very active encouraging their community to come along
and to really talk about the vision that we have for our beautiful city.
Since we have debated the plan, the community has been able to have a look at
the draft document and Council officers have been in a whole range of locations
trying to allow people every opportunity to talk to them about the draft
document. We have been at shopping centres. We have been going out there on
Thursday nights and Saturday mornings to suit, of course, the very busy lifestyle
that many people lead in our city.
We have been going to our libraries and to our regional business centres. We
have been going along to the Green Heart Fairs and the Brookfield Show. We
have been to the markets at West End, New Farm and Wilston. In fact, on
Sunday we were at the Einbunpin Festival, and I thank the local Councillor,
Councillor NEWTON, for having us along there.
This has been double the amount of time for consultation that is required. So, 60
business days. Important to note, of course, that it was really the Australian
Labor Party, through their amendments to legislation, who changed the statutory
consultation period to 30 business days when they introduced the Sustainable
Planning Act in 2009. So the Labor Party's record speaks for itself.
This document in particular has been, I think, much more user friendly. We have
got interactive mapping, and we have utilised hyperlinking extensively
throughout the document to provide information for our community to
understand. We have held over 80 information kiosks. We have had 34 Talk to a
Planner sessions, and we have consulted with over 20 community heritage and
environment groups. We have sent out over 400,000 flyers to each household
and business in the city, and that was done twice.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
11
We have advertised on buses, ad shells, in major ethnic newspapers, we
undertook a social media campaign. We put ads online on The Courier-Mail and
Brisbane Times, and we ran ads in The Courier-Mail. The LORD MAYOR and
I have been out talking to small business, so we have been there from Wynnum
to Chermside through to Yeronga and Richlands. We have spoken to architects,
valuers, certifiers, Chambers of Commerce, we have spoken to a number of
multicultural associations. Since December of last year, every single month we
have had an article about draft new city plan in the Living in Brisbane document
which is distributed to every household in the city.
So the plan has had nearly 63,000 hits to the website, nearly 22,000 hits to the
interactive mapping, and nearly 19,000 fact sheets downloaded. We have also
offered interpreters to assist with further inquiries, and the new city plan has had
information available in a range of languages, including Korean, Arabic,
Traditional Chinese and Vietnamese, as well as offering a dedicated submission
form in those four languages.
So, Madam Acting Chair, I thank Councillor HOWARD for her request. I thank
her for her extensive attendance at a number of these events, along with myself,
and all of the other Councillors that did come along to support the officers in the
work that they do. This is an important document for our city. This is a
document that shapes the future of Brisbane. We take it very seriously on this
side of the Chamber, and we look forward to reading through all those
submissions, understanding what people have to say, and making some
decisions about planning for the future of Brisbane. Thank you very much.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor COOPER. Further questions, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. In March this year, the relevant
State Minister, Tim Mander, announced that Council would be receiving 3,000
square metres of the old RSPCA site at Fairfield in trust. That has not occurred
yet. Is it still this Council's intention to receive this land from the State
Government as publicly stated by the minister?
LORD MAYOR:
Well, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Governments are always entitled to
say that they are going to make offers of land whenever they want. But this
entity, this Brisbane City Council, is its own entity. It makes its own decisions,
and it certainly isn't beholden to decisions of other levels of government. It is
not really decisions, it is more statements. We make our own call on things.
So, Madam Chairman, there is absolutely no decision by this Council to take
that land. There are issues, significant issues, with that land. So we are not going
to be ones to just rush in and take a parcel of land on the basis of a, here, you
can have this, scenario. That is the position. That is the position, and that will
remain the position of this Council.
Acting Chairman:
Further questions, Councillor WINES.
Councillor WINES:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my question is to Councillor ADAMS, the
Chairman of the Lifestyle Committee. Can you please outline to this Chamber
how this Administration is ensuring that Brisbane food outlets are working to
improve their food safety standards through Council's Eat Safe program, and are
you aware of previous standards of food service and the impacts of this upon
Brisbane residents and tourists?
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Councillor WINES for the question, a
very relevant question following a few articles in the media of late. We are very
conscious that unfortunately food-borne illnesses have been increasing in
Australia and around the world. We have 5.4 million cases in Australia each
year, and up to 120 deaths from food-borne illnesses. It is estimated that almost
$7 billion is spent on health through the Federal government on food-borne
illnesses.
I think we can agree that we need to see a change in the way that we eat, and we
have to make sure that, with our ever-increasing busy lifestyles and the demand
for prepared food, quick snacks and access to foods that require limited heating
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
12
and preparation, we need to make sure this is not increasing our cases of foodborne illnesses and we are preventing any of these instances across Brisbane.
This Administration is working very responsibly and swiftly to manage the risks
and promote food hygiene right throughout the food industry and the community
by introducing Eat Safe in Brisbane in November 2010. What we have seen
since that time is that has been taken on whole-heartedly by the industry. Some
95 per cent of Brisbane residents support the introduction of a food safety rating
scheme, and under Eat Safe Brisbane, all food businesses are issued with a food
safety rating which is based on an assessment of the food safety management
practices. We must make sure we do not get this confused with how good the
food is or how good the food tastes, but it is about food safety management
practices.
Audits are mandatory for all our licensed food businesses in Brisbane, and every
licensed food business is audited to determine their star rating against the Food
Act 2006 and our safety standards. The star ratings go from five stars for
excellent food safety to no stars if, unfortunately, they are non-compliant. We
provide stickers for the windows, for the counters, for the businesses to be able
to show off their food star rating so that they can promote that to the public.
We have also made accessible to the public a list of the licensed food businesses
in Brisbane on our corporate website that have been audited and received a star
rating. We have seen a significant rise in food safety compliance since 2010
which is obviously the whole main aim of the Eat Safe program. It is pleasing to
note that currently 91 per cent of businesses now hold a three-star rating or
more, and since 2010 zero-star rated business have decreased by 7 per cent, and
two-star rated businesses have decreased by 35 per cent. So we see people
taking this on board, realising that they need to fix up their practices and coming
on board with the ratings as well.
In 2012, Council actually issued 270 PINs for offences related to noncompliance with the Food Act; 60 businesses had their licence immediately
suspended due to immediate risk to public health, but they were given the
opportunity to re-open if they could carry out the remedial works required and
remove the risk. In all, we saw about 30 food businesses from that amount that
actually cancelled their permits in 2012.
Some 24 prosecutions were followed through in some of these PINs, and we
looked at the highest amount being fined was for $70,000 on a business that
caused severe illness in the community. So we are trying to clamp down and
take it to the full hilt to make sure that we are not seeing safety practices that
lead to cross-contamination of food, poor temperature control, and obviously the
hazards that may be left around the kitchens as well.
Madam Chair, I think these results show that the system is working, and it is
contributing to improved industry food standards, and also consumer awareness
of food safety as well. The increases in Eat Safe ratings and voluntary rating
displays have also coincided with a fall in customer complaints that we have
related to food poisoning and food safety. We have developed the program in
consultation with key industry associations, like the Restaurant and Catering
Queensland, Hotels Association, Clubs Queensland, Baking Industry
Association, and partnering with them has really paid off. With about 860
complaints received in the last financial year compared to 1,060 the year before
that.
In summary, I have to say Eat Safe Brisbane benefits the community; it benefits
our tourism, our food business, and most of all Council, by improving food
safety standards and reducing the incidence of food-borne illnesses. We are
making sure that the community is aware, and tourists, to help them make
informed food and dining choices throughout Brisbane, allowing us to use our
resources effectively so we can work with those poor performing businesses to
improve their standards, and make sure we are looking at world-class food
safety standards in Brisbane. Thank you.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
13
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor ADAMS, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Last week
you gave a commitment to hundreds of property developers to have a one-onone meeting with them to make sure their submissions were incorporated into
your City Plan. Will you give the same commitment to local residents and
community groups who are opposed to your plan to increase densities across our
city?
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank the Councillor for the
question, because I think this is a real point of difference between this
Administration and the former Labor Administration.
Councillor interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR. Those on the Opposition side of the
Chamber; you've asked the question, if you want to hear the answer, remain
silent and give the LORD MAYOR the courtesy of getting it out. LORD
MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
The question is based on a false premise, but I will explain that in responding to
the Councillor in my answer. You see, this is the fourth City Plan that I have
been in on, or sat on, sometimes in Opposition, sometimes in Administration
since being elected as a Councillor in 1985. The one thing that I have detected in
all previous plans, including ones brought down by the Labor Party, was that
once the submission period closed, and of course it closes at midnight tonight,
once it is closed, that is it. Council went into lockdown until such time as a final
plan was brought to the Council Chamber for a debate, and that of course will
occur in the coming months in this place.
I am departing from that process on this occasion, and I am going to make time
available to meet with submitters—not with every submitter. I can't meet with
every submitter; that is impossible to do. That is impossible to do. But what I
will be doing is I will be meeting with some submitters from the business sector;
I'll be meeting with some submitters from the residential sector, from across the
board, to make sure that I have a full understanding of the implications of the
plan, not the plan itself, but more so the implications of the submissions. In
other words, what is really being said.
So, people can put in a written submission, and that is fine. It then is sometimes
a case of interpreting what is being said in that written submission. A written
submission doesn't allow the opportunity for cross-examination. It doesn't allow
the opportunity for discussion around that submission, in terms of the
implications of what is being said.
I said from the outset that when we brought this plan down—and I congratulate
Councillor COOPER and the officers for the great job that they did in bringing a
very comprehensive piece of work for us to debate last November—and I said at
that time there would be changes. None of these plans are ever perfect. There's
always been changes during the course of the period when submissions are
received.
But before we make changes, before we bring it back as a final document for
debate later this year, presumably, we want to be sure that we understand
aspects of what submitters are putting here. So it is that I have indicated that I
want to meet with a number of submitters.
I said at the outset of this process that I expected that there would be between
7,000 and 10,000 submissions. I don't know that there's going to be anywhere
near that number, in spite of the fact that everywhere I have gone, I have raised
this matter, as one of the Councillors said earlier. We have had it in Living in
Brisbane, a document they opposed, but in that document, every month it has
gone out across this city telling people about the plan, inviting them to have a
look at the plan and what it involves. We have had 60,000 people plus go online
and have a look at that plan. That is a great thing, because we want people to be
informed and be a part of the debate.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
14
So, Madam Chairman, now at the pointy end, what I am saying is that I do want
to have several meetings, and that is what Councillor ABRAHAMS was
referring to. That is what she was referring to. I can tell you that I will be
investing a chunk of time over the coming weeks to better understand what the
submitters are saying, so we can, as I say, have a discussion around those
submissions. But I can't do it for everyone; it is impossible. I don't think that any
reasonable person would suggest that it is. It is something that no other Lord
Mayor has done before in terms of the City Plan process.
So, I am happy to receive your question, Councillor ABRAHAMS, happy to
address it so that everyone better understands what we are about. We will be
looking forward to coming back, as I say, hopefully towards the end of this year
to debate a final plan to send off to the State Government.
Acting Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor WYNDHAM.
Councillor WYNDHAM:
Thank you, Madam Acting chair; my question is to Councillor McLACHLAN,
Field Services Committee Chair. Can you assure the Chamber that Council is
doing the very best we can to control mosquito breeding, and is there any
documentary evidence of Councillors proposing alternative control measures
using—to quote Councillor NEWTON, 'noxious fish or all sorts of other
ridiculous things'?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor McLachlan.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chair, and thank you Councillor WYNDHAM for
the question about the world's best practice for mosquito control programs and
the alternatives that we hear from the Opposition, and I will start there. I must
admit that I was surprised to hear Councillor NEWTON, during the budget
debate, issue a challenge—those were her words—to find any documentary
evidence of Labor's support for using 'noxious fish and other ridiculous things in
mosquito control'.
Well, I am happy to draw attention to the sources, and apologise if this is
embarrassing to the Labor Party. Councillor FLESSER's grand plan for noxious
fish as mosquito control measures was revealed in the Council meeting number
4339 on 8 March 2011. Here it is. Councillor FLESSER let the cat out of the
bag—that is the one he did not turn into fish lures—when he said, 'We should be
channelling, digging trenches into the mosquito areas to make sure -
Councillors interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Order!
Councillor McLACHLAN:
—that those mosquito fish, the Gambusias, can get in to where the mosquito
larvae are breeding.' They were his words.
Now, we have there in one sentence on the record Councillor FLESSER pushing
two discredited ideas, and clearly blissfully ignorant of how either work or their
disastrous consequences, along with a staggering failure to understand basic
physics. I'll whisper it to him: water runs downhill, not up.
The idea of runnelling is to dig trenches that drain water out of isolated ponds,
to dry them out, so that the mosquito larvae don't have the medium of water that
they need to turn into mosquitos on the wing. That is the principle. That is the
theory. Doing so in Brisbane over 2000 square metres of wetlands would be an
ecological disaster.
It has been tried, I'll grant him that, no doubt about that, down on the Gold
Coast, and guess what happened. Well, here is a picture. I can give you some
pictures of evidence to show what happened with the runnelling down there on
the Gold Coast. There it is, a neat little trench right through from the coast, to a
pond, and guess what happened. The march of the mangroves—that is all that
happened. No channel there for the Gambusia to swim up from the coast. All it
did was aid and abet the westward march of the mangroves, Madam Acting
Chair.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
15
So, what would it have done? Killed the breeding habitats for crabs, for frogs,
for native fish and to provide the perfect vehicle for that march of the
mangroves. It is hard to believe that there is anyone on the other side who
masquerades as an environmentalist and lover of the wetlands would have a bar
of this. It is unbelievable. But here we have in black and white Councillor
FLESSER, the documentary evidence, proudly suggesting that the way to deal
with mosquitos is to vandalise the wetlands with channels from water ponds to
the bay and somehow noxious Gambusia would find their way up to and live in
the dried out ponds.
But Madam Acting Chair, it is not only Councillor FLESSER who has embraced
noxious fish and other ridiculous ideas. Councillor NEWTON herself appears to
have forgotten her woeful attempt in the Bayside Star on 4 April 2011 to get
away with defending the indefensible, for a Councillor supposedly representing
a Ramsar wetlands area. She backed Councillor FLESSER. She backed him.
She said, 'Council should be considering a technique called channelling or
runnelling, which is a recognised mosquito control option.' Well, that is only if
you want to create a wasteland where nothing but mangroves can survive, and
all the native fish, frogs and wetland birds cannot.
Then, Councillor NEWTON dug herself even deeper into the Dowse Lagoon, by
suggesting that runnelling was undertaken on Sandgate's Dowse Lagoon in
2010. Well, I can inform her—and I am sure she is actually well aware of this—
that not one element of that important Dowse Lagoon revitalisation work
involved digging water-draining channels through the wetlands—not one
element of it. That was a complete fabrication.
In contrast to pushing such ridiculous destroy the village to save the village
ideas, the QUIRK Administration continues to back and fund effective mosquito
control measures that won't decimate the wetlands or the ecology in the process.
These are the measures that are put up for funding by the only Council
employed medical entomologist in Australia, the world-renowned mozzie expert
Mike Muller. The expert to whom control experts from across Australia and the
world defer. That summertime scourge of saltmarsh mosquitoes is one of the
targets of the program that combines aerial spraying for mosquito larvae in their
tidal saltmarsh breeding sites with ground-based work via quad bikes on fourwheel drive vehicles.
If it comes to a choice between looking at what is best for mosquito control, it is
going to come from Mike Muller and his team, let me tell you. I will trust them,
not the Labor Party's desperate headline seekers from whom we have heard
nothing but proposals for noxious fish and other acts of environmental
vandalism.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN. 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 Winter Recess 2013, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, Establishment and Coordination Committee decisions, please.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I move: that the Report setting out the
decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of the
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
16
Council during the winter recess 2013 on matters usually considered by that
committee, be noted.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Seconded.
Acting Chairman:
It has been moved by the LORD MAYOR, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR,
that the Report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee, as delegate of the Council during the winter recess 2013 on matters
usually considered by that committee, be noted;
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Before coming to the formal part of the
report, I just want to make some comments on other aspects that have been
happening in the city. I would like to firstly go back to make some comments on
City Plan. Of course tonight, as I indicated, is the last opportunity for people to
lodge their submissions. As Councillor COOPER mentioned earlier, we have
been out and about, across the city, advising people of the City Plan, suggesting
that they get submissions in, telling us how they think we might be able to make
that plan a better plan. That is something that we have been specifically and
consciously doing.
It did come as a surprise when Councillor ABRAHAMS asked a question on
City Plan today, because I do note that it was only yesterday that she sent out a
little correspondence to some of her constituents where she said, look, I have
been on holidays, which explains why I am forwarding these documents to you
just 24 hours before the close of submissions at midnight on Tuesday 20 July.
That was, of course, attaching her own draft submission to the City Plan.
Well, Madam Chairman, we have been doing radio ads. We did two sections of
radio advertising to make sure people knew about the plan, Living in Brisbane
every month to make sure that it gets out to every household that there is a plan
in play. Also, Madam Chairman, the production of fact sheets, doing it in four
different languages. All of these things to make sure that as many people as
possible can have their say in this City Plan this year. That's also why we
doubled that length of time from 30 days to 60 days.
Madam Chairman, this morning I had the opportunity to go to QUT to launch
their Creative Enterprise Fund. I just want to acknowledge QUT and to
congratulate them on this outstanding initiative. It is about creating a fund,
creating mentors but principally creating some seed funding for creative
companies. It is a $1.2 million investment that they are making upfront where
they are taking applications for seed funding, making sure that a lot of the great
ideas that emerge in this city are not lost to this city. So I just commend them on
all that they are doing down there. Mr John Hummelstad and also Anna Rooke
and their teams around the work that they are doing, and of course Michael
Smellie as well, key players in that initiative.
Madam Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the presence of the George
Washington Aircraft Carriers in the city. The guys and gals on board, they will
no doubt be contributing well to the economic development and stimulus of
Brisbane right now. So we just wish them well in their stay in our city. Since the
recess, during the recess we had the celebrations of NAIDOC week again. That
was a celebration which was well received. A number of councillors had the
opportunity to attend events during the course of NAIDOC week. I congratulate
the indigenous Torres Strait Islander communities on their celebration once
again and for the hospitality they extended to so many of us.
Madam Chairman, the Chairs2Share project, this is a project which we initiated
in June up at Post Office Square. It's been well received by people. Simple
placement of chairs and Lazy Boy type things—I'm not sure they call them Lazy
Boys anymore but you get the drift. Deckchairs, that's what they call them these
days. So they're out there in Post Office Square, the nice grassed area down there
and they're being well used. We've also introduced LED lights onto the Story
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
17
Bridge that you would have noticed. That has gone well, another addition to the,
adding to the colour and vitality of Brisbane.
The CoderDojo Launch, this of course is aimed at seven to 17 year olds, young
people, will be trained in programming skills, data skills, Madam Chairman, it's
part of the digital strategy to take this city forward. We had the Tip Shop art
competition won by—well an art piece called Junkalina which is a tremendous
piece. Junkalina I think will in fact feature in the next edition of
Living in Brisbane, a terrific creative piece of work by a couple of talented
people in our city.
We also saw in the recess the 100,000th visitation to the Museum of Brisbane. So
only opening of course on 6 April, has received 100,000 visitors already shows
the extensive interest there has been since City Hall has reopened. We also had
the St Vinnie's sleepouts, CEO sleepout, another huge success this year, meeting
targets both in Queensland and nationally. Another even was the celebration of
the Broncos twenty-fifth year gala event. That, Madam Chairman, was a terrific
celebration, great memories over the history of our own Brisbane Broncos team
that night.
Sadly, Madam Chairman, we in the recess also saw the loss of an institution in
Brisbane in Eddie Liu and to Eddie and to Eddie's family we pass on our
sympathy and respect and just celebrate what was a great life, a great
contribution to our city. I guess if there was one councillor more than any to
whom he was close to here it was David Hinchliffe but, Madam Chairman,
Eddie was a great friend to many people, a great collaborator and of bringing
people together and so we celebrate his life.
Madam Chairman, the report itself which I'll just grab, the first report before us
today is three Items. Firstly Brisbane's Total Water Cycle Management Plan.
Then there is the Queensland Urban Utilities corporate plan and then the
resumption of easements for drainage purposes. The first one being the
environment plan. The Queensland government requires that local governments
in South East Queensland produce a Total Water Cycle Management Plan. This
plan is a long term plan for the management of the city's water resources which
reiterates and allows Council to implement vision, goals and outcomes of the
Water Smart strategy.
It included flood management, stormwater quality, waterway health, alternative
water sources, water sensitive urban design, water supply, sewerage and trade
waste. This plan has an implementation horizon of 20 years and will be renewed
every five years to take into account change of circumstances and priorities. So
things like promoting a regional approach where needed, providing value for
money, identifying multiple outcomes for maximum benefits, supporting
Brisbane's economic development, promoting alternative funding mechanisms
and providing flexible implementation.
So there are a range of actions and tactics that are achieved to, that are in place
rather in the document to achieve the desired outcome. So I refer to the
document there which all councillors have a copy of, Brisbane's Total Water
Cycle Management Plan. Queensland Urban Utilities, Madam Chairman, is
obliged to update its corporate plan every five years and a copy of that updated
plan was provided for councillors. They indeed in developing the corporate
2013-18 plan look at a range of aspects including customer service, performance
levels for the organisation. They also, Madam Chairman, look at a number of
financial indicators.
Part of that is a return of assets, a return on assets rather on an average of around
5.5 per cent and a return on equity of around four per cent. It also outlines the
movement in bulk water costs over the coming year which is another part of that
particular document. Of course, Madam Chairman, all of those returns on equity
and investments are monies that this Council puts back into for the many
services it provides, playgrounds, road resurfacing, all of the aspects of local
government that are important to our city.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
18
The third Item, Item C is a proposed resumption of easements for drainage
purposes.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR your time has expired. Sorry, LORD MAYOR, could you just
turn your microphone off. DEPUTY MAYOR?
4/2013-14
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you chamber. I'll only be
another minute and let everyone else get on and speak. Madam Chairman, so this
third Item is a new drainage system. It's proposed, which will involve the
construction of a new major drainage system infrastructure requires drainage
easements to upgrade the existing draining for capacity and compliance and the
easement required resumptions are at 99, 101, 105 Morton Street, and 81, 100
and 102 Langshaw Street, all at New Farm.
So they're outlined, they're on attachments E1 to E6 on the submitted file and
there was an objection received in relation to 99 Morton Street. That was around
the compensation. Compensation in itself is not a valid ground for objection,
Madam Chairman, and so they are there to allow us to get on with that drainage
works. I'm happy to move the report.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Further debate? Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on this E&C report.
Seriatim – Clauses A, B and C
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause A, BRISBANE’S TOTAL WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT
PLAN, Clause B, QUEENSLAND URBAN UTILITIES CORPORATE PLAN 2013-18, and Clause C,
PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES SITUATED AT 99, 101 AND
105 MORETON STREET AND 81, 100 AND 102 LANGSHAW STREET, NEW FARM, be taken seriatim for
voting purposes.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chair. Look I will touch on my remarks today. I will
go through my remarks today and focus on Item B, the Queensland Urban
Utilities corporate plan 2013-18 in which the LORD MAYOR glossed over.
There was a couple of things that he—and it's always interesting listening to the
LORD MAYOR and his E&C report. We get the diary for the last six to eight
weeks and then we get matters before you and then sort of sit down. But what we
didn't talk about in the Queensland Urban Utilities is the big fat profits that this
Council will be ripping out of the ratepayers of this city, the big fat profits that
we will be receiving as a result of this report for the next four years.
It's interesting because I did a contrast, a compare and contrast and I bring the
chamber's attention to page 22 of the report. It's stamped across it, for
shareholder consideration and approval. You look at the total return to
shareholders and the LORD MAYOR sort of touched on a four per cent here,
five per cent here on equity and a whole a lot of things and investment. But he
didn't actually talk about the dollars. For the first time since we've been dealing
with these Queensland Urban Utilities reports we don't list what this Council will
be ripping out of the ratepayers in this city.
I know why that—I'll take that interjection Councillor FLESSER—is because
the last time this report came in the then Courier-Mail did a big splash across the
front page of its daily news saying it's a rip-off. This is a rip-off because what
we're doing is we are taking around $162 million in dividends to this Council
this year, $162 million. No wonder the LORD MAYOR didn't want to talk about
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
19
that. Now that's of course to prop up our failing budgetary situation and to pay
for record toll tunnel debts and we'll be debating that a little later today.
Most people think that when they go and pay their Queensland Urban Utilities
bill they're paying into it in good faith that we'll be putting into infrastructure,
they will be paying for new drainage works, sewerage works, all of those things
that we'll be doing to improve our suburbs. No they're not because this Council
is ripping that money and paying directly into its coffers. It is a rip-off, an
absolute rip-off. It goes on for the next years until 2017-18, $185 million, $196
million, $204 million, $220 million, $224 million. These are the figures directly
from the report.
No wonder this—and the LORD MAYOR has just asked Councillor
SCHRINNER to, Councillor SIMMONDS to speak to make sure that he gets in
now. He's just given the thumbs up because he'll be now sent in to do the dirty
work that the LORD MAYOR didn't want to talk about. We know that, we know
that, good cop, bad cop because what this report shows is the rip-off that is
happening to the ratepayers and the water users of our city. So, Madam Chair, I
hope that Councillor SIMMONDS has a better explanation than we just heard
from the LORD MAYOR of it's going to be a little bit of money here, a little bit
of money there but don't you worry about that. We'll take care of it.
Because how much is it per ratepayer? That's the real question. How much is it
per ratepayer? It's $360 per rateable property that people think they are paying
for water and sewerage but it's actually going into the debt repayments to prop
up this failing budget. Well look we know the LORD MAYOR says we've got a
cash problem. He said that. We know that we've maxed the credit card in this
organisation but so we're using the funds from the honest citizens and the mums
and dads who are doing it tough, who are being slugged through the roof, who
are under this LNP Council and state government of course.
We know on this side of the chamber cost of living is too high. Those who have
lost touch with reality on that side of the chamber simply think that it's a cash
cow for them, that they can prop up their failing budget situation. We will
always support and advocate that money going back into the pockets of the
mums and dads of our city who are doing it tough, who are feeling the pressures
of extreme cost of living burdens under a Council regime and a state government
regime, that are more interested in propping up their bottom line rather than
actually delivering real relief for ratepayers in this city.
We won't be supporting this report today. We acknowledge that this report is
different from the others because for the first time it doesn't identify how much
Brisbane will be getting. It doesn't actually specify what the Council's—and we
know 85 per cent of QUU is us, we know that Brisbane City Council is 85 per
cent of the board and it's time that the ratepayers of this city got a fair deal and
they're not getting it under this Council. Certainly this report delivers it.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes I rise to speak on the E&C report in particular Item A but I may also have
some comments on Item B and Item C. Firstly though, I would like to address
the Total Water Cycle Management Plan that's been presented to Council for
endorsement today. I'll start by saying that I think this plan is a huge
disappointment. There are a number of statements in this plan about what this
Council's vision for our city might be with respect to management of water and
natural assets. But there is no detail, no detail and no practical contribution to
how the highly degraded waterways in our city are going to be improved.
I'm extremely disappointed that yet again this LORD MAYOR and
administration are putting out a glossy document about water planning but not
investing in the needs of this city's stormwater drainage, and the repair and
rehabilitation of natural waterways in our city. We know that because the budget
for the past few years has decreased its investment, decreased its investment in
stormwater drainage and decreased its investment in our creeks and waterways.
It is extraordinary that not one cent of new money will be spent on Oxley Creek
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
20
rehabilitation this year, particularly when that is the largest tributary of the
Brisbane River.
Council carried over its bank stabilisation work from last year into this year at
Sherwood and Graceville and it has failed to invest in any new initiatives south
of the Ipswich Motorway to improve and rehabilitate Oxley Creek. I note today
quite independently of anything I've done, we have one of our distinguished
bush carers from Tennyson Ward sitting up in the gallery and the representative
from the Pennywort Bush Care Group who is here today, is one of the volunteers
who work tirelessly week after week to try and improve the health of our
waterway corridors, in this case Pennywort Creek, really an overland flow path
and creek that connects into Oxley Creek at Corinda and an area that floods
every time there's heavy rain.
This bushcare group knows more than anybody else about the importance of
healthy waterways. It is so sad, Madam Chairman, that their hard work on a
volunteer basis is not being supported in my view, not being supported by this
Council with an investment needed to fix Oxley Creek. Now I note that the Total
Water Cycle Management Plan here has lofty aspirations. Interestingly there's
some new stuff in here I think and Councillor ABRAHAMS may be able to
correct me. Well not new initiatives but there's a statement saying that we're
going to embed a waterway corridor classification system that identifies citywide
and local waterway corridors in the new city plan.
Now I'm extremely concerned about that because Oxley Creek would have to be
the top priority and if the way Oxley Creek is being treated is in any way
reflective of that, Madam Chairman, then there is a massive problem with this
Council's practical commitment to waterway management. It also goes on,
Madam Chairman, to talk about a number of things that we are going to develop
catchment flood plain management plans. Well two and a half years on from the
January 2011 floods I say get on with it. Stop talking about it and get on with it.
The Royal Commission handed down a series of recommendations which this
Council has not yet implemented in the City Plan or in its other operational or
policy documents. There is a massive gap between what this Council says it will
do and what it actually does on the ground. I have unfortunately very little
confidence that the motherhood statements of this report will translate into
urgently needed direct action on the health of Oxley Creek in Tennyson ward.
This goes on to say that they want to develop a new flood planning policy for the
City Plan. Well I've read that and I've put in a submission about it.
I'm extremely disappointed that this Council has not implemented the
recommendations of the Queensland Royal Commission into flooding. It has
every opportunity to do so in the City Plan and has not done so. This document
goes on to make a number of other statements. It goes on to say there will be a
total asset management planning requirement for waterways and water smart
assets. Excellent. I'll be back here in a few weeks asking where is the plan for
Oxley Creek and including its tributaries Stable Swamp Creek, Rocky Water
Holes, Moolabin Creek, all of these creeks that cause such misery to our
residents when they flood in heavy rain.
I'll also be keeping an eye on the only I think practical initiative I can see in here
is that there will be a forward capital works program for a four year trial
filtration systems in Oxley Creek South so not in Tennyson ward, in the upper
reaches presumably, I don't know, of Oxley Creek, Kedron Brook, Norman
Creek and Toowong Creek. Council is still doing water quality testing in Oxley
Creek and it is testing off the charts. Every month it is a serious risk of illness in
terms of the quality of the water testing at Cliveden Avenue at Pratten Street.
They are phenomenal results. They are publicly available on the Council
website.
This Council has no strategy and no plans to fix up the highly contaminated
creek that runs through my ward and several other wards in this city. There are
no plans. I've written week after week and I'll be tabling a petition later today
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
21
calling on this Council to fix up Oxley Creek. The residents out there are
working so hard in a voluntary capacity and they are not being supported by
their Council. I would prefer, Madam Chairman, that this document has some
real and direct action in it.
Let me take a phrase from Tony Abbott here and I agree with him. This is not
something that you need to be talking about. This is something we need action
on. We don't need more motherhood statements, we need action. We need to
make sure that there is an investment in the health of Oxley Creek and other
creeks around the city. We need to make sure the recommendations of the Flood
Royal Commission are implemented. We need to make sure that the local
operational officers in our Council have the money needed to improve the health
of our waterways. None of that is happening.
This plan does very little to actually ensure that that happens again. But I'm glad
it'll be there because it will be the benchmark against which we will now monitor
this Council's lack of action. I note that this plan also talks about the need to
invest in stormwater. Each year that this LORD MAYOR has been a LORD
MAYOR he has reduced the investment of this Council in stormwater drainage.
There's hardly any money going into stormwater drainage despite the fact that
this Council knows that there are significant and urgent improvements needed,
particularly in suburbs like Fairfield and Yeronga and other suburbs in Tennyson
ward.
It's more than 13 years ago that this Council got a report recommending then
urgent improvements and they're still 20 years away based on this Council's
priorities. The gap between what this Council says it will do and what it actually
does is huge. The difference is the political will of this LORD MAYOR and his
failure to resource the important issues to the residents of this city.
Finally and very briefly the Queensland Urban Utilities corporate plan. I say if
we're making a profit out of the water and sewerage charges we're levying on
Brisbane, well let's actually make sure that that money goes back into investment
in sewerage and stormwater and other resources. Certainly I would think that we
should be able to link any profit we make and tag it to investment in improving
infrastructure. I would think that that would be a sensible thing that all
councillors in this place would support. I don't think, Madam Chairman, that we
should be making a profit out of the resident's payment of their water bills.
I would think that the residents in our city would expect that any money that is
raised through their billing once any operational aspects are undertaken, is
invested back into improving the infrastructure. Clearly that's not happening and
I am very disappointed that we can't as the major shareholder, the 85 per cent
shareholder, make a policy and a political commitment that we will invest those
profits back into infrastructure improvement. That would go a long way to
meeting the gap between the plan that I've just discussed and the gap on the
ground with respect to the management of sewerage and stormwater in our
suburbs. I'm calling on the LORD MAYOR to do that.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor
SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much.
Acting Chairman:
Yes just a minute. Councillor FLESSER could you just press your microphone—
thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Okay. It said I was on a waiting list. I'm off the waiting list now. I'm on. Thank
you very much, Madam Acting Chairman. I rise in support of Item B of this
report specifically the QUU corporate plan. As councillors would be aware
Queensland Urban Utilities is obliged to update their corporate plan annually and
provide that plan to each of the shareholding councils. As such they have
presented us with the corporate plan for 2013-2018. I note each of the other
participating councils have already acknowledged the plan and this Item ensures
that Brisbane does the same.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
22
The most obvious of the changes to the corporate plan this year are obviously it
has been condensed with the removal of the written forewords, the previous
achievements and the bios. I think it makes for a much more succinct plan and
one that focuses on the years ahead, while more importantly preserving the vitals
of the organisation such as the financial statements, capital program and
customer satisfaction measures. Some of the highlights in this plan and there are
a few, for example QUU capital program shows an investment of some $338.2
million in 2012-13 peaking at $448 million in 2016-17, a significant investment
in infrastructure.
We've also got an organisation which is improving its sustainability with total
nett greenhouse gas emissions gradually declining from 143,000 tonnes in 201213 to 114,500 tonnes in 2017-18. A very admirable achievement. Also of course
significant infrastructure investment for Brisbane such as the Woolloongabba
sewer catchment augmentation and the Bulimba Creek trunk sewer upgrade.
Madam Acting Chairman, Councillor DICK focused a little bit on page 22 so I
will spend some time on it as well, specifically around the total return to
shareholders. So first of all it's important as they rarely do, that Labor gets their
facts right, this is, the numbers that he rattled off that Brisbane were receiving is
not what Brisbane is receiving. That is the total return to shareholders.
There are five shareholders in QUU so first point get your facts right. Point 2,
Madam Chairman, is it pales in comparison, far in comparison to what the Labor
Party ripped out of their equivalent organisation, Madam Chairman, when they
were in charge of water. It's worth remembering that prior to QUU Council
owned Brisbane Water and didn't Labor love taking advantage of it. Councillor
DICK talked about propping up a budget. Well I'll tell you how to prop up a
budget. You do what Labor did between 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 financial
years when you introduced the franchise fee.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against—Councillor SIMMONDS point of order against you.
Could you please turn your microphone off? Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
This is all very interesting. I know you're a stickler for the rules. There is no
mention about previous reports. My remarks were very specific. If he's so proud
of it talk about the report through you, Madam Chair.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you Councillor DICK. Councillor SIMMONDS please continue and we
are talking about the corporate plan 2013-18.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Acting Chairman, and I will come back to the
report specifically that we're talking about, the return to shareholders. It was the
case, Madam Chairman, under previous Labor administrations when they did a
similar thing but they went above that. They started, as well as collecting profits
they introduced a franchise fee, $207 million in 2001-2002, $198 million in
2002—
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
I think you know the point I'm raising. You've just raised it with Councillor
SIMMONDS. I ask that you bring him back to the report.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you Councillor DICK. Councillor SIMMONDS I know you're actually
trying to do a bit of a compare and contrast but there is the relevance in speaking
to the report please.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Acting Chairman, I understand because I'm
speaking to page 22 about the total return of shareholders and about the amount
that has been returned to Council as a shareholder, and looking at it and thinking
gee that doesn't add up to $618 million the Labor administration ripped out of it
over in just a three year period, Madam Chairman. What a—
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor JOHNSTON?
Just a moment please Councillor JOHNSTON, I have to wait for Councillor
SIMMONDS to turn his microphone off. Councillor JOHNSTON?
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
23
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, that's twice now that Councillor SIMMONDS has defied
your rulings, Madam Chairman. I have been expelled from this Council for less
and I would ask you to warn him for his disorderly conduct in disobeying your
rulings.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON I do not need to take direction from you as to how to
run this Council meeting. I have brought Councillor SIMMONDS back to the
relevance. He has indicated the page he is speaking to and he is also referring to
other comments that have been made in this Chamber tonight. Councillor
SIMMONDS for your future remarks could you please clarify it a little bit more
clearly so that those on the Opposition side understand where you're referring to
please.
Councillor BOURKE:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Will Councillor SIMMONDS take a question?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS would you take a question?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I'd be delighted to.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Councillor SIMMONDS could you give the chamber some historical figures that
Brisbane Water or QUU may have paid to this administration or previous
administrations as dividends?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Well Councillor BOURKE—
Acting Chairman:
Just a moment please Councillor SIMMONDS. Point of order. Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman. It's my understanding that questions still have,
that's a ruling that's been made in this Chamber that the question has to be
relevant to the report under discussion. The report under discussion is the current
QUU shareholder report that requires endorsement. It doesn't make any reference
to previous Labor expenditure, Madam Chairman, and I would ask that you rule
this question out of order.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON the question is in order. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you Councillor BOURKE
for the question because I understand when you're looking at this document,
specifically page 22 you might like to have some figures to compare it to. I
mentioned a few but it’s worth repeating again for those who didn't catch it, that
as well as collecting profits from Brisbane Water, previous Labor
administrations have charged a franchise fee on top of that. The fee in the three
years between the 2000 and 2001 and the 2003 and 2004 financial years was
some $207 million, then $198 million, then $213 million, Madam Chairman,
some $618 million over a three year period Councillor BOURKE so thank you
very much for the question.
Look they've been asked, it's been asked how do these returns to shareholders
how are the reinvested? Well as the LORD MAYOR pointed out there could not
be a better way of investing those funds but in what Council does. New
infrastructure in parks, in drainage, in reducing traffic congestion, that's the
things that this administration spends ratepayers funds on. I'll tell you what, it's
not free sunscreen. It's not Sunday Fun Days, it's not funding a $250 million
black hole in our election commitments, Madam Acting Chairman, that's not
what it's going towards.
But what it would be going towards under the Labor councillors opposite. What
we will do, what we do with any returns from QUU is invest them in the city,
invest them for the ratepayers of Brisbane in new infrastructure. You know our
priorities, you know our priorities are focused around things like drainage works,
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
24
new backflow devices, Madam Chairman, all the infrastructure that's necessary
to grow the economic development of our city and continue to enhance the
lifestyle of Brisbane residents. Madam Chairman, with that I urge all councillors
to support Item B. Thank you.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I raise to speak on Item A and if
possible quickly the Queensland Urban Utilities corporate plan if I have time.
Madam Chair, the Brisbane Total Water Cycle Management Plan the
opportunity for this administration has to come to the chamber with new
initiatives for the next 20 years of how they are managing the whole water cycle
of our city. Madam Chair, the bulk water and the waste water responsibilities
have been taken out of this plan. So that means the officers have more time in
which to listen to the policies of this administration and come up with an
excellent plan.
Well, Madam Chair, the officers have come up with an excellent plan because
they have done their best to put a sense of information when there is a total
devoid of new initiatives or any new policy in this plan with one exception and
that is how we manage flood. Madam Chair, as you go through and look at the
initiatives in the plan, it talks about the sum of the proposals, multiple use of
water. It talks about riparian revegetation, healthy waterways, fit for purpose,
water reduction measures, education, education, education, education. It talks
about the river symposium and grants for research, overland flows in parklands
and rain gardens as some of the major initiatives—I forgot one, the airconditioning units cooled from the river.
Madam Chair, none of those are new. They are all initiatives that Council has
been doing and should have been doing for the last five years at least in previous
plans. But there is nothing new that I can see apart from the risk management
approach to flooding. In this document which consists of 40 pages, just one page
is given to the flood risk assessment. It gives no detail and yet what we are doing
through that policy, the first action of which in this plan is to put it in the City
Plan and that has certainly been done.
We are changing how this city manages flooding in our city, changing it on a
risk assessment rather than what was based on climate change with a
preventative principle, and that was if you weren't aware of the outcome—sorry
a precautionary principle—if you weren't aware of the outcome it was
appropriate to be very precautionary to stop, not proceed and yet that is not what
this plan does. Interestingly enough though in the front part of it on page six it
gives considerable consideration to climate change stating that climate change is
affecting our intensity without rain and our intensity with rain, more intense rain
events.
It talks about how we will have to adapt to those changes and yet the thing that is
most likely to be affected through climate change which is the level of flooding
and the frequency of flooding, we have adopted a process where we are
permitting development on the flood plain. This document is so proud of that
new policy that they are promoting the Coorparoo plan on which all of it is in the
flood plain. We know from previous documents 50 per cent of that flood plain
will have buildings above it, admittedly above what we think at the moment is
the flood level. But all of that land will be taken over in the park to manage
flood.
If that is the consequence across our city it means we are really compromising
any new parks that we may have if they're only achieved because they have
flood potential on them. This is an over emphasis of the multi-use approach to
parkland. Madam Chair, I remember as the LORD MAYOR will remember and
Councillor KNAPP will remember when we achieved in terms of water
management for our city, anything that had an overland flow or was involved in
creek flooding or river flooding was taken as parkland in a development before
the parkland contribution was taken as well.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
25
So that means in many of the areas that are currently represented by LNP
councillors they have extremely generous parklands because they are managing
the flooding as well as delivering parkland that doesn't get flooded. What is this
administration doing? Delivering parkland that has only one purpose which is
flood management and the residents can only use it when it is not boggy and
wet. This is a major change that I do not support and really reduces the impact of
this document.
But, Madam Chair, we just heard the Chairperson saying that the investment, the
profit that we're getting from QUU is not going into family fun days. How
wrong could he be? The first action, of the first chapter in this area and what it
says it is to carry out education through citywide events, community events
celebrations, EKKA green show and any event that we can find on a family fun
day to promote education on water. Madam Chair, surely he could have actually
been honest. Surely he could have been accurate on at least that point.
What is also interesting, Madam Chair, that one of the opportunities so this
might be an initiative sometime in the future in this document is that we make
take a bubble licence where it comes to pollution of our waterways. I am very
aware of what Councillor JOHNSTON said about the need to improve the water
quality. A Healthy Waterways Report Card has been going backwards for the
last three years. Oxley Creek, it is true, it may be compromised by a flood but it's
still going backwards. Oxley Creek is the one where the performance is less than
anywhere else.
Now those bubble licences mean that because someone within an area or a site is
doing well, that a polluter can continue to pollute so long as we take an area
large enough that there is what is an acceptable standard of pollution of the
creek. Associated with that change are the offsets policy. Those offsets are we
don't want to invest in old infrastructure. So we will put new infrastructure or
partner with someone to put in new infrastructure and because they're doing a
good job we will adopt this bubble licence approach.
Madam Chair, there is no timeframe of when that out-dated infrastructure should
be improved so we have improved water quality. Madam Chair, in this day and
age, that should be primary if we are serious about a full water cycle in our plan.
But finally with all these lovely words there is no action plan. There is no plan
that specifically highlights what will be done within what timeframe with what
priority and what the community can see that is deliverables. There is also not
even in it anywhere where any of the proposals are brought back to Council to be
reported against.
Madam Chair, you can't call that a plan. You might call it a wish list. You might
call it an excellent document talking about maybes, possibly, will be in terms of
a best intention plan but it certainly is not a management plan that is transparent
and accountable.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor
BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I was just doing a risk
assessment of Councillor ABRAHAMS and I think she's out of her depth when
it comes to talking to this particular item. Because, Madam Chairman, we know
that those on the other side of the chamber in the Australian Labor Party like to
talk the talk, Madam Chairman. But when given the opportunity they don't walk
the walk when it comes to dealing with environmental issues. So to have them
criticising this administration when it comes to anything to do with the
environment, Madam Chairman, is cheap talk at the very best.
Madam Chairman, she's so out of her depth, Councillor ABRAHAMS kept
referring to the previous plan, the previous plan when it came to the Total Water
Cycle Management Plan, Madam Chairman. But, Madam Chairman, this is the
first one. This is the first one we've done as a Council, Madam Chairman,
because for the first time the state legislation says that we have to do a document
like this. So the Environmental Protection Policy 2009 requires local
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
26
governments to produce this document, Madam Chairman. Of course, Madam
Chairman, this document ties into all the other work that we already do as a
Council in the water and sustainability space.
So it ties into our Water Smart strategy, Madam Chairman, it ties into our,
Madam Chairman, Brisbane FloodSmart Future document. All of the work that
we're doing already in the space to help deal with water and sustainability issues
across the whole of the city. What this document does is it brings together
everything that is done by the whole of Council. It has become a one Council
approach, a one Council document, a reference guide for everyone to understand
what we need to do as an organisation, from the gentlemen and workers out
dealing with the on the ground work, through the policy setters in NEWS branch,
Madam Chairman, through to the planners in Councillor COOPER's area,
through to the people in Councillor ADAMS's area and lifestyle around
engaging with the residents of Brisbane, Madam Chairman, talking about
sustainability and talking about how we grow the city and how we live more
sustainable, Madam Chairman.
That is what this document is about, is pulling together what we are already
doing as an organisation and setting those goals and setting those objectives
through the tactics, Madam Chairman, that are outlined further through the
document. Madam Chairman, the four key principles or goals outlined on page 7
of Water Smart community, a well-designed subtropical city, a healthy river and
bay and sustainable water use are something that we already do as an
organisation, Madam Chairman. That's why as part of this document, we have
sent it away to Queensland Urban Utilities for them to provide their input and
provide their feedback when it came to the water supply, sewerage and trade
waste component, Madam Chairman.
We have the plan before us today. It does tie together what we already do as an
organisation. So the increase in investment in this year's budget by the LORD
MAYOR for the Waterway Health Enhancement projects, Madam Chairman,
where we saw nearly another million dollars go into those projects, Madam
Chairman. The increase in the $7.5 million is being spent on backflow devices,
Madam Chairman, by this administration to help deal with backflow flooding
across the city, Madam Chairman.
The increase, Madam Chairman, that we've seen in other parts of the budget
towards improving our flood levelling, Madam Chairman, doing our catchment
flood management plans, Madam Chairman, making sure that we're providing
the best information possible to the residents of Brisbane so they can understand
their risk when it comes to flooding, Madam Chairman, and what they need to
do to help mitigate those risks, Madam Chairman. We on this side of the
chamber don't bury our heads in the sand when it comes to dealing with water
and the total water cycle management in our city, Madam Chairman.
Unlike those in the Australian Labor Party who covered up and hid flood reports
from the people of Brisbane, we've been nothing but upfront with the people of
Brisbane when it comes to flooding and how to deal and mitigate and manage
flooding across the city. Madam Chairman, the document itself as I said puts
forward a number of the tactics and a number of the objectives that we're
delivering. It talks about our creek filtration device trial, Madam Chairman, that
we're doing which was the subject of this morning's committee presentation,
Madam Chairman. So work that's actually being delivered on the ground to help
improve the quality of our waterways, Madam Chairman.
From what Councillor ABRAHAMS said I have to correct the record. The 2012
Healthy Waterways Report Card actually has just about all of the waterways in
Brisbane improving their grade, Madam Chairman, some of them significantly.
The reason for that when you talk to the experts and when you read the
supporting documentation put out by organisations is that that is a direct result of
the significant investment being made to help protect our waterways. There's
always more that can be done, Madam Chairman, and we know that as an
administration.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
27
That's why we continue to invest more than ever before when it comes to dealing
with these issues across the city. The document that we have before us that we're
debating at the moment, Madam Chairman, will help guide that investment, will
help guide Council as a whole on how we need to protect and ensure that our
waterways continue to remain beautiful open spaces for the residents of
Brisbane, Madam Chairman. So I would ask and I would encourage all residents
to have a read of the document and I'd encourage all councillors in this chamber
to make sure that they support this today, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate? LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank councillors for their
contribution, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to make a couple of points in
response if I may. The first one is that QUU, Madam Chairman, and the
dividends they pay are monies that come directly back to this Council and get
put into things that benefit the people of this city. It's interesting that the
Labor Party are continually talking about the need for us to reduce debt and the
need for us to reduce rates. Yet they also want to see a reduction in income
which is coming to this Council, much less income than they received when they
were in administration, which Councillor SIMMONDS adequately addressed,
very efficiently addressed during his speech today.
So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that QUU have a talk to do. We are an 85
per cent shareholder in that organisation and the plan that they set out today by
way of their corporate plan provides a way forward in the future. Madam
Chairman, this administration is spending more now around issues to do with
drainage and flooding than we ever have. It is a reality that we have instigated
new initiatives, things like the buyback program, things like the backflow—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON please do not call across the chamber.
LORD MAYOR:
Backflow prevention valves, Madam Chairman, new initiatives. Madam
Chairman, we will continue to do the things that we need to do. We are dealing
with issues relating to water quality but again you can't have your cake and eat it
too. We have a limited budget and we're not going to take any more than we
absolutely have to from the ratepayers of this city. We want to make sure that we
deliver the very best that we can with the resources that we have available to us.
But those resources are spread far more widely now as a result of the Flood
Commission, of an inquiry. We've been asked to do a whole lot of things so from
upgrading SES depots right through, Madam Chairman, all good things but all
which are spreading this spend to a much greater extent.
We continue to undertake works to improve our waterways, to monitor our
waterways. Of course it's a reality that when we have continued periods of rain
the waterway quality is impacted significantly. We know from our testings that
every time you have further rainfall the water quality deteriorates. Whether we're
talking about Cabbage Tree Creek, whether we're talking about Norman Creek,
whether we're talking about Oxley Creek as has been addressed today, Madam
Chairman, all of these creeks are affected by weather conditions and sediment
and the like in terms of their outcomes.
So we will continue to do the work needed. We have with this plan a way
forward as was mentioned earlier. It is a long term plan, Brisbane Total Water
Cycle Management Plan. It sets a 20-year pathway and it sets the strategy around
that. So, Madam Chairman, I'm very, very pleased to be able to support these
recommendations made to Council today.
Acting Chairman:
Okay. I will now put the Items in seriatim so we will be voting on Item A first.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the noting of Clause A of the report of the setting out the
decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess
2013 was declared carried on the voices.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
28
Acting Chairman:
I will now put—I think that was a bit late Councillor ABRAHAMS. I will now
put Item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the noting of Clause B of the report of the setting out the
decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess
2013 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Victoria NEWTON 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, 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.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put Item C.
Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the noting of Clause C of the report of the setting out the
decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess
2013 was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
BRISBANE’S TOTAL WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN
109/630/543/21
5/2013-14
1.
Vicki Pethybridge, Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided
the information below.
2.
The Queensland Government’s Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, requires that
local governments in South East Queensland produce a Total Water Cycle Management Plan
(TWCMP).
3.
Council’s Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability Branch (NEWS) has now developed
Brisbane’s Total Water Cycle Management Plan (BTWCMP) as outlined in Attachment A,
submitted on file. BTWCMP is a long term plan for the management of the city’s water
resources which reiterates and allows Council to implement the vision, goals and outcomes of
the WaterSmart Strategy.
4.
The BTWCMP encompasses all elements of total water cycle management, including:
flood management
stormwater (quality)
waterway health
alternative water sources
water sensitive urban design
water supply, sewerage and trade waste.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
29
5.
The plan was developed through consultation with a leadership and working group that
included selected external representatives from the water industry, adjoining councils,
Queensland Government and Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU). These groups also contained
key officers from across Council including NEWS Branch, City Planning and Economic
Development Branch, Development Assessment Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division and
Field Services Group.
6.
The leadership and working groups undertook a peer review of the draft plan prior to the plan
being presented to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and being sent to QUU for
endorsement as retailer-distributor. QUU will be able to draw on the plan when developing
and updating its own Water Netserv Plan. The Water Netserv Plan is a strategic document that
provides an overview of QUU water and sewerage infrastructure planning and development
for the next 20 years.
7.
The BTWCMP has an implementation horizon of 20 years and will be renewed on a five year
basis to reflect changing circumstances and priorities. The document is structured so that each
over-arching strategy is framed and justified by the inclusion of a context and value section.
Specific actions and tactics can be found below the over-arching strategies. The plan seeks to:
promote a regional approach where needed
provide value for money
identify multiple outcomes for maximum benefits
support Brisbane’s economic development
promote alternative funding mechanisms
provide flexible implementation.
8.
The BTWCMP has now been endorsed by QUU and endorsement is required by Council prior
to the 30 June 2013 deadline.
9.
It is therefore recommended that the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as a
delegate of Council during recess, approve Brisbane’s Total Water Cycle Management Plan
as set out in Attachment A, submitted on file.
10.
Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
11.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE BRISBANE’S TOTAL
WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS SET OUT IN.ATTACHMENT A,
SUBMITTED ON FILE.
NOTED
B
QUEENSLAND URBAN UTILITIES CORPORATE PLAN 2013-18
140/695/583/9
6/2013-14
12.
Greg Evans, Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.
13.
Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) is a statutory body, created on 1 July 2010, as a result of
Queensland Government changes to the way water and wastewater are managed in South East
Queensland.
14.
QUU is owned by the Brisbane and Ipswich City Councils and Lockyer, Scenic Rim and
Somerset Regional Councils. Governed by an independent board its primary role is to deliver
drinking water, recycled water and sewerage services to the cities and townships within the
boundaries of these five councils.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
30
15.
Under the provisions of the Central South East Queensland Distributor Retailer Participation
Agreement, QUU is obliged to update its five year Corporate Plan annually and provide that
plan to each participating Council for approval.
16.
QUU have provided the Corporate Plan 2013-18, Attachment A submitted on file, for
shareholder consultation and approval. The Plan was endorsed by QUU at the board meeting
of 17 June 2013.
17.
The document presents QUU’s future direction, goals and priorities as defined by the board. It
highlights significant achievements for 2011-12 and articulates an overriding determination to
maintain affordability for its customers outlining strategies for the delivery of future
efficiencies.
18.
It is recommended that the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of
Council during recess, approve the Queensland Urban Utilities Corporate Plan 2013-18 as set
out in Attachment A, submitted on file.
19.
Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
20.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE THE QUEENSLAND
URBAN UTILITIES CORPORATE PLAN 2013-18 AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT
A, SUBMITTED ON FILE.
NOTED
C
PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES
SITUATED AT 99, 101 AND 105 MORETON STREET AND 81, 100 AND 102
LANGSHAW STREET, NEW FARM
112/20/259/103
7/2013-14
21.
Vicki Pethybridge, Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided
the information below.
22.
Brisbane City Council commissioned a study of the existing stormwater network in the
Merthyr Road – Teneriffe Relief Catchment in 2003. The purpose of the relief drainage
investigation was to assess the adequacy of the existing stormwater network and to determine
additional drainage requirements.
23.
The investigation found that much of the existing stormwater system was constructed prior to
1930 and that the structures are now nearing the end of their asset life. In many instances,
these drains are located in overland flow paths through private property.
24.
Over time, the level of development has intensified and existing properties have been
improved by the addition of paved courtyards, pergolas and carports. This has led to an
increase in the number of flooding complaints.
25.
A new drainage system is proposed which will involve the construction of new major
drainage system infrastructure and requires drainage easements to upgrade the existing
drainage for capacity and compliance. The proposed easements for resumption are situated at
99, 101 and 105 Moreton Street and 81, 100 and 102 Langshaw Street, New Farm, outlined in
Attachments E1-E6 submitted on file.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
31
26.
On 15 February 2013, the Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division,
approved the issuing of Notices of Intention to Resume Easements for Drainage Purposes
(underground), to the owners (over part of the land); detailed in Attachment B - Schedule A
and B, hereunder. The terms of the easements are outlined in Attachment D, submitted on file.
27.
An objection was received from the property owner of 99 Moreton Street, New Farm. The
objection was considered by Council’s resumption delegate who advised that the issues raised
appear to relate to matters of compensation. Compensation is not a valid ground for objection.
The delegate’s report was forwarded to the objector, outlined in Attachment C1–C6,
submitted on file.
28.
Negotiations for compensation will continue concurrently with the formal resumption process
upon completion, of which the owner’s interest will be converted to a right to claim
compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. In these
circumstances, it is best practice and the recommendation of this submission, for Council to
pursue the completion of the formal resumption process in order to ensure timely acquisition
of the easements.
29.
It is recommended that the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council
during recess, resolve to complete the resumption of easements for drainage purposes as per
the draft resolution outlined in Attachment A, hereunder.
30.
Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
31.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, RESOLVE TO COMPLETE THE
RESUMPTION OF EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES AS PER THE
DRAFT RESOLUTION OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft resolution
THAT—
(1)
AS—
(a)
On 28 February 2013, Council issued Notices of Intention to Resume
easements in the form of the easement document at Attachment D, submitted
on file, over part of the private land described in Attachment B - Schedule A,
hereunder, to this resolution
(b)
No objection in writing was received to the Notices.
THEN COUNCIL IS OF THE OPINION THAT—
(i)
The easements over the private land described in Attachment B - Schedule A,
hereunder, and shown hachured on the plans found in Attachment E2-E6,
submitted on file, are required for drainage (underground) purposes
(ii)
It is necessary to take the easements.
(2)
AS—
(a)
On 28 February 2013, Council issued Notices of Intention to Resume an
easement in the form of the easement document at Attachment D, submitted
on file, over part of the private land described in Attachment B - Schedule B,
hereunder, to this resolution
(b)
An objection in writing to that Notice was received
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
32
(c)
Council’s Resumption Delegate has duly considered the objection and made
recommendations for the treatment of the objection as set out in
Attachment C1-C6, submitted on file.
THEN COUNCIL IS OF THE OPINION THAT—
(i)
Having regard to the objection in Attachment C1-C2, submitted on file, and
the report in Attachment C3-C6, submitted on file,
(ii)
The easement over the private land described in Attachment B - Schedule B,
hereunder, and hachured on the plans found in Attachment E-1, submitted on
file, is required for drainage (underground) proposes
(iii)
It is necessary to take the easement.
As Council is of the opinion specified in 1 and 2, it directs that application be made for the
approval of the Minister for the taking of the easements for the purpose stated in accordance
with the provisions of section 9 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.
ATTACHMENT B
SCHEDULE A
No Objection
Easement required over Private Property for
Drainage (Underground) Purposes
APPROX
AREA
REQUIRED
M2
PLAN
OWNER
LOCATION
REAL PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Alison Ruth Magarry &
Julie Elizabeth Magarry
as Tenants in Common
101 Moreton Street
New Farm
Part of Lot 38 on
RP8665
30
SUR100278-05
Concetto Giuseppe Di
Francesco & John Di
Francesco
105 Moreton Street
New Farm
Part of Lot 39 on
RP8665
2
SUR100278-04
Body Corporate for
Tarcoola
CTS 13453
81 Langshaw Street
New Farm
Part of BUP1657
Parish of North
Brisbane
140
SUR100278-01
Body Corporate for
Langshaw Lodge
CTS 15515
100 Langshaw
Street New Farm
Part of BUP105190
Parish of North
Brisbane
132
SUR100278-03
Body Corporate for
Villa Anastasia
CTS 1813
102 Langshaw
Street New Farm
Part of BUP13875
26
SUR100278-02
SCHEDULE B
Objection
Easement required over Private Property for
Drainage (Underground) Purposes
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
33
OWNER
Body Corporate for
Ionia Lodge
CTS 14486
LOCATION
REAL
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
APPROX
AREA
REQUIRED
M2
PLAN
99 Moreton Street
New Farm
Part of BUP589
Parish of North
Brisbane
205
SUR100278-06
NOTED
ADJOURNMENT:
8/2013-14
At that time, 3.53pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Kim
MARX, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors had
vacated the chamber and the doors have been locked.
Council stood adjourned at 3.54pm.
UPON RESUMPTION:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter
Recess 2013, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, I did say noted and it should be adopted, thanks, Madam Chairman, good
pick up. Madam Chairman, we have three items before us in this part of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee and firstly the contracts and
tendering, licensing agreements at 49a Blackwood Street at Mitchelton and the
Audit Committee meeting. So firstly, the contracts and tendering, Madam
Chairman, we've got a whole range of contracts in item A.
First one being there, Paddington Ridge Boulevard. They're going to
Dig-It-Landscapes Proprietary Limited. It is a $314,000 contract. Provision of
parking metre solar power upgrades, next one, which is Solar Farmers
Proprietary Limited for $350,000. I'm not going to mention all of these,
Madam Chairman, but the next one we've got here is North Star Soccer Club,
which is a part of the Access and Inclusion program, this is an access and
amenities improvement works undertaken by Kane Constructions, $404,000
being the value of that work.
The Hamilton and Mount Gravatt Community Hall audio visual upgrades, a
part of our program of upgrading our halls, that's Brisbane Concert Sound
Proprietary Limited, $190,000. Mangrove boardwalk in the City Botanic
Gardens, Madam Chairman, that was impacted badly during flood events,
that's undertaken by Crosana Proprietary Limited, $128,000. Crack injection
and—that doesn't sound good on paper—and strengthening of pier headstock
at Bedivere Street Bridge at Carindale. That's total value of work there of
$478,000 by Freyssinet Proprietary Limited.
Madam Chairman, it's the supply and installation of bus stop infrastructure,
$37 million set aside for that over a five year period, so significant expenditure
there, Madam Chairman, by that. So we've got a tier 1 and tier 2 contractors
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
34
that have been successful. We have, also, Kedron Brook bikeway area 4, Bage
Street Nundah bikeway. Undertaking that work will be Shield Contractors
Proprietary Limited for $173,000. Vulnerable resident’s project, I might just
comment on this one in a little more detail.
This administration, Madam Chairman, is cognisant of the fact that the city
has a number among our community that—what could be described best as
hoarders, but in the process of their hoarding, present a significant amenity
problem for neighbours. Often there are mental health issues that are also
associated with the act of hoarding to extreme levels. So we are, as an
administration, very sensitive to this, but also we acknowledge totally that
somebody faced with living beside an incessant hoarder is also a very
significant amenity problem for them.
So we intend to invest more to address some of these issues around the city
and in this case some $250,000 of estimated expenditure under the terms of
contract for the cleansing of services for households experiencing severe
domestic squalor. This is undertaken by Centacare Specialist Cleaning
Services. Madam Chairman, next one is—forgive me for calling you Madam
Chairman, Madam Acting Chairman—Madam Deputy Chairman. Brisbane
Transport workshop spray booth replacement, Truflow Spray Booths will be
undertaking that work to a value of $429,000.
We're also looking at the supply and delivery of traffic signal controllers, a
total amount thereof $6 million over a five year period, a number of suppliers
there; tier 1, tier 2 providers that we will be engaging. Provision of aircraft for
the services of mosquito control, given that the Gambusia appear to be off the
agenda, we are reverting to aircraft as we have $1,090,000 allocated there over
a five year period. This particular contract, the immediate one, $216,700 to
McDermott, I think it is, McDermott Aviation Proprietary Limited. That is
about it, in terms of the contracts and tendering. There are some others there
but they're the key ones.
The licensing agreement, Madam Chairman, we have for some time now been
in discussions with the traders in the Blackwood Street, Mitchelton area. They
have for some time been raising the concerns about the need for a public toilet
in that shopping precinct and so, after a significant amount of investigation of
potential sites, have come up with a site. It is part of the Railway
Queensland—or Queensland Railways land in the Mitchelton Railway Station
car park. We have to lose a couple of car parks in the process of establishing
these toilets at the correct location.
In exchange, apart from the $1 annual rent to spend a penny, we will be
replacing three car parks in exchange for the land that we will be—so what we
are essentially doing is establishing those car parks in QR land, we're not
actually donating land we are, simply by way of a small capital works job,
undertaking three car parking spaces in exchange for this land for the toilet.
The third item there, Madam Chairman, is the report of the Audit Committee
meeting of 13 June, that is there as well. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Well thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on
this Establishment and Coordination Committee report which contains three
items and I'll try and get through all three items; A, B and C. I want to start by
having a—some remarks about the contracts and tendering, report to Council
on contracts accepted by the delegates for May 2013. As we know, there is
always a bit of a delay with these coming to Council, there's a couple of items
here that the LORD MAYOR didn't talk about that I will. Interestingly, he
never talks about things that are bad news for the administration, surprise,
surprise.
The first item that I'll refer to is, today we are approving a contract for the
removal of the mangrove boardwalk in the City Botanical Gardens. That's
right, we're ripping it out. That's—what did Councillor BOURKE say today,
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
35
we walk the—listen to what we say, don't listen to the talk. Well under
Councillor BOURKE's watch, he's proud and happy to see a boardwalk ripped
out along the mangroves of our city. Forget the educational purposes, forget
the schoolkids coming in there, and forget the people that would use that to—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
The visitors to our city, we're ripping that out. That's what we're doing and it's
a bit strange that even though that would be some of the few locations where
local tourists who come into our city, in the inner city, could walk among the
mangroves, that Councillor BOURKE thinks that it's a decent thing to do, or
the appropriate thing to do. We know that the Council has neglected the state
of that boardwalk for years and I suspect has allowed it to become—by not
maintaining the upkeep, has allowed it to fall into disrepair so that they can
save the money to rip it out. Well, that's right, that's right.
Of course, it's a bit ironic that exactly the time this is happening, around
$128,000, we're spending $136,000 to supply the installation of new timber
decking in Councillor BOURKE's ward. Taking it out of the inner city and
Councillor HOWARD, I don't know if you support the removal of the
boardwalk being removed?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
All silence, silence. Well I know what happens when you speak out against the
LNP. But I know, in her heart of hearts, she wouldn't support it being ripped
out and I note that we could have saved this boardwalk but Councillor
BOURKE chose not to. He chose to—and I'm waiting for the responses it'll—I
bet, after 10 years of running this city, it'll be somehow Labor's fault.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Return to typing, as always, robot's on, automatic response. That's what
happens. But it couldn't be clearer that we're dealing with a contract today to
destroy and important boardwalk for our city. At the time, I did some media
on this, calling on the Council when they first announced that they were going
to rip this out, I wrote to the Federal Government saying, would this be a
category for the Work for the Dole project? Surely, we could combine
environmental outcomes with the employment opportunities.
I wrote to the employment Minister and she wrote to me and said, yes, it
would fit those criteria, the Commonwealth Government would be happy to
look at this as a Work for the Dole—so no cost, actually, to the maintenance, it
would fall under and employment program for some of our young people, but
of course, this Council, under the LNP, not interested. They're not interested in
a boardwalk, why would they be interested in employment programs?
We know the LNP is not interested in jobs when you look at the Queensland
record. But anyway, Madam Chair, it is disappointing that we've dropped the
ball on this, that we've missed an opportunity and that under Councillor
BOURKE's leadership—we only need to look at his actions and under his
actions we are now dismantling, as we speak, and a contract today, to approve
a popular location for school tours—which was used, also, for educational
purposes, and certainly the feedback that I received from the media [unclear]
on this, a number of schools in my local area were devastated and certainly
would have liked the opportunity, but that's now been taken away.
Well of course, while all of this is going on, we've got a river-edge—not that
part of the river, of course, we're not interested in that part of the river. We're
also dealing with a contract today for $350,000 for the provision of parking
metre solar power upgrades. So if there's a power outage, don't worry, this
Council will still get parking fines. Without a doubt, we'll still get the revenue
in from all of that money from on street parking. Without a doubt, we aren't
going to miss one dollar because we know those opposite are addicted to
parking revenue, they think our streets are paved with gold and we're looking
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
36
around $50 million into the budget this year for on street parking and parking
fine revenue.
So of course, I'm not surprised that we are using the best technology that there
is, the best technology that exists so that we can, of course, not miss one dollar
in parking revenue, absolutely not. Rip out boardwalks, absolutely, rip out
environmental programs, but don't make sure we miss out on any dollars from
parking revenue. Watch out. Also, another big ticket item in today's contracts,
of course, as the LORD MAYOR mentioned, $37 million for the supply and
installation of bus stop infrastructure.
Well here's a tip, here's a tip for the administration, we've spent a lot of money
in upgrading bus stops in my local area, some this year, on average between
$20,000 and $30,000. In Cooke Street—it always comes to mind, residents
really happy with that, but as a result of this, Council's action, we no longer
need that bus stop because they've cut the busses in my community. But we'll
deal with that in the public and active transport petitions a little way today.
So I certainly hope when the axe comes down on the $16 million worth of
cutbacks that the LNP are delivering in this year's budget, we certainly aren't
going to see the ridiculous situation where we invested in bus stops this year,
only now to rip them out. Only to have them ripped out because of those
opposite who aren't supportive of public transports in our city. Item B is, of
course, the license for 49a Blackwood Street, Mitchelton. It's taken Councillor
WINES five years to deliver on an election commitment. The traders there
have been waiting far too long for us now to have done a deal with QR to
finally see the administration dragged kicking and screaming from a
commitment that they made years and years ago. I'll conclude, which we will
be supporting today.
Seriatim - Clause A and C
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause A, CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO
COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2013, and Clause C, REPORT OF
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 JUNE 2013, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you. Item C is, of course—is the report of the Audit Committee. I don't
think the LORD MAYOR even referred to this in his remarks and there's not a
lot to talk about, as always, with the Audit Committee report and we always
get caught up with this one, so I'll say it straight up, chaired by Len Scanlan, a
very fair and impartial, independent chair who's worked for both sides of
government, but only paid for by one side of politics, the LNP.
So I don't want any confusion on that, I know they always get angry about that
for some reason, I don't know why. It's a statement of fact. But anyway,
Madam Chair, the Audit Committee, as usual, is a document not containing
any detailed information, merely skims across the surface. Because of the law
they're required to do this, we don't actually get the actual outcomes of what
happens at the meeting, once again, those decisions are behind closed doors,
we simply get a list of outcomes or top line items, disappointingly true to form
by the LNP, that we simply don't know what's happening on some of the most
important issues facing our city.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor WINES.
Councillor WINES:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item B, the licence agreement
for 49a Blackwood Street, Mitchelton, and what a day it is. Councillor DICK
was correct to say it has been far too long that the people of Mitchelton, the
people of Blackwood Street have been waiting for a public toilet. The traders
were asking for one before I was councillor, I would hazard a guess they were
asking for one before Councillor Bennison was councillor. I know this because
speaking with Councillor Mellifont who of course retired in 1991, the people
of Blackwood Street have been asking for a public toilet since the 1980s.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
37
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor WINES:
But as is typical, as is typical—hold on, as is typical, it takes a Liberal
National Party councillor to deliver for the people.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor WINES:
I also need to further go on into correcting Councillor DICK, at no stage was
this ever an election commitment of mine, this is something that we
committed to the people without requiring an election. It was needed by the
Chamber of Commerce, by that shopping strip and something that was—it was
need that drove this decision, not an election, not politicking. I want to
recognise the efforts of Minister Mander and of Premier Newman in their
interventions to assist through Queensland Rail and Department of Transport
and Main Roads to get this licence. I'd like to recognise the LORD MAYOR
in his efforts. I'd like to recognise Councillor SCHRINNER in both this and
past roles to get this to this point. Councillor SIMMONDS, Chris Kelly—this
is a toilet with many fathers, many parents.
In all honesty, no, this is going to be—this is a regularly requested item, there
have been horror stories and horror incidents involving particularly older
people in the area. It's part of our building a city for all people and this is about
getting our shopping strips and our public places accessible and inclusive. It is
going to be a great outcome for that area and I recommend it highly to the
Chamber.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you Councillor WINES for the debate, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Seriatim - Clauses A, B and C
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause A, CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO
COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2013, Clause B, LICENCE
AGREEMENT FOR 49A BLACKWOOD STREET MITCHELTON, and Clause C, REPORT OF THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 JUNE 2013, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I'm fine.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the report setting
out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter Recess 2013 was
declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen ABRAHAMS 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM, and Nicole JOHNSTON
NOES: 5 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Victoria
NEWTON.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item B. Please return to your seats.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
38
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the report setting
out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter Recess 2013 was
declared carried on the voices.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item C.
Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the report setting
out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Winter Recess 2013 was
declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen ABRAHAMS 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM, and Nicole JOHNSTON
NOES: 5 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Victoria
NEWTON.
The report read as follows
A
CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL
CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MAY 2013
109/695/586/2
OF
9/2013-14
1.
Colin Jensen, Chief Executive Officer, provided the information below.
2.
Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, (the Act) provide that Council may
delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under
section 242 of the Act.
3.
Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the
procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the
Establishment and Coordination Committee, Chief Executive Officer and permanent heads of
the units of Administration.
4.
The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Section
227 in Chapter 6 of the Regulation provides, among other things, that “the Council must, as
soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more,
publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website”. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in
section 227 as including (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract, (b)
the worth of the contract and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or
services to be supplied).
5.
It is therefore recommended that Council note the report of contracts accepted by delegates
for May 2013.
6.
Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
39
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY
DELEGATES FOR MAY 2013, AS DETAILED IN THE SCHEDULE SUBMITTED
HEREUNDER, BE NOTED.
Contract/Quote No. &
Successful Contractor/s
BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE
A100016-09/10-12.
City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 - Contracting
Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for May 2013
Delegate
Price Accepted Contract/Quote Purpose
Unsuccessful Tenders
& Type of
& Quoters
Arrangement
CPO.
Dig-It Landscapes Pty Ltd - $314,997.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 22.86.
BLQ130101-12/13.
CPO.
Solar Farmers Pty Ltd – $350,880.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 2.5.
Solar Farmers demonstrated a commitment to
innovation, a stronger technical capability and
offered a 7 year performance guarantee that
was not offered by the other shortlisted
tenderers.
CPO130169-12/13.
CPO.
Kane Constructions Pty Ltd - $404,762.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 21.86.
CPOQ130086-12/13.
$314,997.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
$350,880.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
Paddington Ridge
Boulevard.
Provision of Parking Meter Shortlisted Tenderers:
Solar Power Upgrade.
Global Integrated Solutions Limited.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 2.3.
$404,762.
North Star Soccer Club –
(estimated
Access and Amenities
expenditure
Improvement Works.
under maximum
term of the
contract).
EM City
$190,053.
Hamilton and Mt Gravatt
Projects Office (estimated
Community Hall Audio
Brisbane Concert Sound Pty Ltd - $190,053.
expenditure
Visual Upgrades.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
under maximum
of 39.20.
term of the
contract).
FSG130177-12/13.
Crosana Pty Ltd - $128,980.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 173.7.
Crosana provided a methodology to access the
site by the Brisbane River, both lower priced
shortlisted tenderers proposed land based
solutions which were assessed as having
significant environmental risk.
CPO.
Naturform Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 18.88.
Stowe Australia.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 2.2.
Non-conforming:
Electrical Connextions.
Century Yuasa.
CB Energy.
EM Metal Fabrication and
Powdercoating.
Headlow Pty Ltd.
Premis Solution Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 19.80.
Prices
Tendered
$429,061.
$302,268.
$329,588.
N/A.
$447,020.
$478,558.
A Dart & Co.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 15.23.
$483,200.
PBI Australia Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 14.20.
Behind the Scenes.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 39.09.
$532,257.
The Production Shop.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 30.41.
Shortlisted Tenderers:
$169,365.
WMA Demolition Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 86.3.
Approved:
16.05.13.
Start:
31.05.13.
End:
16.08.13.
Approved:
09.04.13.
Start:
09.04.13.
End:
30.06.15.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A
N/A
Hutchinson Builders Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 17.97.
$128,980.
Mangrove Boardwalk
(estimated
Removal in the City Botanic
expenditure
Gardens.
NCRD Pty Ltd.
under maximum
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
term of the
of 157.6.
contract).
Cuchulainn Constructions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 122.4.
Approval,
Start/End
Dates & Term
$211,056.
$82,500.
$135,670.
$106,650.
Tenderers not shortlisted:
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
Approved:
24.04.13.
Start:
26.05.13.
End:
23.07.13.
Approved:
03.05.13.
Start:
06.05.13.
End:
07.06.13.
Approved:
14.05.13.
Start:
14.05.13.
End:
03.06.13.
40
Contract/Quote No. &
Successful Contractor/s
Delegate
Price Accepted Contract/Quote Purpose
& Type of
Arrangement
Unsuccessful Tenders
& Quoters
Waterway Construction.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 97.4.
FSG130178-12/13.
CPO.
Freyssinet Pty Ltd - $478,989.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 47.6.
RPQ010-09-16.
CPO.
Denari Earthmovers Pty Ltd - $202,202.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 30.8.
RPQ017-10-63.
Hawley Constructions Pty Ltd - $136,322.
EM Field
Services
Group.
Decision based on best price, Value for Money
Index {VFM} not calculated. Quotes were
sought from suppliers on the existing Register
of Prequalified Suppliers for General Building
and Landscape Construction who were
assessed as being capable of supplying these
services.
SPO130064-12/13.
CEO.
Tier 1:
Pryde Fabrication Pty Ltd.
Adshel Street Furniture Pty Ltd.
Approval,
Start/End
Dates & Term
$218,625.
Landmark Civil Marine.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 90.5.
$176,813.
Envirosite Services.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 85.8.
$195,856.
Pensar Building.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 67.5.
$290,522.
The Marina Specialist.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 24.7.
Epoxy Solutions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 20.5.
$766,240.
Relief Drainage at Gordon Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd.
Circuit Seventeen Mile
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
Rocks – Stage 2.
of 23.3.
$369,701.
MCQ Group Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 13.7.
Naturform Pty Ltd.
P&L Landscaping Pty Ltd.
$558,260.
$149,500.
$155,100.
Approved:
13.05.13.
Start:
20.05.13.
End:
28.06.13.
N/A.
N/A.
Approved:
28.05.13.
Start:
03.06.13
End:
(initial term)
02.06.16.
Max. Term
(5) years.
Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 28,498.
$235,104.*
Pensar Civil Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 27,743.
$209,058.*
Approved:
17.05.13.
Start:
20.05.13.
End:
28.06.13.
Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 27,441.
$182, 208.*
Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 20,351.
$230, 944.*
$478,989.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
$202,202.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
Crack Injection and
Strengthening of Pier
Headstock at Bedivere
Street Bridge, Carindale.
$136,222.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
Supply & Installation of
Timber Decking at Rocks
Riverside Park, Seventeen
Mile Rocks.
$37,000,000.
Supply and/or Installation
(estimated
of Bus Stop Infrastructure
expenditure
under maximum
term of the Panel
Arrangement).
Tier 2:
Aluimage International Pty Ltd.
Hub Street Equipment.
G.James Extrusion Co Pty Ltd t/a Gossi
Park.
Everything Metal Installations Pty Ltd.
Street Furniture Australia.
V110211-10/11-44.
Prices
Tendered
EM City
$172,808.
Kedron Brook Bikeway
Projects Office. (estimated
Area 4 – Bage Street,
Shield Contractors Pty Ltd - $196,808.*
expenditure
Nundah Bikeway.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
under maximum
of 34,551.
term of the
contract – not
*Price is the tendered schedule of rates price
inclusive of risk
plus a risk adjusted price based on tenderer’s
adjustment for
nominated delay rate.
delay rates).
$399,520.
Sourced in accordance with section 2.4
(Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract
Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane
Act 2010.
The seven Contractors selected are on
the existing TransLink Division Standing
Offer Arrangement (TTA-094) for the
Supply and/or Installation of Bus Stop
Infrastructure which Council is able to
access.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
Approved:
23.05.13.
Start:
29.05.13.
End:
10.07.13.
Approved:
23.05.13.
Start:
29.05.13.
End:
07.08.13.
41
Contract/Quote No. &
Successful Contractor/s
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE
Memorandum of Agreement.
Delegate
CPO.
Centacare Specialist Cleaning Services.
Price Accepted Contract/Quote Purpose
& Type of
Arrangement
$250,000.
(estimated
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
contract).
Vulnerable Residents
Project – Specialist
Cleaning Services for
Households Experiencing
Severe Domestic Squalor
and/or Compulsive
Hoarding.
Unsuccessful Tenders
& Quoters
Prices
Tendered
Approval,
Start/End
Dates & Term
Britwood Constructions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 18,573.
$204,597.*
Social Procurement Exemption.
N/A.
Approved:
30.05.13.
Start:
30.05.13.
End:
(initial term)
1 year.
Max. Term
(5) years.
Panda Finishing Solutions Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 18.
$505,330.
Pacific Spray Booths Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 14.
$723,000.
Approved:
21.03.13.
Start:
21.03.13.
End:
30.06.13.
Contract entered into without seeking
competitive tenders or quotations from
the market in accordance with the Social
Enterprise Exemption under Schedule A
of Council’s Annual Procurement Policy
and Contracting Plan.
Centacare is a not for profit Community
Enterprise. Research has shown that no
other organisation in Queensland offer
similar services in relation to severe
domestic squalor and/or compulsive
hoarding.
BRISBANE TRANSPORT
BT130118-12/13.
CPO.
Truflow Spray Booths (Aust) Pty Ltd –
$492,040.
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 25.
$492,040
Brisbane Transport
(estimated
Workshop - Spray Booth
expenditure
Replacement.
under maximum
term of the
contract).
CITY PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY
Nil.
DISASTER RESPONSE & RECOVERY
Nil.
OFFICE OF THE LORD MAYOR & CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Nil.
ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES
SPO130111-12/13.
Category 1A – Reinforced Concrete
Stormwater Pipes and Precast Manholes:#
(Non-exclusive Panel Arrangement)
HOLCIM Australia Pty Ltd t/a Humes $934,000.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 7.3.
CEO.
$15,000,000.
Supply and Delivery of
(estimated
Precast Concrete Products.
expenditure
under maximum
term of the Panel
and Preferred
Supplier
Arrangements).
Category 1A – Reinforced Concrete
Stormwater Pipes and Precast
Manholes:
Rocla Pty Ltd.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 7.0.
$1,087,000.*
Reinforced Concrete Products Australia
(Qld) Pty Ltd - $992,000.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 6.2.
BCP Precast.
(Tender Withdrawn)
N/A
Category 1B – Jacking Pipes:#
(Non-exclusive Panel Arrangement)
Category 1B – Jacking Pipes:
HOLCIM Australia Pty Ltd t/a Humes $162,000.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 4.2.
Category 2 – Box Culverts and Base Slabs:
No tenderers recommended were
recommended for this category. Local Buy will
be utilised while competitive situation of the
market and prices continue to be monitored.
Rocla Pty Ltd.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 4.5.
$170,000.*
Category 2 – Box Culverts and Base
Slabs:
Rocla Pty Ltd.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
$976,000.*
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
Approved:
28.05.13.
Start:
03.06.13.
End:
(initial term)
02.06.14.
Max. Term
(5) years.
42
Contract/Quote No. &
Successful Contractor/s
Delegate
Price Accepted Contract/Quote Purpose
& Type of
Arrangement
Unsuccessful Tenders
& Quoters
Prices
Tendered
Approval,
Start/End
Dates & Term
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 7.8.
HOLCIM Australia Pty Ltd t/a Humes.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 6.7.
$1,022,000.*
BCP Precast.
(Tender Withdrawn)
Category 3 – Lintels, Manhole Roof Slabs
and Inlets and Outlets:#
(Non-exclusive Panel Arrangement)
Category 3 – Lintels, Manhole Roof
Slabs and Inlets and Outlets:
Everhard Industries Pty Ltd - $631,000.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 11.8.
Rocla Pty Ltd.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 11.3.
$678,000.*
Tellam Concrete Products t/a Tellam Civil
Products atf the Tellam Trust - $672,000.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 11.3.
C-M Concrete Products Pty Ltd - $578,000.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 9.7.
Category 4 – Traffic Islands and Wheel
Stops: (Preferred Supplier)
Category 4 – Traffic Islands and Wheel
Stops:
C-M Concrete Products Pty Ltd - $225,000.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 2.5.
Tenderers Shortlisted – not recommended.
(Partial offers only – Final Tendered Price and
Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated).
Tellam Concrete Products t/a Tellam Civil N/A.
Products atf the Tellam Trust.
Everhard Industries Pty Ltd.
N/A.
Category 5 – Cemetery Lawn Beams
(Plinths): (Preferred Supplier)
Category 5 – Cemetery Lawn Beams
(Plinths):
Everhard Industries Pty Ltd - $66,000.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 1.13.
C-M Concrete Products Pty Ltd.
(Shortlisted – not recommended)
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 0.83.
$67,000.*
*Price is a basket of goods based on Council’s
11/12 Financial Year spend.
## Selection of successful panel participants
was based on most advantageous price where
tenderers demonstrated that their products
were of acceptable quality for Council
requirements.
SPO130126-12/13.
CEO.
Tier 1:
Tyco Projects Pty Ltd - $1,026,835.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 79.08.
$6,000,000.
Supply and Delivery of
(estimated
Traffic Signal Controllers.
expenditure
under maximum
term of the Panel
Arrangement).
N/A.
N/A.
All Tenderers who submitted prices have
been included in the Panel Arrangement.
Aldridge Traffic Controllers - $1,065,835.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of
73.84.
Tier 2:
Quick Turn Circuits - $1,089,637.*
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of
72.28.
*Normalised tender price is initial tendered
price plus estimated servicing costs over the
term of the Contract.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
Approved:
14.05.13.
Start:
31.05.13.
End:
(initial term)
30.05.16.
Max. Term
(5) years.
43
Contract/Quote No. &
Successful Contractor/s
Delegate
Note: Under this arrangement, Traffic Signal
Controller purchases will be primarily from Tier
1 with replacement parts sourced from both
Tiers to service the existing fleet.
SPO130127-12/13.
CPO.
McDermott Aviation Pty Ltd - $216,700.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 42.43.
*Price is a basket of goods based on services
provided to Council over a 12 month period.
SPO130130-12/13.
CPO.
Binnavale Pty Ltd t/a Alpha First Aid
Supplies - $174,291.*
Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 41.17.
*Price is a basket of goods based 12 month
supply of all tendered goods.
SPO130208-12/13.
CPO.
Novell Pty Ltd - $245,000.
Price Accepted Contract/Quote Purpose
& Type of
Arrangement
Unsuccessful Tenders
& Quoters
Prices
Tendered
$1,090,000.
Provision of Aircraft
(estimated
Services for Mosquito
expenditure
Control.
under maximum
term of the
Preferred
Supplier
Arrangement).
A.M.T Helicopters Pty Ltd t/a Airwork
Helicopters.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 28.73.
$223,125.
Saunders Airwork Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 26.44.
$189,025.
$871,000.
Provision of First Aid
(estimated
Equipment.
expenditure
under maximum
term of the
Preferred
Supplier
Arrangement).
Lyreco Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 29.02.
$227,253.*
Livingstone International Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 28.91.
$235,388.*
St John Ambulance Australia –
Incorporated.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 20.09.
$260,018.*
LFA First Response Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 19.58.
$238,776.*
EBOS Group Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 9.81.
$498,055.*
Healthcare Options Pty Ltd.
Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM}
of 8.05.
$454,116.*
N/A.
N/A.
$245,000.
Provision of SUSE Linux
(estimated
Enterprise Server (SLES)
expenditure
Support and Maintenance.
under maximum
term of the
contract).
Sourced in accordance with section 2.4
(Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract
Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane
Act 2010.
The marketplace is restricted as Novell
own SUSE and all resellers receive
pricing from Novell for this support, an
additional layer of reseller would add
extra cost to Council. Novell have offered
Council GITC (government contract)
equivalent pricing.
ADOPTED
B
LICENCE AGREEMENT FOR 49A BLACKWOOD STREET MITCHELTON
112/445/444/362
10/2013-14
8.
Scott Stewart, Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.
9.
In 2011, Asset Management commenced investigations to secure premises for Council to
provide public toilets in Blackwood Street, Mitchelton. Council did not hold title to suitable
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
Approval,
Start/End
Dates & Term
Approved:
23.05.13.
Start:
07.06.13
End:
(initial term)
06.06.13.
Max. Term
(5) years.
Approved:
16.05.13.
Start:
01.06.13
End:
(initial term)
31.05.15.
Max. Term
(5) years.
Approved:
23.04.13.
Start:
23.04.13.
End:
(initial term)
1 year.
Max. Term
(2) years.
44
land in the area.
10.
Council officers approached various owners in Blackwood Street, before reaching an ‘in
principle’ agreement to construct public amenities and enter into a “peppercorn” Licence
Agreement for $1 per annum if demanded with Queensland Rail Limited (as Head Lessor).
11.
The agreement is for a 10 year term over land at the Mitchelton Railway Station car park at
49A Blackwood Street, Mitchelton (Part of Lot 89 on CP827257), Attachment B submitted on
file. The agreement requires Council to construct three car parking spaces in exchange for the
land being provided for the amenities block.
12.
It is recommended that Council approve a Licence Agreement from Queensland Rail Limited
at 49A Blackwood Street, Mitchelton, in accordance with the provisions of the Term Sheet as
set out in Attachment A hereunder, and otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the
Manager, Asset Portfolio Management and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal
Practice.
Implications of proposal
13.
The Community will benefit by having access to public amenities with direct street access.
14.
Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
15.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL APPROVE A LICENCE AGREEMENT FROM QUEENSLAND
RAIL LIMITED AT 49A BLACKWOOD STREET, MITCHELTON, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TERM SHEET AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A HEREUNDER, AND OTHERWISE ON TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SATISFACTORY TO THE MANAGER, ASSET PORTFOLIO
MANAGEMENT AND THE CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, BRISBANE CITY LEGAL
PRACTICE.
LICENCE: PUBLIC
MITCHELTON.
TERMS SHEET
Licensor:
Licensee:
Site:
Term:
Licence Fee:
Permitted Use:
Public Risk Insurance:
Maintenance:
TOILET
Attachment A
FACILITY, 49A
BLACKWOOD
STREET,
Queensland Rail Limited (“QR”)
Brisbane City Council (“Council”)
Lot 89 on CP827257, Rail Corridor Sublease 713429425,
Blackwood St Mitchelton
10 years
$1 per annum if demanded
To construct, install and operate at Council’s cost, public
amenities
Council to construct three car parking spaces in exchange for
the land being provided for the amenities block
$20 million.
Council to maintain the toilet facilities during the Term
QR to maintain the car parking spaces built by Council
Special Condition:
If the Licensed Premises or any part is required by QR for
operational purposes, or by the State for transport purposes,
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
45
QR may terminate the Licence by 30 days notice but must
either:
1.
Compensate Council for the depreciated replacement
value of Council’s improvements constructed or installed on
the Premises, or
2.
Grant Council a licence of alternative premises on
the site on substantially the same terms and conditions for the
balance of the Term and bear Council’s reasonable costs of
relocating Council’s improvements.
ADOPTED
C
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 JUNE 2013
109/695/586/6
11/2013-14
16.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the following information.
17.
The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on 13 June 2013 is submitted for noting by
Council.
18.
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.
19.
The Chief Executive Officer is to present the report mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of
section 201 at the next meeting of the Council.
20.
The report of the Audit Committee meeting of 13 June 2013 is set out in Attachment A,
submitted on file.
21.
The Chief Executive Officer therefore submits the following recommendation, with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 15 July 2013.
22.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING
ON 13 JUNE 2013 as set out in Attachment A, submitted on file.
ADOPTED
CONSIDERATION
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE:
OF
THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Report of 29 July 2013)
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013, be adopted.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON?
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
46
Seriatim for debate and voting - Clauses C and E
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause C, GO BETWEEN BRIDGE AND LEGACY WAY
TUNNEL TOLLWAY CONCESSION AND ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS, and Clause E, COUNCILLOR
REMUNERATION POLICY, be taken seriatim for debating and voting purposes.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Okay, so, Madam Chairman, we'll—
Acting Chairman:
So, LORD MAYOR, could we do A, B and D first. Thank you.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, okay. First one, Madam Chairman, is the Pinkenba Eagle Farm
Neighbourhood Plan that—which came to Council on 27 November 2007. An
amendment to the Brisbane City Plan 2000. It was about a local plan for
Pinkenba and parts of Eagle Farm to be entitled the Pinkenba Eagle Farm
Neighbourhood Plan. The draft plan was exhibited from 13 August 2012 and
24 September 2012 in accordance with schedules. A total of 54 submissions,
Madam Chairman, were received of which 52 were properly made.
On 29 April, after the Council resolved to amend the draft plan, we sent it off
to the Deputy Premier, the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and
Planning and advised that Council could adopt the draft plan. So that's—sorry,
that's when the Minister advised that Council, we could adopt the draft plan on
29 April. Madam Chairman, so today we have before us a resolution which is
to adopt amendments to the planning scheme. So that takes this particular plan
forward.
The next one is the draft Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood Plan. Darra
Oxley District Neighbourhood planning process commenced in August 2010,
the draft Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood Plan will replace the Western
Gateway Local Plan that applies to that particular area. The draft plan was
exhibited on 28 May 2012 to 9 July and 45 submissions were received of
which 40 were properly made. Following the review of the submissions,
additional investigations were completed by Council to determine the most
appropriate separation buffer.
Now we're talking here about the area between the golf course and the
residential properties. So there were submissions received in relation to that.
The original plan provided for those properties to be going from the low
density residential zone to the low-to-medium density residential or medium
density residential areas. So—but subsequent to the consideration of the
submitters, we are proposing, Madam Chairman, to go back to those 25
properties that remain, will remain as low density residential.
Should Council resolve to proceed with the amended draft neighbourhood
plan, it will then be referred to the Minister for approval to adopt. A resolution
is set out there in attachment A for our determination today. So we then go to
item D. Madam Chairman, item D is something that we are required to do on
an annual basis, it's a procurement policy and contracting plan. Contracting
plan provides for a number of things; firstly the types of contracts that the
Council proposes to make in a financial year, principles and strategies for
performing the contracts, policy about proposed delegations for the contracts,
market assessment for each type of contract, the contracts that the Council
considers would be significant and a policy about the making of a significant
contracting plan.
So Council officers have prepared an annual procurement policy and the
contracting plan for the 2013-14 financial year and that plan is set out in
Council's—that plan sets out Council's strategic approach to its contracting
activities and they're set out in schedules A, B, C and D which provide a range
of documents, exemptions from Council's standard contract manual
requirements, annual contracting objectives for the financial year, forward
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
47
contracting schedules for goods, services and construction and forwarddisposal schedule.
So again, it's an annual requirement, Madam Chairman, and nothing terribly
excitingly different about this plan, nor, necessarily, should there be.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on the Establishment and
Coordination Committee report and to give remarks to item A and B. Item A
is the Pinkenba Eagle Farm Neighbourhood Plan, Labor councillors this has
been a long time coming. Kicked off on November 2007, have supported this
before and will be supporting this neighbourhood plan today as it does give
certainty to residential and business owners in that planning study area.
I can't say the same for item B which is the draft Darra Oxley District
Neighbourhood Plan which covers predominantly my local ward. I will not be
supporting this, I have not supported this neighbourhood plan because it will
lead to bad planning outcomes for growth areas that this Council is intent on
shoving density into suburbs that is not supported—increasing density that is
not supported by local residents unless significant investment and
infrastructure programs are undertaken by this Council.
I have spoken before about the serious traffic issues in and around both
suburbs of Darra and Oxley. This Council thinks it is okay to lift heights and
densities, to increase the amount of people—of thousands of people living in
and around these suburbs without addressing adequate and basic Council
services to those suburbs. We have seen horror stories and dangerous crashes
along Harcourt Road, Darra. We have seen increasingly dangerous amounts of
traffic travelling on Oxley Road and intersections dotted right throughout this
neighbourhood plan.
Yet, this Council has sat on its hands for the last five years despite repeated
requests from the local community. Despite repeated requests from me in my
budget requests and have been completely and utterly ignored by this LORD
MAYOR and the former Lord Mayor in our city. This is before I even get to
the cuts to public transport running throughout these suburbs. It's bad enough
our roads are clogged and dangerous without Councillor COOPER, without
the LORD MAYOR and the LNP ramming through development here that is
not supported by the local community.
I say shame on the LNP for ignoring the wishes of the local community.
Thousands of people have signed petitions demanding Council take action.
Hundreds and hundreds signed my last petition to fix Harcourt Road, what did
the LORD MAYOR do? What did the previous Lord Mayor, they put a—that
was their answer to dealing with one of the most dangerous traffic routes in
our city. In addition to all of this traffic nightmare and traffic chaos, what has
this Council done? They have cut essential public transport services right
throughout this community.
It's all very well to say we're going to put the density there, we're going to go
against your wishes, we're going to allow development there, but we're not
going to provide adequate public transport, we are going to cut public
transport. I made light before of the fact that this Council invested huge
amounts of money in upgrading bus stops earlier this year, only then to cut the
public transport right beneath those services. Well I say, shame on the LNP. It
is not good enough and my community deserves a great deal better.
I'll go one step further, we have just seen a new development open, something
that I support, in and around the Oxley Train Station. A new shopping centre
that has opened, a great boost for the local community. However, this Council
is refusing to listen to local residents to take action on traffic around that
shopping centre. I have tabled petitions, I have met with local residents, I met
with the DEPUTY MAYOR this morning. I am hopeful that we will see some
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
48
relief to local residents. This is before we get increasing densities in and
around those key transport hubs.
Also, before we even get to the city plan changes that Councillor COOPER is
intent on ramming through, block splitting, of increasing densities around
public transport nodes, of extending the amount of relaxations around public
transport nodes. This is going to be a recipe for a disaster if the LNP gets their
way. Well, the community has made it clear, local residents have made it
clear, community associations have not and will not support increasing
densities until the Council honours its commitments and pledges to improve
the traffic in and around the suburbs now.
These suburbs are some of the oldest and most historic in our city. They were
outlying suburbs of Brisbane, where the Cobb & Co coaches used to drive
through, with some of the oldest schools including Oxley State School, over
140 years old. I can only imagine what the early founding fathers would think
now, thanks to Councillor COOPER and the LORD MAYOR, Graham Quirk,
who now are intent on increasing densities in and around suburbs that simply
now cannot cope. That's my first point.
The second point is, these suburbs were affected severely due to flooding in
2011. These suburbs have been crying out since the LNP have taken control of
this city for 10 years, for improved drainage in and around the Oxley—we had
a debate today about the problems of Oxley Creek, we are now looking at
increasing densities in and around the suburbs of Darra and Oxley that will
only lead to increased flooding. We've seen flooding and huge impacts to
drainage in and around Oxley Road. We saw a small part of Darra, the
Centenary Village, severely impacted in the 2011 area.
Every time it practically rains, Oxley Road is cut off and this Council has
approved a major sporting facility on the old Corinda and Oxley driving range
which will impact on local residents who live on the other side of Oxley Road,
on the other side of Nixon Park. All of those streets, residents are furious with
the Council. They all signed objections, they all went through the petition
process, they all have voiced their concerns only to be ignored, approved on
the day before Good Friday, the Thursday before the Easter long weekend, in
the afternoon.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Of course, the administration, the LNP thinks the community should be proud
of the fact that they are going to increase huge amounts of traffic in and
around that area. That they are going to allow for potential worse flooding in
that suburb. Well I say, enough's enough, this neighbourhood plan is floored.
This is not in—this will not lead to good planning outcomes for our
community. It will see increased density against the wishes of the local
community who do not support this sort of development until this Council gets
serious—I mean, these suburbs spent millions of dollars on rates and charges,
paying into the Council, and get zip out of this administration. Absolutely
nothing.
In fact, they get less than zip, they get public transport cut right from beneath
them. The seniors and the older community who are furious with this Council
for not honouring its commitment. None of this about getting Queensland
back on track and all the other rubbish that the LNP go on with, all for nothing
because they just do—through you, Madam Acting Chair, what the LNP want
and to hell with the community and we're going to ignore their wishes.
Well, I will not be supporting this and I am asking councillors to reject this
neighbourhood plan which will lead to bad outcomes for that local
community.
Councillors interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor JOHNSTON.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
49
Seriatim - Clause B
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, DRAFT DARRA OXLEY DISTRICT
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you. Further debate, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Well thank you, Madam Acting Chair, I speak to item A in this report, the
Pinkenba Eagle Farm Neighbourhood Plan which has been a while coming but
it is a better plan for the length of time it's take to get it to this point and it is
going to make a significant contribution to the economic development of
Brisbane. As councillors will see, or may be aware, if they've ever been out
there to visit, this is a narrow peninsula of land that is squeezed between the
airport on one side and the river on the other side.
Extending between, essentially, the Gateway Motorway and out to Luggage
Point and has significant changes in that narrow corridor as it extends along
some 10 kilometres and it's quite constrained by the airport developments on
one side and the port developments on the other side of it. The struggle or
challenge has been to accommodate all the competing interests—those of the
existing landholders, the future industry requirements of the city and the
village, the Pinkenba village which is almost in the middle.
This now consists of about 130 households and this plan allows for that
village, that important residential node, to continue which is in stark contrast
to the future that was predicted for them by former Lord Mayor Jim Soorley
when he was cornered at the bar at the Pinkenba Hotel several years ago, as I
was reminded by a Pinkenba resident recently. But I do believe if the LORD
MAYOR Graham Quirk was to go down to the Pinkenba Hotel these days,
he'd be applauded for making sure that this plan has come to fruition because
it has allowed for the village residents in particular to continue to maintain
their houses. They have the ability to improve their properties and to keep
intact the central character of the area.
It does preclude subdivisions, which has been an issue raised with me by
residents—by some residents, but there is a very good reason for that, because
of those constraints of industry and airport on either side of the village.
Looking along that peninsula, you can see some of the challenges that would
have confronted the officers as they developed this plan. Not only did they
have to deal with the potential for flooding and then the requirement to
accommodate sea level rises as well by the previous state government, there
has been the need to look at the city's current heavy industry requirement and
that includes, here, the BP refinery but also what the city might require going
into the future for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years.
So that's what this plan is about, it's marrying up what are, in the end, quite—
six quite distinct sub-precincts with quite different needs. The Eagle Farm
precinct, the Bulwer Island precinct, the Myrtletown precinct, the Village
precinct the Pinkenba North precinct and the Gateway precinct, all with
quite—within themselves quite different needs. I take my hat off to the
officers who've worked very hard to not only recognise and understand those
differences but also to meet the needs of the landholders within each of those
areas.
This is a good plan, it's been a while coming but it is a good plan. I'd like to
thank Councillor COOPER and her staff for their hard work on this and for the
Council officers who've been involved in this as well. Thank you, Madam
Acting Chair.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Thanks, Madam Chair, it's just a quite point of order. We're debating items A,
B and D, just to clarify the matter. I understand we're taking these items each
individually, separately, seriatim for voting—
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
50
Acting Chairman:
No, at this stage we're voting A and D together and then B, C and E.
Seriatim - Clauses A, B and D
Councillor Victoria NEWTON requested that Clause A, , PINKENBA – EAGLE FARM NEIGHBOURHOOD
PLAN, Clause B, DRAFT DARRA OXLEY DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, and Clause D,
ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND CONTRACTING PLAN 2013/14, be taken seriatim for voting
purposes.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you. Further debate, Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Acting Chair. Madam Acting Chair, I rise to
speak to items A and B of the report before us. These two neighbourhood
plans that have come through, I would particularly like to note in relation to
the Pinkenba Eagle Farm Neighbourhood Plan, I'd like to thank the local
councillor for his very strong support through the process. He has been there,
coming along to public meetings with me about the plan and has certainly
been a good outcome.
This plan really does deliver a blueprint for commercial and industrial growth
within the area and aims to protect residential amenity of the Pinkenba village
and that's been very strong feedback from the community. So it has been a
process of—an ongoing process since 2007, we've had the views and opinions
of more than 320 residents along the way and in particular it is a critical piece
of work to protect scarce industrial land close to the port, air and rail networks
and promoting the area's economic and employment significance.
It supports the development of a potential cruise ship terminal in the area with
the Luggage Point site earmarked as a potential site for this to occur. We have
had a number of very complex issues that needed to be resolved and these
were as a result of the state planning policies on sea level rise, storm tide
hazard and industry buffers which this plan now is able to deal with. There's
also been quite significant environmental considerations that have been
worked through by the officers, including a plan to ensure the quality of the
Brisbane River, the Boggy Creek and Entrance Creek to be maintained.
So, Madam Chair, this has been a tough plan to resolve such significant and at
times quite competing interests. But it has been one, I think, that delivers a
good outcome for the local area and, of course, the officers stand to be very
much thanked for their hard work and dedication as part of the process.
In relation to item B, the draft Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood Plan, this
is a plan that has really captured the regional plan and delivered upon that. So
the Darra Richlands railway corridor was identified for residential
development and employment growth. It has also, of course, been supported
by the state government's investment in the Darra and Oxley railway stations
and bus interchanges. We've been working out there with the local community
since 2010 and this particular region has a whole range of important things
that we need to facilitate through the neighbourhood plan.
We want to ensure that it continues to provide access to services, jobs and
transport, we want to continue to make sure it is an attractive area for future
development and we've sought to develop the roads with community needs as
well as the protection of local heritage and the natural environment. The plan
reflects the community's vision for a predominantly low density suburb with
approximately 80 per cent of the plan area remaining unchanged.
It will see, under this plan, a population increase of 2000 people over a 20 year
period, this has been slightly reduced due to some changes around one of the
residential areas. We received 40 properly made submissions during the public
notification period and I have to say, I was disappointed to see, despite the
feedback of the local councillor, that he did not make a submission on this
plan. So he raised concerns in this chamber but when he had the opportunity to
put pen to paper, to put forward some suggestions, some positive productive
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
51
suggestions about how to ensure the growth of his own constituents are
carefully protected, he didn't bother to put in a submission.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor COOPER:
He didn't waste the time to actually put forward anything. So when we do
review the submissions that were made by his constituents, we note that there
was some community concern over the need to manage existing traffic
congestions, which we have specifically addressed through a number of road
upgrade projects earmarked within the draft plan, such as Harcourt Road,
Darra and Englefield Road, Oxley and I've got a list of 22 different projects
that have been captured as part of the neighbourhood plan process. I'm happy
to make sure that the local councillor is aware of all of those issues that have
been put forward by the Council officers.
So there was support from the residents for the draft plan, they did also
support the provision of additional housing choice through the increase in
residential densities. The plan, in particular, sees some building heights of up
to five storeys to be allowed in the Darra centre and Oxley precincts. By
focussing residential development in these areas, there are opportunities for
local residents and employees to access services, jobs and high frequency
transport while providing housing options.
There are a number of new demolition control precincts that are being
included to recognise pre-1946 houses that weren't previously converted and,
of course, to further safeguard the area's heritage. Darra and Oxley have a very
longstanding industrial history that will be maintained through the draft plan.
Post-submission, Council had to undertake further works after the
identification of a local businesses deemed to be higher impact that previously
classified. In order to support continued industry in the area whilst providing
certainty to residents regarding noise and air impacts, Council conducted
testing around the site
As a result of the testing, we increased the buffer distance to 300 metres
between the existing brickworks site and local residential area. That means
that sites located outside the buffer will retain their proposed medium density
classification and sites within the buffer will remain low density residential.
So, Madam Chair, there have been a number of changes made to the
neighbourhood plan following public notification to pretty much all of the
precincts.
In terms of the commentary by the local councillor, that is fundamentally
flawed because if you look at the extensive list of projects that have been
captured in this neighbourhood plan, there has certainly been provision to
improve the traffic issues in the local area. I only wish that the local councillor
had have bothered to make the effort to convey the interests of his
constituents. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
No.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013 was declared carried on the voices.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
52
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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, 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.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item D.
Clause D put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause D of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen ABRAHAMS 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 6 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, and
Victoria NEWTON.
Acting Chairman:
The motion is carried. We will now move onto item C which is taken in
seriatim for debate and voting purposes. Councillors can I take this
opportunity to remind you all that parts of this particular item in the E&C
report do contain items which are commercial in confidence and as a result
those items that are marked commercial in confidence in the papers and
reflected in the table cannot be discussed in the Chamber.
So, LORD MAYOR, would you please like to proceed?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, for some time now
the opposition have been challenging this administration to get on with
Kingsford Smith Drive and to get on with Wynnum Road. Madam Chairman,
given the approval of this today, that's precisely what we are doing. We have a
plan and the plan, Madam Chairman, is to get on and to undertake those
projects. Madam Chairman, this is a plan which, of course, is subject to an
agreement, in principle. Now that's reached with Queensland Motorways
Limited (QML). It is a provision of tolling rights for a period of 50 years
under this plan.
The plan which, subject to the approval of today's Council meeting, needs then
to be approved by the Federal and state governments. But it is true, as the
DEPUTY MAYOR pointed out earlier, Madam Chairman, that we believe that
what we are doing is very, very consistent with what the Federal Government
suggested by way of their 2012 Infrastructure Finance and Funding Reform
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
53
Report. It was a fact that governments of different persuasions or of different
levels around this country are struggling to find the dollars to get on and
continue with the important infrastructure build in this nation.
Madam Chairman, following that report, we had an approach by QML—or
QIC (Queensland Investment Corporation) in fact it was at that time—in
relation to the potential for the sale of tolling rights, or indeed the facility.
Madam Chairman, the facilities, the assets of this city will stay in the
ownership of the ratepayers of this city. That is what is proposed and the
tolling rights provide an opportunity for us to firstly obtain a cash injection to
this Council to allow additional infrastructure to be built and secondly
removes the costs that would have been associated with the operations of both
the Go Between Bridge and more importantly Legacy Way through to 2020.
Madam Chairman, if you look at the proposal before us, it's one which sets out
a number of payments. Before going to that, I should state that with respect to
the Federal and state governments, I say two things. The first thing is this, that
I have kept now Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the picture in
terms of what has been happening now for a period of at least six months,
probably longer in fact, probably more like nine months. I have also, Madam
Chairman, been keeping the Treasurer involved for a far lesser period. Why
for a far lesser period? Well primarily because I've kept Minister Anthony
Albanese in the picture because of the $500 million contribution that the
Federal Government made to the Legacy Way project.
I have indicated to him, also, that out of this arrangement, if this is passed
today, if it is that the Federal and state governments ultimately approve it and
we get on and undertake those projects, that, Madam Chairman, we will
jointly badge both Kingsford Smith Drive and stage 1 of Wynnum Road as a
joint Federal, Brisbane City Council project, in recognition of the $500 million
contribution from the Federal Government to Legacy Way. Obviously, at a
Federal level is it not Minister Albanese that makes the final approval, it is
that of the Treasury, but I understand that he will be giving certainly a
favourable recommendation towards this to Treasury. But I take nothing for
granted and, Madam Chairman, that has to run its due process and course.
Page six of the report and paragraph 33 sets out the financials around this
project. It sets out a year by year analysis with regards to both Go Between
Bridge and Legacy Way, when payments will be made. Some of those
payments are fixed payments, certainly the payment for Go Between Bridge of
$112 million up front is a fixed payment. There is a fixed payment of
$131 million for Legacy Way, up front, and then of course the payments
beyond that become a question of the real traffic numbers.
Not based on models, not based on what Council says, not based on the
Queensland Motorways Limited might suggest they will do, but based on real
numbers. There can be nothing fairer in terms of an outcome than that. Madam
Chairman, the analysis of these numbers suggests that on the worst case
scenario, the QMH scenario, it is $428 million which will be injected through
between now and 2020. Plus, of course the $650 million of costs that this
Council would otherwise be up for in terms of those assets through to 2020.
Providing a positive outcome for this Council, based on the QMH case, of
$1.078 billion.
If you look at the Brisbane City Council scenario, Madam Chairman, of
$112 million up front in terms of Go Between, $131 million with
Legacy Way, the amounts would come to $930 million, plus $650 million in
expenses not needed to be spent and a $1.580 billion outcome. So, Madam
Chairman, the scenarios and the forward budget estimates that we have put
into place are based on the lesser of the two. They have been based on
conservative estimates.
If it is that those numbers are closer to the Brisbane City Council based
scenario, then obviously that frees up more money to do more things in this
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
54
city. It also potentially provides an opportunity for debt reduction, but my
view would be, quite frankly, that we would look at what more things we
could do to the betterment of this city. Madam Chairman, that statement is
based on the back of what I said earlier in Question Time about debt reduction
occurring over the next few years on an annual basis.
So, Madam Chairman, this is the scenario that we have before us today. It
provides and outcome whereby the assets are in the ground, the assets are
working for this city for a long, long time to come. What we have seen over
the last eight years with these two assets and others is a terrific outcome for
the mobility of this city; not only for now, but for a long time to come, for
decades to come. As true as I stand here today, Madam Chairman, the people
of this city will look back and say, thank heavens they acted. Thank heavens
they acted to make the infrastructure of this city something that will stand the
test of time for years to come.
We know that there is substantial capacity within the infrastructure that has
been built, not yet taken up, but we also know that the reality is that traffic
movements grow by around three per cent per annum and we will see a
movement of numbers upward in those assets in the years to come. That is
why they were necessary, that is why they will continue to serve this city and
this region for a long time to come. It's also, Madam Chairman, the case that
out of these funds we will be able to get on and do important work for the city.
Madam Chairman, that is not the end of it, of course, there will be, given a
very positive outcome in terms of traffic numbers—and this isn't something
we're counting on by any means—but there is the possibility of further
financial uplift beyond 2020 in terms of the arrangements set in terms of the
detailed contracts proposed and arrangements proposed in terms of the
agreement. What we have done—and of course, that relates to if the traffic
volumes are higher than either of us expect. If they are higher than either of us
expect, and there are examples of that.
I look to the Gateway Arterial, the expectation was the Gateway Arterial was
going to be doing 28,000 in 2004. It was doing more like 100,000. So, Madam
Chairman, we don't know. We don't know what—running out of time, am I?
Acting Chairman:
Yes.
LORD MAYOR:
Okay, well I'll need an extension probably. Sorry.
12/2013-14
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor Adrian SCGRINNER, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks, Madam Chairman, and thank you Chamber, I won't take up much
more time. But it is a significant item before us and therefore it does warrant
the time of Council. So, Madam Chairman, none of us know what the numbers
will be in the future. I would just say this. The studies that have been
undertaken demonstrate that in a buoyant economic time, or less depressed
economic time, people value their time more than they do in a depressed
economic circumstance.
I am firmly of a view that we will see an uplift in all of the infrastructure toll
projects when the economy starts to roll along again. It is true that whilst
people value their time at a lesser dollar value, they also are more discerning
in terms of their spend. So, Madam Chairman, again it is a proposition which
allows this city to get on and do the things it needs to do but particularly are
Kingsford Smith Drive and stage 1 of Wynnum Road will be the big
benefactors out of the support of the Council of Chamber today for this item.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Before I call any further councillors, I just want
to reaffirm what I said before, that the documents relevant to this report on the
Council file have had various parts marked in green and shaded as commercial
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
55
in confidence. Councillors are reminded that their obligations under
section 173 of the City of Brisbane Act 2013 not to disclose this material
during the course of this debate or at any time. Failure to comply is at best
misconduct, referrable to a Councillor Conduct Review Panel, and at worst is
a criminal offence.
I will not hesitate to sit down or discipline any councillor who breaches these
requirements and treat the matter as an act of disorder by that councillor. I
trust this makes the circumstances very clear for everybody in the course of
this debate on this matter. Councillor DICK, you have the floor.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just confirm we are doing item C separately or
items C and E together.
Acting Chairman:
We are doing item C separately for debate and voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
I think your guidance, and perhaps the LORD MAYOR's guidance, the—just
so that we're crystal clear, on the Ernst & Young report which was part of the
documentation, am I able to reference this document and read out figures from
this report?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor DICK, in reference to that report, have you verified, is it listed in
the table and there was no green shading on the file so there is no problem
with you then mentioning that and I appreciate you for verifying that, thank
you.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I start with one of the most
extraordinary statements I just heard the LORD MAYOR say when talking
about this deal. None of us know the numbers. That's what he said referring to
this deal.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
He said, none of us know the numbers. We don't really know where this is
going to end, we're going to have to wait and see. We'll have to see if the
economy picks up, all of these broad statements. The fact is, from the LORD
MAYOR's own admission today, to the DEPUTY MAYOR, through
Councillor SCHRINNER and Councillor SIMMONDS, we are looking at a
deal of $1 billion or $1.5 billion dollars at best.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
So we've got a $500 million variance on a wish and a prayer from this
administration. I start my remarks today by saying, why are we doing this?
Let's roll back the clock a little bit. This deal and this project, announced by
the LNP as part of its TransApex Plan, all those years ago—remember the
deal, there was going to be $2 tolls, remember all that? Remember all of the
promises which have been broken.
Councillors interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Sorry, just a moment Councillor DICK. I know Councillor FLESSER and
Councillor ABRAHAMS are trying to be supportive but it's a little bit
disruptive when I'm—given that this is a commercial in confidence matter, I
am trying to listen carefully to your statements and I just ask everybody to
maintain silence while speakers are on their feet, please.
Councillor DICK:
I'd like that too, thank you, Madam Acting Chair.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Some people say I like the sound of my own voice but I don't think that's true.
Madam Acting Chair, we are dealing with a deal today that will lead to bad
financial outcomes for our city. Without a doubt, in any objective scale, this
deal is not in the interest of ratepayers for our city. We've heard a lot today
saying that this asset will remain with Council. The facts are, we're going to
wait 50 years before it turns into our hands and what is the pain that is going
to happen along the next 50 years?
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
56
My concerns are the following; if this deal stacks up and if we meet what the
LORD MAYOR says, we still don't have enough money for Kingsford Smith
Drive and Wynnum Road. They don't—through you, Madam Acting Chair,
they don't actually go through a lot of detail on Wynnum Road, it's all
Kingsford Smith Drive. We know from previous debates and previous
costings, Wynnum Road is going to cost around $150 million, okay? We're
only referring to stage 1 of Wynnum Road, not the stage that goes through
Councillor ABRAHAMS' ward.
We're not—sorry, we're not looking at the—sorry, that's the stage, we're not
looking at the entire Wynnum Road. So we're looking at a shortfall already,
even before this deal is signed. I also have to get on the record before my time
runs out, I have been bagged, I have been rubbished by the LNP and the
LORD MAYOR saying, we should never go through one tender, we should
never just go through one process, we shouldn't have gone for that.
That is exactly what the LORD MAYOR Graham Quirk and the LNP have
done. I want to know why, because when we know the analysis done and we
heard today that there were other people interested in this—apparently
interested in this deal.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
It is beyond comprehension that we would not want the best possible deal for
ratepayers, that we would not want to get value for money as a result of
sending this out to market and getting the best possible job. Instead, we are led
to believe that someone came knocking on our door and said, we'll give you
this money but you can't talk to anyone else about it. If you give it to us, we'll
do an exclusive arrangement. I don't think that is good economic sense and I
don't think in anyone's language—apparently from their own definition, that is
not the appropriate way to handle negotiations.
So I think that is very dangerous for ratepayers, for us to have gone down this
path. But nonetheless, that is what the LNP have chosen to do—and I may
add, no election mandate for this, no one went out to the community of LNP
candidates, of the LORD MAYOR and say, well this is our proposal, this is
our plan. They waited until after they were elected and then snuck in this deal
because they are desperate for cash. They are desperate for cash, that is why
we are dealing with this.
Now, for some time when you look at page 6, and I refer to the BCC case, for
months if not years we've heard 24,000 cars in the first year a very
conservative estimate. I think the LORD MAYOR repeated that today, very
conservative. We know that that's going to ramp up into year 5 under
Council's modelling of 43,600. But that's not what QMH have done their own
modelling. They didn't say, we'll—you've got a great track record, we're going
to trust you.
These are the experts, this isn't just an ordinary tolling company, this is a
company specifically focussed and involved with this sort of traffic modelling.
So what do they say? In year 5, their modelling is 23,500. We don't even meet,
under their traffic modelling, what we think we're going to make in year 1. In
year 1, we don't even make that under their modelling. So at best, they think
we're going to meet 23,500. Let's be very clear, this administration has a very
poor track record when it comes to delivering infrastructure, when it comes to
meeting traffic projections.
The LORD MAYOR said that the citizens of Brisbane are going to say thank
heavens they did it. Thanks heavens they did.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's what he said. That's what he said. Well I can tell you right now, take a
walk down Queen Street or come to the Inala Civic Centre and say, are you
grateful that the Council spent all that money on Clem 7 and that the state
government has invested on the Go Between Bridge and Airport Link? I can
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
57
tell you, they aren't saying thank heavens you did it. Let me tell you that for
free. They are not saying that at all. They are saying, why is our city in record
debt? Why are we getting cutbacks to services? Why are we sacking staff?
Why is our city going backwards? That's what they're saying as a result of the
LNP's decisions.
So we've got a situation where we won't even meet under the proposal put
forward by QMH, that we will even meet our first year's traffic projection,
23,500 cars versus our traffic projections of 43,600. If that does not send
warning bells to how this Council and how this administration handles
projects, I don't know what does. Getting back to the actual finer details of
this, the QML are only expecting to pay Council, under their modelling, $428
million for both the Go Between Bridge and Legacy Way.
So we've still got a $0.5 billion shortfall. I ask the question today, what
happens if, for example, we go with the people who know what they're talking
about, as opposed to this Council's track record which is not great at meeting
traffic projections, and we fall short? What happens if we do have that $0.5
billion shortage? How are we going to pay for these upgrades to Kingsford
Smith Drive and Wynnum Road? This is all before you even get to the fact
that we are selling off the revenue, if you want, for the next 50 years, to pay
off the $1.2 billion worth of debt.
Just think about it, it is like quitting your job, getting a $60,000 payout and
then having a mortgage for 30 years without any income to pay it off. That's
exactly what this is like. But worse still, it's then someone coming and
knocking on your door, you've just paid $500,000 for your house—someone
knocking on the door and saying, I'd like to give you $200,000 for your house
and us saying, should we put a for sale sing up? No, we'll take the $200,000,
but don't tell anyone about it. That's exactly what we're doing with this deal.
This is bad economic sense, it simply will lead to more pain and suffering for
the poor ratepayers of our city who are already paying through the nose. This
is too risky for the ratepayers, and why are they doing this? Why are they
doing this? Because this is the desperate grab for cash by an administration
that simply has run out of ideas and run out of money. That's the big thing in
all of this. So, Madam Chair, we won't be supporting this today because it will
lead, I believe, to more economic pain for our city.
It's bad enough that we're lumped with this tunnel—another tunnel, but it's
worse still that we are now selling off any revenue to pay off the debt for this
tunnel. This Council is heading backwards at a rate of knots. This Council is
racking up record amounts of debt without any plan to pay it off. That is my
concern, in 50 years' time when we're all gone and we're not here anymore, the
ratepayers will, sure, take ownership of a piece of infrastructure, but at what
cost? At what pain will the ratepayers of our city have to endure over the years
to come, and I cannot support this today.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor SCHRINNER.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this item.
Madam Chairman, as I flagged earlier in Question Time, this deal is the first
of its kind and if it's approved today it will stand as a new benchmark for PPP
arrangements to fund road infrastructure. We should all, as a Council, be very
proud that we've got to this point. There have been so many commentators in
recent years saying, road PPPs are dead. They've all being very willing to
point out the shortcomings or previous models but very few have been able to
provide alternative models for the future going forward.
So what we have done, together with QIC and QMH, is put together what we
think is a great example of a new PPP which has adequate sharing of risk so
that all the risk is not just dumped on one party, but adequate sharing of
returns and rewards. That is just as important. We're doing exactly what the
Federal Government recommends here which is innovative funding measures
and recycling capital to fund new projects. The reality is, we're not going to
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
58
fund Kingsford Smith Drive by borrowing more money. The Labor Party
wouldn't support that, we don't support that course of action.
So if we are going to fund the next round of infrastructure projects, we need to
find a new way of doing it. This is exactly what we see in front of us today.
Now, if you hear, I guess, the argument put forward by the Labor councillors
and in particular Councillor DICK, one thing strikes me as being a bit odd. We
have had in this place reports from the Queensland Treasury Corporation,
we've had criticisms from opposition councillors, criticisms from various other
people, particularly the previous Labor State Government that these tunnels
and toll roads are putting a pressure on our budget each year and the Labor
Party has been keen to point that out.
So, in the past, they've said, oh, having these toll roads on our balance sheet is
putting pressure on our budget, yet now they're saying, oh, we can't afford to
lose the toll revenue from these projects, we can't afford to lose that revenue.
The reality is, and anyone who has had a look at the way these projects have
been put forward, in the initial period of many, many years, these projects and
the toll revenue associated with these projects do not meet the operating costs
of the project and the financing costs.
So yes, if we kept these projects on our books, we would be getting some toll
revenue in, but that toll revenue in the early stages would not be enough to
cover the costs of that project. That's the reality of it. So each year, we have to
fill a gap. So what we have done in this situation is taken a massive cost
impost off our books, in the tune of $650 million in the first seven years alone,
and that cost impost becomes Queensland Motorways' to manage.
We can use that freed up capacity to help fund new projects and that's without
even receiving a cent in payment from Queensland Motorways. So $650
million in avoided costs is part of this deal. So any argument about a loss of
revenue is absolute rubbish. The revenue was not even covering the costs and
that would have been the case for many years to come. Anyone who
understands toll road projects knows that that's a reality. They take time to
reach a point where they're cost neutral and then they take even more time to
reach a point where they're making money. We know that the Labor Party
knows that, but from what we've heard in the Chamber today, they're not
acknowledging that simple fact.
So we have a deal here which is put forward based on two sets of what I
believe are conservative traffic predictions. As I mentioned in the briefing
today, these are not the type of traffic predictions that we saw for Clem 7 or
Airport Link or other PPP deals that were done in the past. These are very
realistic figures, whether you're looking at both the Queensland Motorways'
figures or Brisbane City Council's figures, we're not talking about
outrageously inflated figures here.
At our own predictions, we will see traffic volumes started at 24,000 per year
in the first year for Legacy Way and then progressively moving up, as
Councillor DICK said, to hopefully more than 45,000, 46,000 by year five.
Queensland Motorways has taken an even more conservative approach, as you
would expect, but the reality is, regardless of what Queensland Motorways has
projected, we will get paid on the actual outcome. The projections here are
done for the purpose of determining what likely outcomes may be, but the
reality is we will get paid based on actual traffic volumes, not based on
projections.
That is another positive part of this deal. So in 2017, 2018 and also the final
payment in 2020, Council will receive payments based on actual traffic
volumes. It's not a case of, if we don't meet a certain threshold we get nothing
we will be paid certain amounts regardless. There are upfront payments for
Legacy Way and Go Between Bridge, those upfront payments are fixed,
they're not associated with traffic volumes. The payments down the track are
then based on traffic volumes. But it's not a case of, in any circumstance, us
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
59
receiving no money or no payment. We will be receiving payments and they
will be based on the actual traffic figures.
That is a positive thing and once again one of the innovative things about this
deal. Now, Councillor DICK questioned why we should be dealing
exclusively with one operator. I think he answered his own question. He said,
they're the experts, Queensland Motorways are the experts, they've been
running toll roads for many years in Queensland, they know how to operate
toll roads and I think we—
Councillors interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Order.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—a deal with a competent and well regarded—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor CUMMING.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Well-regarded operator. This operator was well-regarded enough and the deal
maker QIC was well-regarded enough for the Labor State Government to do a
similar deal just a few years ago, when they—
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Instead of going out to some private sector operator, transferred Queensland
Motorways into QIC. So it if was good enough for them to deal with QIC in
this way a few years ago—
Acting Chairman:
Order.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—why is it suddenly now outrageous? Why is it outrageous?
Councillors interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Order. When I bring this chamber to order, that means all councillors are to be
silent. I asked you all previously to show respect to the speaker so we can deal
with this matter, which has got a lot of commercial in confidence, in a careful
manner. Now I ask that you retain that silence out of respect for the Chamber
and the matter we are dealing with. DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman. The reality of this deal on the table—
and Councillor DICK put a certain spin on it—but the reality is, under
Queensland Motorway's projections, we will be benefitting Council to the tune
of just over $1 billion. If our projections come to fruition, it will be more than
$1.5 billion. But that is not the only potential benefit in the deal. There are
other things which could advantage Council down the track and those other
things are important to note as well.
First of all, if down the track—and we're talking about a 50 year deal here—
these roads exceed expectations—and we've seen examples of this. The
Gateway Motorway when it was first built and the Gateway Bridge, exceeded
all expectations and within 20 years they had to build a second bridge to cope
with the demand. No one ever projected that we would need another Gateway
Bridge in just 20 years. So if we get a positive situation like that with Legacy
Way, Go Between Bridge, down the track, Council has the opportunity to
share in that benefit going forward, and that is a very positive and innovative
part of this deal.
So yes, there's sharing of risk, but there's also sharing of potential extra returns
down the track and that is important to note. Other features of this deal include
the potential for Council to benefit if there is upgrades done which, for
example, increase traffic in Legacy Way. So, for example if the Centenary
Motorway is upgraded and that helps facilitating extra traffic into Legacy
Way, there will be a direct financial benefit to Council. Now that's not
included in the $1.07 billion or the $1.5 billion that would be on top of those
figures.
So we will be working, going forward, with the state government to try and
get maximum value in terms of future upgrades such as that. We are upgrading
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
60
the Moggill Road Interchange as part of the Legacy Way project. We like to
see further upgrades done to the Western Freeway to help get further benefit
for ratepayers as part of this deal. We are an administration that has always
been absolutely committed to making infrastructure projects happen and
delivering them and this is the next phase in our agenda.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Well, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item C, this afternoon. The great
fire sale of Brisbane City Council road projects and assets in the City of
Brisbane. Madam Chairman, that fire sale is being overseen—and it struck me
as he was speaking today—I thought of the fellow who used to be on the telly,
offering great deals and I think his name was Tim Shaw, The Demtel Man.
The Demtel Man would be going, wait, have I got a good deal for you, it gets
better—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON, to the report, thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, that is what we have heard from
this LORD MAYOR here today. I even think there's a little bit of a physical
resemblance there as well, thinking back about him. Madam Chairman, it is
embarrassing that words like proud are being used by this administration to
describe this deal. It is a funny money deal in my view and it exposes the
failure of this Council to adequately manage its assets and its financial
resources.
There are a number of things that I am concerned about and I'll put those on
the record here today. Firstly, the lack of competition and secrecy in the deal
itself. This is the most hypocritical and disgraceful thing I have ever seen. This
LORD MAYOR when he was the infrastructure chairman and the deputy
chairman of Council, week after week after week stood up in this place, stood
up in the media, and decried the lack of market competition with respect to the
construction of this project.
Now, like a Judas, he rises to say, oh my goodness, but it's all okay now
because Queensland Motorways came to us and they gave us a low ball offer
and we should just accept it. That's the—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—upshot of what's being suggested today.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I ask you to withdraw that reference to Judas, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
It's a—
Acting Chairman:
I ask you to withdraw.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Withdrawn, whatever.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Withdrawn, whatever. It is a disgraceful thing. It is a disgraceful thing that a
man who stands up as the leader of this Council and for years—not just once
or twice, for years decried the lack of competition and the lack of competition
in getting a good outcome for the ratepayers, and then he turns around and
does exactly the same thing. As we exposed Councillor SCHRINNER today,
we know that there were other parties interested in bidding and interested in
participating in this deal.
Councillor SCHRINNER, or whoever it was in this administration said, nope,
sorry, we're only talking to Queensland Motorways. Not good enough. For that
reason alone, this deal should not be supported by this Council or by the
Federal Government, who might see that there's also been some miraculous
rediscovery of what a wonderful government the Rudd Government is. Not
only that, they seem to be praising—they seem to be praising the Beattie
Government out the side of their mouth as well during that disgraceful speech
as well.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
61
Let me say this. I honestly cannot believe that this administration has received
what it describes as an unsolicited offer, that it has not tested on the market,
despite the fact that it knows that there are other interested bidders, including
at least one major superannuation company. I suspect if they'd gone for
expressions of interest, they would have found there was a lot more interest,
because I've certainly had a few people speak to me as well.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
It is disgraceful—
Acting Chairman:
Order.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—and not the people—
Acting Chairman:
Order.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—that you would think. Let me tell you, I haven't spoken to anybody at
Leighton about it, so there you go. Let me say this, that it is disgraceful that
this LORD MAYOR who has said that this should be supported has done a
deal in secret with a low ball offer from a state government organisation and it
is not a good deal for the ratepayers of Brisbane.
The second issue as far as I'm concerned is the risk management. Now—
there's a lot of documents to wade through, but it is fascinating to read the way
in which this Council has failed to share the risk adequately with Queensland
Motorways. I thought it was astonishing in reading some of the materials on
this. All of the risk, essentially, still sits with Council. There is very limited
risk that is being accepted by Queensland Motorways, so this Council is
actually getting kicked in the guts twice.
One, we're not getting value for money because of the ridiculous low ball
figures that we've been offered and two—with no guarantee that they're going
to improve down the track. Two, we're still accepting the vast majority of the
risk associated with this project, without any source of possible revenue in the
future.
Now the third thing that concerns me is the value for money issue. It's very
clear that there's a serious disconnect between what this council believes the
credible figures are for the traffic numbers and the revenue that are going to
flow from this deal and what Queensland Motorways Holding thinks that the
traffic numbers and the revenue are that are going to flow from the deal.
Now the two parties don't agree. The only thing this Council did was ask Ernst
& Young, on the basis of the figures given to Ernst & Young by Council—got
them to have a look at it. They didn't go out and test it against the market, they
accepted what Council told them. Now that's it, this is not good business
practice, this is not good due diligence and there is a reason that there is a gap
between what Council says are very conservative figures, very real figures—
we've heard it all day today—and Queensland Motorways, who've got a
completely different view.
Now, if someone offers you $200,000 for your house and you think it's worth
$500,000, you go out and you get some independent costs and you seek other
offers and you find out how much that asset's really worth. You don't just go
along and say, oh yeah, that seems nice, I'll just take the $200,000. This
LORD MAYOR is selling out the residents of Brisbane, this LORD MAYOR
is selling out the ratepayers of Brisbane because he has done a secret deal
behind closed doors and has not tested the credibility and the veracity of that
deal with the marketplace where we might found out whether or not it is a
good thing for the City of Brisbane.
We cannot have any confidence that this Council has done proper due
diligence. For that reason, this deal should not be supported. I'm just
astonished that the LORD MAYOR—and you can go back week after week
and look at his comments on this—has decided to do this. Simply so he gets a
few bits of silver from a fire sale to maybe fund a bit of the Kingsford Smith
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
62
Drive upgrade, maybe. There won't be enough money to fund it fully, and
there's certainly not enough money to fund it fully in Wynnum.
Isn't that lovely, we've sold off two assets and the only two places in Brisbane
to get a benefit are in those two parts of Brisbane. What about the rest of the
ratepayers, LORD MAYOR, this doesn't make sense. You haven't done your
homework, you have not gone out in the best interests of this city and engaged
in a competitive process to maximise the revenue that should come in from
these roads if this type of deal is to be done.
The failure to do so sets a shocking precedent. A shocking precedent I think. It
is a reflection of the incompetence, in my view, of this administration's
leadership and their failure to go out and undertake good governance and due
diligence to test the market about whether this represents value for money. For
those three reasons; the lack of competition, the secrecy, the lack of credibility
in the process, the failure to ensure that this Council is protected through
proper risk management and transfer of risk and the failure to get any value for
money for our ratepayers over the longer term, this deal should not be
supported.
I am appalled, appalled, that the party I belonged to for 20 years, the party of
the free market, the party that supports week after week in here, economic
development, business, economic development, business. What do we do? We
went and did a deal with our mates down in George Street. That's all we did,
did a deal with our mates down in George Street. If the LORD MAYOR was
genuine about what he says about economic development, he would be out
there talking to the business people of this city to determine whether or not
there was a deal that could be done in the interest of the ratepayers of this city
and he didn't do it.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired. Further debate, Councillor
FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
Thank you, Madam Chair, yes, I also want to speak to this matter. Madam
Chair, I do want to congratulate Councillor JOHNSTON and also Councillor
DICK. The comments they've made today absolutely spot on. But, Madam
Chair, what—the way I see this, this is just a short term political fix for the
LORD MAYOR, Madam Chair. Because what we think is going to happen is
that that tunnel—the Legacy Way Tunnel's going to open, pretty soon, Madam
Chair, he's predicted traffic volumes, Madam Chair, are just not going to be
met.
He can see that that is going to be a huge political problem for him, so,
Madam Chair, what he's done, as Councillor JOHNSTON and Councillor
DICK have already stated, he's done a quick-fix deal, get a bit of short term
money, don't worry about the long term, don't worry about the massive debt
that this Council's got, don't worry about the QTC already telling us that we've
maxed out our credit card. Don't worry about selling a revenue stream, Madam
Chair, just get the money now then hopefully that'll just keep us going for a
couple more years and the ratepayers in the future, they're going to be paying
through the hip pocket.
Now, Madam Chair, I just want to read a quick quote from a former—a
Council transcript, 18 May 2010, and I wonder who said this. There was
absolutely no way that we are going to negotiate with a single entity where
there could be strong and fierce competition. Madam Chair, who said that? In
relation to a large deal, Madam Chair, possible deal to build a Legacy Way
Tunnel, Madam Chair. Of course, it was then the Deputy Mayor, Graham
Quirk, Madam Chair.
So not that long ago he said, there's no way we're going to consider
negotiating with a single entity, but he comes in here today with exactly that.
Exactly that. And, Madam Chair, the biggest issue regarding this deal, Madam
Chair, is that massive $500 million difference between what QMH? think
they're going to be paying Council and what this LORD MAYOR believes that
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
63
they are going to be paying us, Madam Chair, $500 million. QMH, Madam
Chair, Queensland Motorways, they're not dummies, they're not like the
international financiers who come in and they might be able to see a quick
dollar and they'll take some dodgy traffic projections and use them and
hopefully get a deal up and then sell it off as quickly as they can, Madam
Chair.
Queensland Motorways, Madam Chair, they run toll roads. They have a very,
very good understanding of the market for tolls and in tollways in Brisbane,
Madam Chair, their figures for the predicted traffic volumes for Legacy Way
are nothing like the conservative ones that Councillor QUIRK is talking about.
Madam Chair, I want to take up an issue that Councillor SCHRINNER said
about six times in his speech. He said, it's a great deal because Council will get
paid on actual traffic volumes. Well, Madam, guess what? Guess what? We
can do that without doing any deal at all. That's what would happen without
doing any deal at all.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
So, Madam Chair, why—what is the reason for this? Why are we doing this?
You're saying that the traffic projections are conservative, in other words,
they're the bottom and there should be some upside to it. Well, Madam Chair,
if you—if the administration honestly believes that, why have we done this
deal? Madam Chair, it's a quick term political fix, that's what it is. Madam
Chair, as far as the—using the Ernst & Young report as a reason for this
Council going down this path, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I do feel sorry for
Ernst & Young. They were given conditions by this Council that clearly there
could only be one outcome.
There could only be one outcome. You know why, Madam Chair? Because
this Council made sure that the conditions that they had to deal with would
only produce one outcome and that is that the—to do the deal with QMH.
Madam Chair, they were specifically requested to assume that the details
contained in QMH's best and final offer mirrors that of market—of a market
participant. Well, Madam Chair, how can you—why would Council say that?
Why would Council say that which basically restricted Ernst & Young from
doing any market testing at all?
Why would you do that? What sense is there in that, Madam Chair? Other
items we find in the Ernst & Young—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor FLESSER:
—document, Madam Chair, are such as that Ernst & Young were instructed by
BCC to assume that the forecast equity cash flows produced by the financial
models, after adjustment for specific items that were identified by BCC reflect
the forecast equity cash flows that a market participant would base its bid on
in an open market process. Madam Chair, again, not giving Ernst & Young
any opportunity at all to go out and test the market.
So, Madam Chair, this deal, as I say, short term fix, Madam Chair, there's a
$500 million difference—$500 million, $0.5 billion difference between what
the LORD MAYOR, Councillor QUIRK says the Brisbane ratepayers are
going to get and what QMH, the experts in toll roads and motorways, believe
they're going to be paying. Madam Chair, I can't see any reason why we
should be going down this path, Madam Chair. Up till now, I think that there's
been some understanding and some belief that Councillor QUIRK has been
honest when he says that the traffic projections have been conservative.
But, Madam Chair, clearly they're not conservative enough and he's worried
that when that toll road opens, Madam Chair, traffic volumes are going to be
much lower than what he's been predicting and that's going to cause a huge
political embarrassment for him, Madam Chair. So rather than suffer that huge
political embarrassment, Madam Chair, the ratepayers of Brisbane are going to
suffer instead.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
64
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong support of this item,
item C, as a very positive outcome for ratepayers and a very positive outcome
for this Council. If I could just springboard initially off the comments of
Councillor FLESSER, who couldn't wrap his head around, in true
Flessernomics style, why we were doing this. He says, we can get paid on
actual volumes based on tolls, well there's two key reasons that I feel that
certainly the LORD MAYOR and Councillor SCHRINNER have re-iterated,
but I will re-iterate again.
First of all, we can get on with Kingsford Smith Drive now. Right now,
Madam Chairman, we can get on with this congestion-busting project because
that's what it's all about. It's about recycling our capital and getting on with the
job of continuing to deliver congestion-busting projects in what, let's face it, is
tight fiscal times for both the market and governments at all levels. What is the
cost saving to Brisbane? We know how much traffic congestion costs
Brisbane a year, what are the cost savings? The money saved and the
economic development that can be achieved if we have this upgrade
significantly sooner than under previous scenarios?
Of course, the second is that we don't have the $650 million in operating and
maintenance cost for this project. That's why, when the LORD MAYOR—
sorry, I think it was Councillor SCHRINNER, who said that the budget has
been factored in on that QML case. So they say, oh, well if it doesn't meet
Council traffic projections, they won't possibly be able to do Kingsford Smith
Drive, well guess what? The budget is based on the just a little over $1 billion
figure and we are achieving Kingsford Smith Drive.
So won't they look like a bunch of mugs when it's done? When it's done and
completed and people are driving down and receiving the congestions benefits
and it's because of this deal. This agreement is what governments should be all
about. It should be about investing the capital to get projects—which in a tight
economic times would otherwise not get up, which are much needed
infrastructure for our city and then recycling that capital and getting on with
the next project.
You don't want to stand still, the city can't afford to stand still like it did under
the previous Labor Administration. That's what this deal allows us to achieve.
Councillor DICK spent most of his time talking about the two different
projections, well that's the beauty of this agreement, that's what makes it a
unique way of doing it, because it will be based on actual traffic volumes. It
will be based on actual traffic volumes, we don't—this agreement hasn't been
negotiated on the basis of how many cars we think will go through the tunnel
and there'll be an element of risk built into all of that.
We don't need to do any of that, we don't need to accept the lower price
because we're basing it on projections which may or may not come to pass.
What you've got are two sets of scenarios so that you can benchmark what this
Council can expect. But when you've got infrastructure like Clem 7 achieving
30,000 cars, infrastructure like Airport Link achieving 50,000 cars a day, that
would indicate to you, indicate to a reasonable and rational person, that 24,000
cars is pretty in the ballpark. Pretty in the ballpark, Madam Chairman.
So this comment—and look, the independent councillor's speech was little
more than vitriol—but this idea that it's some kind of low ball offer has to be
soundly rejected because to come to that conclusion, you would have to ignore
every piece of independent advice and expert opinion that has been laid bare in
this Council Chamber today.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman. Councillor DICK talked about whether
or not he could quote the EY report and then he didn't really. I suspect the
reason why is because if he'd quoted the EY report, what he would have said is
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
65
that they said that BCC's current proposed concession deed is not inconsistent
with what we would reasonably expect to believe from market-based
participants. What he would have said, what he would have quoted from EY is
that in—is that they said that in respect of Legacy Way, the present value
range of the consideration is within the range of present values for the forecast
equity cash flows of Legacy Way.
So in other words, it's within that range that can be expected from the market.
In respect of the Go Between Bridge, he would have quoted that it's greater
than what could have been—the offer we've got in front of us is greater than
what could have been expected from going to market.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order, DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Will Councillor SIMMONDS take a question?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Certainly, Councillor SCHRINNER.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Councillor SIMMONDS, given the high profile failures of PPPs in the past,
would it be unreasonable to expect that a company like Ernst & Young would
not put their reputation on the line and say this is a good deal if it wasn't a
good deal?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Well absolutely and it's a very fair point that you've made, Councillor
SCHRINNER. These are—this is independent advice, this is Ernst & Young
putting their word, their name, their reputation, their brand on the line that this
is a good deal for our ratepayers and that is what ratepayers could expect if
they went out to market. Madam Chairman, you would think from the
comments opposite that somehow we operate in a vacuum, in a total no man's
land in which there exists nothing else other than Legacy Way and Go
Between Bridge.
Well it's not true. It's not true; there have been many examples, both in this
city, in this state, interstate, across Australia, of PPPs and this kind of
infrastructure and the value that's placed on this kind of infrastructure. EY
knows what it’s worth, they know what these assets are worth, they know
what you could expect from the market. That's how they've judged whether or
not this is a good deal for ratepayers.
On top of that you've got the cost avoided from having to go out to a tender
process and you've got in QML a very successful partner. A partner, I might
add, that those opposite have gone out of their way to praise. As the experts in
operating toll infrastructure, as the experts in this kind of field, well they are
the experts, you're right, and guess what? They operate other toll infrastructure
in Brisbane so they can make savings at the back of house. They can create the
best deal, Madam Chairman, and that's what we've sought to achieve.
The LORD MAYOR has always said, right from the very beginning when
QML and QIC first approached us, that he would not do this deal unless it was
a good deal for ratepayers, Madam Chairman. This was not a foregone
conclusion by any means, but what we have done in reaching this agreement is
to get expert advice from the people who know. People like Ernst & Young,
people like Clayton Utz, who have said, this is what would be expected from a
market scenario.
This agreement is very much in line, I have to say, with the Labor position. It's
very much in line with the Labor Federal Government that we have at the
moment and the recommendations that they put in their Infrastructure Finance
and Funding Reform Report in June 2012, specifically the second
recommendation that governments should identify and monetise suitable
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
66
public assets, allowing the freed up capital and avoided debt repayments to be
recycled, invested into infrastructure projects.
For what it's worth, it's also their policy, it's also the policy of the Labor
councillors opposite that they took to the last election when they said on 28
April 2012 that Labor wants superannuation firms to invest in Brisbane's latest
toll tunnel, the $1.5 billion Legacy Way. As I have said before, the only
difference is that they were going to invest it in Sunday Fundays, free sun
screen and a $250 million black hole. This administration is going to invest it
in brand new congestion-busting infrastructure.
How hollow the words of the Labor councillors opposite now seem. How
hollow the words of Councillor DICK when he went on radio and urged us to
get on with Kingsford Smith time—it's time, he said, to get on with Kingsford
Smith Drive right away. How hollow were the words of Councillor SUTTON
when she said, I will give you my unequivocal support to upgrade Wynnum
Road. Wow, what hypocrites. Here they are, here's their opportunity. Here's
their opportunity to do it in a way that doesn't have a negative impact on QTC
and our financiers and our credit rating. Here is their opportunity to do it and
they're rejecting it, Madam Chairman.
It is incredibly, incredibly disappointing. Under the proposal before us, as
we've already talked about, Council will receive a benefit of between $1.078
billion and $1.58 billion in benefits over the next seven years in both cash
benefits and savings from costs avoided. In return, we will lease those tolling
rights for 50 years—and there is another good point. This is not a sale. This is
not what the Labor—last Labor State Government did when they had a fire
sale of assets to try and improve their finances, this is a lease, the
infrastructure will come back to Council after 50 years.
You're winding me up are you, Madam Chairman, that I'm out of time? Thank
you very much.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor
ABRAHAMS.
SIMMONDS.
Further
debate,
Councillor
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I wish to discuss and refute some of
the comments that were said by the DEPUTY MAYOR. But first of all on this
issue I'd just like to emphasise, it was an unsolicited approach. It has not been
tested in the market. The negotiations have been exclusively with one party,
being Queensland Motorway Holdings, and there is $0.5 billion difference in
Council's advices in what the true sale price is and that of Queensland
Motorway Holdings.
As well as that, it is a short term deal where the like of what we can do as an
alternative are glittering so brightly that the administration is not really seeing
the basic flaw in this proposal. Madam Chair, I'd just like to go to the media,
in The Courier-Mail, and there was an article that actually said, ‘Brisbane City
Council's decision to sell Legacy Way and Go Between Bridge tolling rights
makes sense’.
Wow, I thought, then it continues. ‘But, QIC is the real winner’, and Robert
MacDonald goes on in that article to say, ‘but the big question is whether
Council and ratepayers are getting the best possible price for this new deal. It
is highly likely we are not for a couple of reasons.’ Now, it doesn't mean that
it's just the opposition councillor and the independent councillor, it is The
Courier-Mail and very considered reporter raising serious concerns.
But, Madam Chair, other people have expressed those concerns very well, I'm
refuting the Finance Chair who just nearly said, we want the cash so we can do
more infrastructure projects and that's why we're into this project. But what I
do refute, which is what's been said and was said earlier today, that the figures
where it comes to Legacy Way are not actual figures, as compared to the Go
Between Bridge, but are guesses. Then further on, the LORD MAYOR has
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
67
just said that we have—none of us know the numbers, and he was referring to
traffic volumes in that place.
The argument of the Gateway Bridge was used, I think, three times in the
DEPUTY MAYOR's speech. This is just a furphy. Council has the ability to
do land use planning. Land use planning dictates some of our traffic volumes.
It in fact dictates it incredibly well except where there is congestion. The land
use planning that has taken part is why we've had the duplication of the
Gateway Bridge, because you can't have two trade coasts on either side of the
river and the growth of the airport and not see the need of a second Gateway
bridge.
So Councillor SCHRINNER, your argument that we don't know the figures is
just not accurate and should not be used to muddy the waters of this appalling
contract, as well as that. The other issue, they are actually saying by, we don't
know the figures, and we are out by $0.5 billion on those traffic figures, means
they are completely rejecting the integrity of Council's transport model. It's our
model, it's a model that should be up to date. It is a model that we should be
amending with the new land use planning document. It is a model that should
take into account the successes or failures of the existing tunnels.
But it is totally inappropriate for the administration to just ignore we've got a
model, ignore that we're basing a lot of our infrastructure, the development
and the ratepayers are contributing to, for the development of that
infrastructure, which is based on the transport model. It works for if you do an
upgrade in Councillor QUIRK's ward, I'm sure, but it doesn't work when we're
actually considering this proposal and the tolling—that's right, on his old
ward—I should have said Councillor SCHRINNER's. I apologise, Councillor
SCHRINNER's ward.
But it doesn't work when we are considering the traffic volumes related to
these two pieces of traffic infrastructure. I reject that analysis, it is simply not
true. It is part of a smoke screen to, in the future, when they know this goes
belly-up, they will be able to say, we never knew the traffic volumes. Well
believe me, we do know the traffic volumes and we do know—we do know
the traffic volumes if we properly have respect for our model and our land use
planning. Also if council went out into the market and tested what they
thought might be appropriate traffic volume figures than what we have from
Council and the figures we've got from Queensland Motorway.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, it's certainly
been a wide-ranging debate. Look, can I just say this? The numbers that are on
the table, Madam Chairman, will deal with actual traffic volumes. I can't think
of a fairer way of sharing risk than by dealing in actual numbers. There's been
lots of models, we've known with Clem 7, Madam Chairman, that the
consortiums modelled 100,000 vehicles a day in that facility. This Council
modelled 34,000 I think it was at the time.
Madam Chairman, we know that the same has applied with Airport Link, the
numbers that the consortiums modelled vastly different to the models
proposed within business plans by this Council and when the state government
took over that project. What we will be dealing with is very much the real
numbers that pass through. We've heard some fairly interesting propositions
put forward today. Councillor DICK suggesting that it's a bit like somebody
coming, knocking on your door, offering you $200,000 and saying, we'll take
it.
Well if that was the case, Madam Chairman, this deal would have been done
late last year or at the very latest in January this year when I announced that
we would be entering negotiations. Madam Chairman, the reality is that is has
taken this long because the detailed work needed to be done. The proper
analysis needed to be undertaken and we sought the right advice to do that, not
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
68
rely on internal sources in this Council but by seeking the best of professional
advice, people that deal in the infrastructure world each and every day.
It is an interesting turnabout that has been put forward today, and Councillor
SIMMONDS indicated it when he made reference to Labor's position in the
election campaign. They said then that they supported the undertaking of
superannuation firms having an engagement in this infrastructure. Mr Ray
Smith said that attracting superannuation funds to toll tunnels was an approach
that had worked in other cities. He went on to say that there are other toll
tunnels throughout Australia that are administered by long term
superannuation funds and that is the type of partner I'd be looking for to bring
on board as an investor.
So that was their position a couple of years ago and it seems now that this
administration is undertaking this very same thing that suddenly, all of a
sudden, it's not the right thing to do. Suddenly they have had a change of heart,
Madam Chairman, and that is a fascinating for me to observe here today. They
talk about a $0.5 billion shortfall. I might remind councillors opposite and
Councillor FLESSER was certainly in the room with me in lock up for a
couple of days as we debated the Clem 7 tunnel. Madam Chairman, this
administration all up put around $750 million towards that PPP.
So to suggest that you're looking at a variation of $0.5 billion here, Madam
Chairman, I just say this, that again what we have is a scenario based on a
model put forward by one group of people. The other a scenario put forward
by this Council and, Madam Chairman, the actual dollars will be on the
reality, not reliant on models, not reliant on maybes, but reliant on actuals.
Now, Madam Chairman, it is interesting that we hear terms like fire sales,
funny money, well we'll see when Kingsford Smith Drive commences, we'll
see whether it's funny money that's building it.
I suggest it'll be real dollars, I suggest we'll have companies like Leighton that
might even be bidding on that project, Madam Chairman. I would suspect that
they would be an interested party in undertaking such a project. So, Madam
Chairman, we will wait and see. We just remember somebody who wanted to
bid only with them, but now of course is very concerned about their LNP
principles. I remember the history.
Councillor interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
So crocodile tears here today won't impress me.
We know that some opposite, though, support these toll projects. I know that
Councillor GRIFFITHS is one who does use those facilities, and that's fine.
But look, Councillor FLESSER asked why we are doing this. Why is it so? It
was Professor Sumner-Flesser today. Why is it so? But we know that we are
doing this because we do want to get on with developing further infrastructure,
in line with what the Federal Government's own report suggested. That is what
was driving it.
I got absolutely confused with Councillor ABRAHAMS. She seemed to be
suggesting that we should somehow be undertaking land use planning to
bolster the numbers around our infrastructure build. This to me—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Claim to be misrepresented.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
I don't think so, Councillor. This was sounding very much to me like high
density funnelling, if you ask me. That was certainly the impression that I was
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
69
clearly left with in terms of using land use planning to somehow bolster
finances.
So, Madam Chairman, the outcome of this is that I am very pleased to be able
to support what is on the table here today. It gives us a way forward. I think
importantly what it does is it removes something that Labor has been
absolutely critical of for a long time, and that is the $650 million of operating
costs that this Council and its ratepayers would be faced with over the next
period of time through to 2020. That is $650 million that this Council does not
have to find in terms of those underlying costs. That is significant, and that is
something that is allowing us, as I say, to get on and do other good things.
So, Madam Chairman, at the end of the day, when the next generation or two
of ratepayers come along, they will have a facility which they have been using,
the current generation and future generations, a facility—two facilities in this
case—that they will be using. They will also have, come that 50-year mark, a
facility that will be back in their hands at a level of handover well maintained,
maintained at somebody else's expense, not this city's ratepayers' expense.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, you claim to be misrepresented.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Yes. My point of order was that the transport model takes into account land
use and can predict the traffic. I certainly was not saying that we undertake
land development to make this transport stack up.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor ABRAHAMS. I will now put item C.
Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor Milton DICK 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, 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.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, item E please.
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Item E has come about as a result of
a number of things. The first thing, I suppose, it is fair to say is 25 years ago
all Councillors in this place, or Aldermen as we were then, had salaries which
were tied to the Federal Government and State Government arrangements.
There was also then a further change made to salaries in—and I've lost my
document here for the moment, sorry. Here we go, I've got it.
Madam Chairman, the date of that change was 23 April 1991. At that time the
Lord Mayor's salary was linked with that of a Cabinet Minister. So it was that
for two decades and more, that policy had worked well. It had worked I think
without too much public concern. What happened then, of course, in 2007, I
think it was, the Prime Minister decided to freeze the salaries of federal
parliamentarians. That, of course, subsequently meant that Councillors'
salaries were also frozen. It has been the case that, since that time, between
those freezes and other freezes imposed by Anna Bligh as Premier of the time,
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
70
it has meant that there has been only two increases in that period. It equates to
8 per cent. Community increases have been around 30 per cent in that same
period.
So, Madam Chairman, that of course then saw the federal parliamentarians'
review panel undertake a reassessment of relativities which resulted in a fairly
large number. That flowed then subsequently to the state. It then became an
issue for this Council to address. Now, what I indicated was that we would
have a look. Given the passage of time, 25 years down the track, it was time
that we looked at our relativities. Is it still appropriate to link a Councillor's
salary at $500 below that of a base salary of a state parliamentary member? As
we all know, that does not mean in reality it is $500 less; it is $500 less than
the base salary of a state parliamentary member. In reality the gap is much
more.
That said, what we have before us today is a policy which does a number of
things. It sets out some principles around which the policy is based, and those
principles being that the remuneration setting a process will be transparent and
accountable; that Councillors will accept the decision of an independent
tribunal. The policy also looks at setting in place a tribunal to examine the
salaries of local Councillors. It also will view the arrangements in terms of the
roles of Lord Mayor, Cabinet members, Chairman of Council, and Leader of
the Opposition, in terms of relativities of that.
The policy will also provide for, once the tribunal has set a new base, a new
relativity, that it would then be the case that Councillors' salary would be tied
to the increases, the percentage increases, of a state parliamentary determined
tribunal. But then, every five years, a new tribunal would be established, or
new membership of a tribunal would be established. It could be members of
the previous tribunal. It does not exclude them, but a new tribunal would be
established each five years to re-examine the relativity.
Again, what this does is it places out of the hands of Councillors direct
determination of salaries. I have always been of the view that that is not
appropriate, that it ought to be looked at by an independent panel, and this
independent panel is what we would look to do. It says in this document also
that that panel would be appointed by the Civic Cabinet after consultation with
the Leader of the Opposition.
I said publicly that the panel in my view ought to consist of a former industrial
relations commissioner. I said that because I felt that a person of that order,
someone that is used to hearing wage claims. Someone that spends their life or
career in that field would be an adequately qualified person to add to the value
of a committee or panel that looked into these matters. So, I think that covers
most of the points. The policy is there for Councillors to see, and it is
submitted to this Chamber for its consideration and approval today.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on this item tonight. I won't be
speaking long, but I do want to make a couple of points. This is a serious issue
that affects all of us. My position and that of Labor Councillors, and I speak
on their behalf tonight, is that we agree—and I want to point out the things
that we do agree with the LORD MAYOR—we agree that there should be a
panel. We agree the nexus should be broken between the different levels of
government, and we should handle this in a sensitively and appropriate
manner to have an outcome that does reflect community standards. That is the
first opening statement I would like to make this evening.
This is not a reflection on the LORD MAYOR or any of those opposite who
serve in this Council Chamber. But I do disagree with the LORD MAYOR on
the following points. We are not doing this because we came up with it or we
thought it was time to review our salaries. We are not doing this because
someone inside the LNP or someone inside the ALP or anyone inside this
organisation thought it was time to review it. We are doing it because the LNP
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
71
State Government, as the LORD MAYOR said, lifted the freeze on
parliamentarians' salaries. That action ensured a huge community backlash, a
massive groundswell of support. All of us received—and I can speak for the
Labor Councillors on this side of the Chamber—all received feedback that it
was too much—too much, too soon.
Now, I move around the community a lot, as all Councillors do, and the
feedback was overwhelming. They could not believe the greedy state LNP
members would be taking the money and running. That is what they were
doing. They did not go out and say, hey, hey, hey, we need to review this, it's
too much. Jeff Seeney, the Deputy Premier, who was in charge at the time,
went out and said, this is the law, we have to do it, and some media comments
said that he's got the same responsibility as a federal minister and there was a
backlash.
There was one state LNP member, I cannot remember who it was, who came
out against it, but the rest all basically went along with it, and basically said,
well, that's the rules. I have to say this, because it is the most revolting thing
that I've heard, for Jeff Seeney to somehow blame Anna Bligh for this. I don't
mind criticism of the former government. I have done it myself. It is a political
Chamber. The State Government has the right to do that. But to criticise
someone who froze salaries and to somehow in the twisted logic to blame that
person is outrageous. It's wrong. It is absolutely disgusting. Jeff Seeney, the
State LNP, got—
Councillor MURPHY:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor DICK; Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Acting Chairman, Jeff Seeney is not mentioned in this report, and
neither is the LNP State Government.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor MATIC, I recognise that. However, the circumstances that have led
to this situation have got State Government implications. However, Councillor
DICK, could you—
Councillor DICK:
I'll move on.
Acting Chairman:
—confine your remarks to—
Councillor DICK:
I'll move on. I've made my point. However, that is why we are in this situation.
So, yes, I agree with the panel. I thank the LORD MAYOR for the consultation
involved and his involvement with me in this process. I don't agree with the fact
that the Civic Cabinet will appoint the panel. I think it should have been thrown
open for community representation to come forward to nominate. Of course,
considering it affects all of us, it should come to full Council. That is my
position very clearly.
In terms of the nexus, well, in my understanding of the papers tonight and in the
terms of reference, it's sort of a hybrid. We're sort of basically saying, well, yes,
our own panel will determine it, but in the event when that doesn’t meet, we'll
defer back to what the state panel increases the salaries for. I don't think
necessarily that's the best way forward. My issue would be, if we are going to
have our own panel, they set it, and we have faith and confidence in those
individuals that we then will abide by their decision. That would be my
preference. That is how I would do it. I am sorry, but given the State
Government's track record in this area, I don't feel comfortable supporting a
resolution tonight that defers to them, given that we are into this mess as a result
of their actions, and their flip-flopping and their behaviour.
For those reasons, whilst I support the panel, whilst I won't be opposing the
individuals personally that the LORD MAYOR is suggesting or putting forward,
my disagreement tonight is about the process. Labor Councillors will play a
constructive role in working with the panel. I say that very clearly tonight. But
we expect, particularly in the light of the negotiations, and I won't touch on them
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
72
with the workforce in our organisation, at all times any increases in our salaries
must reflect community standards.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, I rise to speak on item E, and in the immortal words of Fleetwood Mac, I'm
happy to go my own way on this. I don't support the LNP's proposal today, and I
certainly don't quite agree with Councillor DICK's position on this matter.
I guess in watching this debate unfold over the past few weeks, it has been very
disappointing to see the State Government's extremely poor handling of this
matter. Obviously it was something that the senior leadership of the LNP, both
at Council and state level, knew about, and supported, when that pay rise came
out. The LORD MAYOR initially was saying that he thought it was a good
thing, that he thought it was appropriate we are tied to State salaries, and he
certainly wasn't saying, no, we're not going to take this pay rise.
I started asking some questions, and suddenly the LORD MAYOR changes his
tune and—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, well—am I wrong? I don't think so.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Really? I asked some questions, and the LORD MAYOR suddenly changes his
tune. It is interesting he appears to have been caught on the hop by the fact that
the State Government had a massive—I don't think you would call it a backflip;
I think it was like a sideways wriggle around the corner to try and get down the
rabbit hole and hide—but he seemed to be caught on the hop when the State
Government announced this tribunal. Because then he called an urgent E&C
meeting, and the botched process that he has put forward today seemed to come
out of this emergency E&C meeting.
Let me make it very clear why I will be abstaining from this. If this is what the
LORD MAYOR is going to do, he is going to do it, but I don't support it for the
following reason, and the following reason alone. I cannot stand up in this place
and say that I think I deserve a bigger pay rise than any single Council officer. I
do not support any salary changes that do not reflect the type of increase that we
are proposing to give to the Council officers who work in this place. I believe
any formula for our salaries should be based on a recognition of how much
those officers are paid and any increases that they might receive over time. I
think that is the fairest way to do it. If it's good enough for us to say to Council
officers, you can have a 2 per cent pay rise, then that should be something that
we are prepared to accept as well. It's as simple as that.
I know that there will be some secret squirrel deals in executive salaries, and
perhaps they should be taken into account in terms of what their percentages are,
but what I will say is, our salaries and the pay rises that we receive as
Councillors should reflect the same value that we are prepared to offer Council
employees. That is the fundamental position that I would support if it was put
forward by this LORD MAYOR.
Instead, the LORD MAYOR has put forward a tribunal that only meets once
every five years, and four out of five years we are still tied to whatever it is
those drongos up at George Street do, and clearly we know they can't get it right.
It is not good enough that this LORD MAYOR says publicly that it's time to
decouple ourselves, but for 80 per cent of the time he says, no, but we're still
going to do exactly what George Street does. Have some guts, LORD MAYOR,
have some guts. Stand up and say, yes, okay, I don't think what they did was
right; we're going to go our own way, and we are going to do what we think is
right and set up a tribunal. You have not done that today.
You're still going, ooh, I better keep Cammy happy and I'd better most of the
time do what he wants me to do, and then maybe every now and then I'll just
give people in Brisbane the impression I am independent and we'll have this
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
73
tribunal. You haven't even done that properly. So what I will say, Madam
Chairman, is I don't support what is being proposed here today. I think it is
really disappointing—and even journalists got the impression when the LORD
MAYOR announced that it wouldn’t happen unless it was bipartisan. How on
earth did they get that impression? The LORD MAYOR gave me a one-line
reply saying, we can discuss it in the Chamber. He is not prepared to talk to me.
He is only prepared to talk to Councillor DICK and the ALP, so that certainly
does not reflect a bipartisan approach.
I am really disappointed that this LORD MAYOR does not have a little bit more
respect for our staff and doesn’t value the idea that we should be tying any
increases in salaries to our own. I think that is the fairest way to do it. Because
then, if we say, yes, we think you're doing a good job and you deserve 3 per cent
or 4 per cent or whatever it is, then that would be reflected in our salaries. I
think that is a very reasonable way to go.
I think it is quite staggering to watch what happened up at George Street. I know
what happened with respect to the federal MPs' salaries a couple of years ago.
Their base was increased on a one-off because they lost a lot of their allowances.
So for Jeff Seeney to come along and say, yes, we're just going to take it, after
he had been given legal advice saying you should decouple, and this is the
reason, it was extraordinary to watch them back-pedal with the mistake they
made in recognising that. So, the fairest way in my view, if it's good enough for
our staff to get 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent, then that should be good
enough for us.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate; LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to make a couple of
comments in response to issues raised. Firstly, Councillor DICK, I acknowledge
that there is an argument that names could be brought to this Chamber in
relation to the panel. But I have a memory, and I recall that when we brought the
panel names for the CCRP here, good and decent people, we had reputations
which were trashed by a Councillor in this Chamber, and I wasn’t prepared—I
would be the first to accept, Councillor DICK, you would do the right thing in
relation to such a proposition, but I could not and cannot guarantee with the
make-up of this Chamber at the moment that being the case.
I thank you very, very much today for your indication that the panel names that I
put to you yesterday are names that are acceptable and I genuinely believe they
will do an honest and a very good job for the purpose that they are set to do.
Can I also say that Councillor JOHNSTON, in relation to your comments, that
there is every opportunity that can be made available for you when the panel
brings its decision down, whatever that decision might be. You are, of course,
able to just take the 2 per cent or whatever you want to take, and a provision can
be made available for you to donate—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman. I just seek your advice on this, because the
LORD MAYOR has stated—and it is in the papers—and I just want to make
sure that legally what he is saying is correct here. He has said, and this paper
says, that we are bound by the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, and
he said that in his introduction, and that's what these papers say.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am just checking what the case is.
Acting Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON. It is my understanding from the papers that the
tribunal will set a maximum, and I believe that what the LORD MAYOR has
just been indicating is that if you wish to not take the maximum, then you can
make personal provision for an alternative process via the CEO's office. LORD
MAYOR.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
74
LORD MAYOR:
No, Madam Chairman, what I am saying is if Councillor JOHNSTON feels that
she cannot live with herself, we can, through the Council, set up a direct debit
facility for those moneys to go to a charity of her choice. It can be very simply
and adequately accommodated if Councillor JOHNSTON feels conscience
bound to undertake that—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Just to be clear, could you please refer me to the part of the papers before us
where these matters are raised?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, it says in the definition that remuneration is defined as
salary and allowances, and that the role of tribunal will review and, as required,
reset the base remuneration level for a Councillor, in your case. Councillor
JOHNSTON, if you do not wish to accept the salary set, that is a matter for
yourself. LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
So it is not in the papers; right.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I was responding to Councillor
JOHNSTON in debate. I am wrapping up the debate in direct response to her. It
does not change anything in the policy. I am just simply saying that if people
feel their conscience will not allow them to take that money, then they have at
their disposal the opportunity through direct debit to forfeit those moneys
directly to a charity of their choice.
Councillor interjecting.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON! Do not call out across this Chamber. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
This is not a matter of policy, Madam Chairman; this is a matter of individual
conscience, and I am hearing today that Councillor JOHNSTON would have
problems in accepting a decision of a tribunal which was in excess of 2 per cent.
Now, I am just saying to her that that is an option that she has available—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Claim to be—point of order, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Claim to be misrepresented.
Acting Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, maybe I have misunderstood, maybe I have misunderstood, and she can
clarify that. Look, with the successful passage of this policy today, the
Establishment and Coordination Committee will move quickly to put in place a
panel so that the terms of reference as set out can be got on the way with, and
this matter resolved. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item E: those in favour -
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order.
Acting Chairman:
Sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON, your claim to be misrepresented.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
The LORD MAYOR just said that I would have trouble accepting a decision of
the tribunal if it wasn’t 2 per cent. I thought I made myself very clear that I
believe Councillors' salaries should be linked to those of any increases given to
Council officers—
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON, you have made your point.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—Madam Chairman, and I think that was very clear.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item E.
Clause E put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause E of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee held on 29 July 2013 was declared carried on the voices.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
75
Thereupon, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor Matthew BOURKE 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.
ABSTENTIONS: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor
(Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke,
Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan and Julian Simmonds.
A
PINKENBA – EAGLE FARM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
460/144/9(5)
13/2013-14
1.
Vicki Pethybridge, Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided
the information below.
2.
On 27 November 2007, Council resolved to prepare an amendment to the
Brisbane City Plan 2000 to include a local plan for Pinkenba and parts of Eagle Farm, entitled
the Pinkenba– Eagle Farm Neighbourhood Plan (the draft plan).
3.
The draft plan as outlined in Attachment B, submitted on file, provides a blueprint to guide
future development and key outcomes for the plan area including:
protecting scarce industrial land for large scale low, medium, high impact, noxious
and hazardous and port related uses that need to be buffered from residential and
other sensitive land uses
incorporating controls for new residential uses in the Pinkenba village to minimise
impacts on and from surrounding industries and the airport
allowing houses in Pinkenba village to be higher than 8.5 metres to minimise the risk
of flooding
identifying future road upgrades to cater for new industrial growth
nominating future structure planning for the Myrtletown Precinct to facilitate the
integrated development of high impact and noxious and hazardous industries and
essential infrastructure
adopting a new minimum floor level to minimise impacts on development from tidal
flooding, storm surge and future sea level rises.
4.
The draft plan was exhibited between 13 August 2012 and 24 September 2012 in accordance
with section 12 of Schedule 1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. A total of 54 submissions
were received, of which 52 were properly made and two not properly made.
5.
On 26 February 2013, Council resolved to amend the draft plan in response to the
submissions received and to submit the draft plan to the Queensland Government seeking
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
76
approval to adopt the scheme amendments.
6.
On 29 April 2013, the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and
Planning advised that Council could adopt the draft plan, Attachment D submitted on file.
7.
It is therefore recommended that Council resolve as per the draft resolution outlined in
Attachment A, hereunder.
Implications of proposal
8.
The draft plan will assist in achieving the outcomes of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 Strategic
Plan. The draft plan will aid in managing the pressures of population growth and ensure that
residents’ concerns about balancing areas of growth and maintaining residential amenity are
addressed.
Vision/Corporate Plan impact
9.
The draft plan, once adopted, will contribute to the following elements of the Corporate Plan
Program 4 – Future Brisbane:
4.1 (Planning for a growing city) – Update Brisbane City Plan 2000 to better align
with the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031
4.2 (Enhancing Brisbane’s liveability) – Revitalise and create integrated and diverse
commercial employment and residential opportunities in areas that are well serviced
by public transport
4.3 (Approving quality development) – Conserve Brisbane’s character in balance
with growth through more effective design mechanisms for new development.
10.
The Divisional Manager therefore submits the following recommendation, with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 22 July 2013.
11.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING SCHEME
FOR THE CITY OF BRISBANE PURSUANT TO SECTION 19(1) OF SCHEDULE 1
OF THE INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 TO INCLUDE THE
PINKENBA/EAGLE FARM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT(1)
AS
(a)
At its meeting of 26 February 2013, the Council, pursuant to section 16 of
Schedule 1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), resolved to proceed
with the proposed amendments to the Brisbane City Plan 2000 to include a
new local plan entitled Pinkenba – Eagle Farm Neighbourhood Plan and to
seek the Minister’s approval to adopt the proposed amendments.
(b)
By letter dated 29 April 2013 (Attachment D, submitted on file), the Minister
advised the Council that it could adopt the proposed amendments.
(c)
Council, pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the IPA, adopts the
proposed amendments as set out in Attachment B and the consequential and
further amendments, as set out at Attachment C, submitted on file.
(2)
THE COUNCIL DIRECTS
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
77
(a)
(b)
That a notice of the adoption of the amendments be given in accordance with
section 20 of Schedule 1 of the IPA.
Copies of the amendments and the notice of adoption be given to the
Chief Executive Officer in accordance with section 21 of Schedule 1 of the
IPA.
ADOPTED
B
DRAFT DARRA OXLEY DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
152/160/516/333
14/2013-14
12.
Vicki Pethybridge, Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, provided
the information below.
13.
The Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood planning process commenced in August 2010. The
draft Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood Plan (draft Neighbourhood Plan) will replace the
part of the current Western Gateway Local Plan that applies to this area.
14.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan advances the following objectives:
accommodating growth and provides for a mix of uses around the Darra and Oxley
Centres
encouraging development that supports housing choice around the Darra and Oxley
Railway Stations
encouraging continued economic growth by providing opportunities for businesses
around existing areas of industry
managing the interface of industrial land uses and sensitive land uses (i.e. residential)
in response to the State Planning Policy 5/10 Air, Noise and Hazardous Materials
identifying demolition control precincts north of the Oxley Railway Station.
15.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan was exhibited from 28 May 2012 to 9 July 2012. A total of 45
submissions were received, including 40 properly made submissions and five submissions
that were not properly made. The key matters raised in the submissions were:
in-principle support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan to provide further housing
choice by an increase in residential density around the Darra and
Oxley Railway Stations
the need for improved local road and access networks, to address existing traffic
concerns including congestion, pedestrian safety and car parking
not supportive of new development being constrained by a separation (buffer)
between the brickworks site (on Harcourt Road) and sensitive land use areas, such as
residential properties on Portal Street, Oxley
brickworks industry use should be defined as a High Impact Industry, not Medium
Impact Industry as included in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
16.
Following the review of submissions, additional investigations were completed by Council to
determine the most appropriate separation (buffer) distance to be maintained between the
brickworks site and proposed increased residential development densities. The investigations
recommended that a 300 metres separation (buffer) distance should be applied from the
brickworks site to areas of increased residential density under the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
17.
The recommended separation (buffer) distance affected 25 properties in an area northwest of
the Darra Railway Station. These properties had been publicly notified as changing from Low
Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential or Medium Density Residential in
the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
18.
Consequently, additional consultation occurred between 7 May 2013 and 28 May 2013 to
advise affected landowners of proposed changes. Feedback was sought from the landowners,
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
78
and one landowner responded who did not support the change and wanted to retain the
original proposed zoning under the advertised draft Neighbourhood Plan. Twenty four
landowners did not respond.
19.
It is proposed that the 25 properties remain as Low Density Residential.
20.
A summary report on the submissions received and corresponding responses, as required by
Statutory Guideline 02/12 (the 02/12 Guideline), is included in Attachment D, submitted on
file. General changes made to the draft Neighbourhood Plan in response to the submissions
include editorial amendments to further simplify the draft plan code.
21.
Should Council resolve to proceed with the amended draft Neighbourhood Plan, it will then
be referred to the Minister for approval to adopt pursuant to the 02/12 Guideline. Subject to
the Minister’s approval, the amended draft Neighbourhood Plan will then proceed to Council
for adoption.
22.
It is therefore recommended that Council resolve as per the draft resolution as set out in
Attachment A, hereunder.
Implications of proposal
23.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan will help manage the pressures of population growth and
ensure residents have a say in how future growth is accommodated. It will provide for an
increased number and diversity of dwellings and employment opportunities in an area that is
proximate to high quality public transport, thus assisting to meet growth targets set in the
South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and meeting the outcomes of the Strategic
Plan, within the Brisbane City Plan 2000.
Vision/Corporate Plan impact
23.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan, once approved, will contribute to the following elements of
the Corporate Plan Program 4 – Future Brisbane:
4.1 (Planning for a growing city) – Update Brisbane City Plan 2000 to better align
with the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031
4.2 (Enhancing Brisbane’s liveability) – Revitalise and create integrated and diverse
commercial employment and residential opportunities in areas that are well serviced
by public transport
4.3 (Approving quality development) – Conserve Brisbane’s character in balance
with growth through more effective design mechanisms for new development.
25.
The Divisional Manager therefore submits the following recommendation, with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 22 July 2013.
26.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE PLANNING SCHEME FOR BRISBANE
UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 TO PROCEED WITH A
LOCAL PLAN FOR DARRA OXLEY DISTRICT
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT(1)
AS
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
79
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
At its meeting of 7 June 2011, Council, pursuant to Step 1 of Stage 1 of Part 1
of the Statutory Guideline 02/09 (the 02/09 Guideline) under the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 proposed amendments to the
Brisbane City Plan 2000 to include a local plan entitled the
Darra Oxley District Neighbourhood Plan and consequential and supporting
amendments.
Pursuant to Step.2(a) of Step 2 of Stage 1 of Part 1 of the Guideline, a copy of
the proposed amendments was given to the Minister for a first State interest
review and the Minister advised the Council by letter dated
23 December 2011 (Attachment E, submitted on file) that it could publicly
notify the proposed amendments.
Pursuant to Step 7 of Stage 3 of Part 2 of the Statutory Guideline 01/12 (the
01/12 Guideline), such proposed amendments were publicly notified between
28 May 2012 and 9 July 2012, following which forty properly made
submissions and five submissions that were not properly made were received.
COUNCIL
(a)
pursuant to Step 8.2 of Step 8 of Stage 3 of Part 2 of the Statutory Guideline
02/12 (the 02/12 Guideline), having considered every properly made
submission, adopts the report (Attachment D, submitted on file) and the
recommendations therein and directs pursuant to Step 8.2(c) and Step 8.2(d)
of Step 8 of Stage 8 of Part 2 of the Guideline that:
(i)
each person who made a properly made submission be
advised in writing of the matters set out in Attachment D relating to
that submission
(b)
pursuant to Step 8.5(b) of Step 8 of Stage 3 of Part 2 of the 02/12 Guideline,
resolves to proceed with the proposed amendments with changes (as set out in
Attachment B, submitted on file, and the associated consequential
amendments as set out in Attachments C, submitted on file) and is satisfied
that these changes do not result in the proposed amendment being
significantly different to the version released for public consultation for the
reasons identified in Attachment B
(c)
pursuant to Step 8.6(b) of Step 8 of Stage 3 of Part 2 of the 02/12 Guideline
directs that written notice be given to the Minister seeking approval to adopt
the proposed amendments as set out in Attachment B and the associated
consequential amendments as set out in Attachments C and that written notice
be given in accordance with Step 8.7 of Step 8 of Stage 3 of Part 2 of the
02/12 Guideline.
ADOPTED
C
GO BETWEEN BRIDGE AND LEGACY WAY TUNNEL TOLLWAY
CONCESSION AND ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS
112/445/302/82
15/2013-14
27.
Greg Evans, Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.
28.
Following the Federal Government’s 2012 Infrastructure Finance and Funding Reform
Report, Council received an unsolicited offer from QIC Private Capital Pty Ltd and
Queensland Motorways Holding Pty Ltd (together QMH) for a tollway concession, long-term
lease and related network arrangements for Legacy Way (LW) and the
Go Between Bridge (GBB).
29.
In January 2013, the Lord Mayor announced that Establishment and Coordination Committee
had approved entering into exclusive negotiations with QMH to further investigate a possible
tollway concession arrangement for LW and the GBB. Council currently successfully
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
80
operates the GBB as a local government tollway and is currently constructing the LW project.
30.
Council chose to negotiate exclusively with QMH rather than going to competitive tender, on
the basis that QMH:was a State authority that Council could deal without going to competitive tender
as the owners of the Logan Motorway and Gateway Tolling Concessions, it would be
better placed than the private sector in cooperating and assisting Council and the
State Government on improving and coordinating Brisbane’s Traffic Network
would provide an offer that effectively met Council’s market expectation for this
transaction.
31.
Under the transaction proposed by QMH, Council will retain responsibility for completion of
the construction of LW and QMH will be granted a long-term tollway concession and lease
for tolling rights for both LW and GBB. The proposed concession period for each asset is 50
years and at the end of the concession period the asset operations would revert back to control
of Council as these assets will remain in Council ownership.
32.
On 4 July 2013, QMH submitted a final offer for the proposed tollway concessions
arrangements. The QMH offer is based on:upfront payments for the tollway concession arrangements at financial close under the
relevant contracts
additional future payments based on actual traffic and toll revenue outcomes for each
tollway asset.
33.
The possible payment outcomes based on different traffic outcomes are summarised below.
QMH Case
$ millions
BCC Case
$ millions
Go Between Bridge
Upfront (2013)
Year 5 (2018)
112
43
112
55
Legacy Way
Upfront (2015)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 5 (2020)
131
100
42
131
200
432
34.
These payments will assist with Council plans to continue to build much needed infrastructure
such as Kingsford Smith Drive and Wynnum Road projects.
35.
Under the concession arrangements, Council may also receive additional payments for future
revenue share from higher than expected traffic outcomes or additional refinancing benefits.
QMH will also be responsible for all operations and maintenance requirements throughout the
concession period, saving Council an estimated $650 million over the seven year payment
period.
36.
Council engaged an independent financial adviser to review the QMH offer and provide
independent market valuation advice regarding the proposed tolling concession. This advice
confirms that the final offer from QMH represents fair market value.
37.
Council has also engaged a legal adviser to ensure that the required legal documents reflect
market precedent transactions, provide for appropriate risk allocation and reflect the unique
nature of the transaction.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
81
38.
The Framework and Transition Deed as tabled sets out the key terms of the proposed
transaction. The list of associated Council contract documents is included as Attachment B,
submitted on file (together the Contracts).
39.
Settlement of these transactions will then occur on the nominated financial close dates for
both GBB and LW under the contracts.
40.
In order to achieve financial close, a number of conditions precedent will need to be satisfied.
41.
The conditions precedent are set out in the Framework and Transition Deed for the proposed
transaction and include the obtaining of the required Commonwealth and State Government
approvals and consents for the proposed transaction.
42.
It is therefore recommended that Council resolve in accordance with the draft resolution as set
out in Attachment A, hereunder.
Implications of proposal
43.
The adoption of this recommendation will result in the lease of the tolling concession rights
for both GBB and LW.
Commercial in confidence
44.
Yes. Commercial-in-Confidence material marked.
Vision/Corporate Plan impact
45.
The proposed transactions will assist in meeting a key Council objective of delivering much
needed congestion busting infrastructure projects such as the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade.
Customer impact
46.
There should be no change in customer service to users of GBB and potential users of LW.
The proposed concession arrangements will facilitate a whole of network approach to asset
ownership and simplify customer management across the Brisbane tolling network.
Financial impact
47.
Council will receive payments from QMH in return for the tollway concessions and will be
relieved of operation and maintenance costs throughout the concession period for each asset.
48.
The Divisional Manager therefore submits the following recommendation, with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 22 July 2013.
49.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT(1)
AS
(a)
Council has entered into exclusive negotiations with QMH to further
investigate a possible tollway concession arrangement for LW and the GBB.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
82
(b)
Council chose to negotiate exclusively with QMH rather than going to
competitive tender, on the basis that QMH:
(i)
was a State authority that Council could deal without going to
competitive tender
(ii)
as the owners of the Logan Motorway and Gateway Tolling
Concessions, QMH would be better placed than the private sector in
cooperating and assisting Council and the State Government on
improving and coordinating Brisbane’s Traffic Network
(iii)
has provided an offer that has effectively met Council’s market
expectations for this transaction.
THEN COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR
COUNCIL TO ENTER IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION WITH QMH FOR THE
TOLLWAY CONCESSIONS OF LW AND GBB WITHOUT FIRST GOING TO
COMPETITIVE MARKET TENDER.
(2).
BECAUSE OF (1), COUNCIL RESOLVES TOapprove the tollway concession and associated arrangements for:
(i)
Go Between Bridge
(ii)
Legacy Way Tunnel
(a)
with the Go Between Bridge Concessionaire and Legacy Way Concessionaire
established by Queensland Motorways Holding Pty Ltd respectively, generally in
accordance with the following:The Framework and Transition Deed as tabled
The associated documents tabled as listed in Attachment B, hereunder
but otherwise to the satisfaction of the Divisional Manager Organisational Services
and the Chief Legal Counsel.
(3).
Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer under section 238 of the
City of Brisbane Act 2010 the power and authority to:(i)
sign such documents as set out above and any other documents necessary to
bring this transaction to Financial Close
(ii)
make such actions, authorisations and decisions necessary to bring this
transaction to Financial Close
(iii)
manage aspects of the day to day operation of these contracts.
Attachment B
GO BETWEEN BRIDGE AND LEGACY WAY TOLLWAY CONCESSION AND
ASSOCIATED ARRANGEMENTS
LIST OF COUNCIL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
(a)
Framework and Transition Deed
Go Between Bridge Documents
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Concession Deed - Go Between Bridge
Exhibit A Concession Specification - GBB
Exhibit A Attachment 1 Code of Maintenance Standards - GBB
Exhibit A Attachment 2 Design Standards - GBB
Agreement to Lease - Go Between Bridge
Sub-Lease - Go Between Bridge
Debt Finance Side Deed - Go Between Bridge
General Security Deed - Go Between Bridge
Transitional O&M Services Agreement
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
83
(k)
Transitional Tolling Services Agreement
Legacy Way Documents
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
Concession Deed - Legacy Way
Exhibit A Concession Specification - LW
Exhibit A Attachment 1 Code of Maintenance Standards - LW
Exhibit A Attachment 2 Design Standards - LW
Agreement to Lease - Legacy Way
Sub-Lease - Legacy Way
Debt Finance Side Deed - Legacy Way
General Security Deed - Legacy Way
Project Deed and Site Access Deed Novation Deed
RSS Agreement
Change of Control Side Letter.
ADOPTED
D
ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND CONTRACTING PLAN 2013/14
109/105/219/16
16/2013-14
50.
Colin Jensen, Chief Executive Officer, provided the information below.
51.
Section 190 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) requires that Council
make and adopt a Procurement Policy for each financial year.
52.
The Procurement Policy must include details of the principles, including the sound
contracting principles that Council will apply in the financial year for purchasing goods and
services. The Council must review its Procurement Policy annually.
53.
Section 210 of the Regulation also requires that Council make and adopt a Contracting Plan
for the same financial year.
54.
The Contracting Plan provides for:
the types of contracts that the Council proposes to make in the financial year
the principles and strategies for performing the contracts
a policy about proposed delegations for the contracts
a market assessment for each type of contract
the contracts that the Council considers will be significant (a significant contract)
having regard to the market assessment
a policy about the making of a Significant Contracting Plan under section 211.
55.
The adoption of the Contracting Plan must not be before the handing down of Council’s
budget for the year in which the Contracting Plan is to apply.
56.
Council officers have prepared an Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan for the
2013/2014 Financial Year. The plan sets out Council’s strategic approach to its contracting
activities and also attaches:
Schedule A - Exemptions from Council’s standard Contract Manual requirements
Schedule B – Annual Contracting Objectives for 2013/14
Schedule C - Forward Contracting Schedule for Goods, Services and Construction
Schedule D - Forward Disposal Schedule.
57.
It is recommended that Council resolve as per the draft resolution set out in Attachment A,
hereunder.
Vision/Corporate Plan impact
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
84
58.
The policy and the plan are linked to the following Corporate Plan outcomes: 9.4 Value for money
Council responsibly manages ratepayers’ money spent in its businesses, and in the
delivery of its services through a centre-led, value-for-money procurement process.
Policy impact
59.
Adoption of the Resolution supports existing and future administrative arrangements to meet
Council objectives.
Publicity/marketing strategy
60.
Council is required by section 210(8) of the Regulation to allow the public to inspect and buy
copies of the Contracting Plan at the Council public office. The Annual Procurement Policy
and Contracting Plan will be available on Council’s website and accessible via the Brisbane
Square library.
61.
The Chief Executive Officer therefore submits the following recommendation, with which the
Committee agreed at its meeting of 22 July 2013.
62.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO ADOPT PROCUREMENT POLICY
AND CONTRACTING PLAN
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THATAS
(a)
Council has adopted the Strategic Contracting Procedures under Part 2 of
Chapter 6 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation)
Council is required by section 190 of the Regulation to adopt a Procurement
Policy
(c)
Council is required by section 210 of the Regulation to adopt a Contracting
Plan
(d)
An Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan complying with the
requirements of the Regulation have been prepared and are at attachment B,
submitted on file.
THEN COUNCIL:(i)
RESOLVES TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND
CONTRACTING PLAN at attachment B
(ii)
RESOLVES THAT THE ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND
CONTRACTING PLAN WILL APPLY FROM 30 JULY 2013.
(b)
ADOPTED
E
COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION POLICY
164/285/194/21
17/2013-14
63.
Peter Rule, Executive Manager, Office of the Chief Executive, provided the information
below.
64.
On 26 July 1988, Council approved a framework for councillor remuneration which
established differential remuneration according to the following classes of offices held by the
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
85
Lord Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairpersons and councillors.
65.
That framework was subsequently amended by Council on 23 April 1991 and 31 May 1994 in
respect of the salary and allowances of the Lord Mayor and, together with the Establishment
and Coordination Committee decisions of 17 May 1993 and 30 May 1994, represents the
authorised arrangements for councillor remuneration (the existing councillor remuneration
policy framework). These details are set out below:
A base salary for a councillor is $500 per annum below the base rate for a State
Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).
The Lord Mayor’s salary is an amount equal to the salary paid to a Minister in the
Queensland Legislative Assembly.
The relativities between the annual salary rate for the classes of offices are set out in
the table below.
Position
Councillor
Leader of the Opposition
Chairperson of Council
Committee Chairpersons
Deputy Mayor
Lord Mayor
-
Number
17
1
1
6
1
1
Relativity Base
100%
110%
125%
125%
130%
As per a State Cabinet Minister
The Lord Mayor has allowances equal to the minimum electorate allowance and
expense of office paid to a Minister of the Legislative Assembly.
Chairpersons and the Leader of the Opposition receive an expense of office
allowance amended annually by Consumer Price Index Movements (CPI).
66.
On 11 July 2013, the Lord Mayor announced that there would be no adjustment to councillor
remuneration until a new independent tribunal appointed by Council is established to reassess
the level of remuneration payable to councillors and higher classes of offices including the
Lord Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairpersons and the Leader of the Opposition.
67.
A new Councillor Remuneration Policy (AP216) has been prepared, Attachment A,
hereunder.
68.
Terms of Reference for the 2013 Tribunal have been prepared, Attachment B submitted on
file.
Implications of proposal
69.
Rescinding the existing councillor remuneration policy framework and establishing a new
Councillor Remuneration Tribunal to make independent salary determinations for councillors
will cut the nexus between councillor remuneration and state and federal parliamentary
salaries, and establish a transparent mechanism for setting councillor remuneration in the
future.
70.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE TO:
RESCIND THE EXISTING COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION POLICY
FRAMEWORK
APPROVE AP216 – COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION POLICY
APPROVE THE COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL TERMS OF
REFERENCE, ATTACHMENT B, submitted on file.
Attachment A
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
86
DRAFT - AP 216 - Councillor Remuneration Policy
Overview
Council will establish an independent tribunal to determine councillor remuneration. The
Tribunal will be reappointed every five years. Council will adopt annual percentage
movements between the review periods as set out by the State Government’s Independent
Tribunal.
Applicability
This policy applies to all classes of offices in Council including; the Lord Mayor, Deputy
Mayor, Chairman of Council, Chairmen of Standing Committees, Leader of the Opposition
and other councillors (section 231 of City of Brisbane Regulation 2012).
Definitions
Remuneration is defined as salary and allowances.
Remuneration does not include:
-
any amount for expenses to be paid or facilities to be provided to a councillor
under Council’s expenses reimbursement policy (including Ward Office
expenses)
-
motor vehicles, telephone and mobile computing devices as they are
considered tools of trade
-
any contribution the Council makes for a voluntary superannuation scheme,
for councillors established or taken part in by the Council under section 210
of the City of Brisbane Act 2010.
Principles
This policy is based on the following principles:
-
remuneration setting processes will be transparent and accountable
-
councillors will accept the decision of the independent Tribunal
-
any determination and recommendations in relation to councillor
remuneration will be compliant with the provisions set out in Chapter 8, Part
1, Division 1, sections 230 – 235 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012
-
councillor’s remuneration will be reviewed every five years
-
consideration is to be given to community expectations
-
public release of remuneration decisions will occur as soon as practicable.
Policy
-
Council will establish an independent Councillor Remuneration Tribunal to
determine appropriate levels of remuneration for all classes of offices.
-
The Tribunal’s role is to review and, where appropriate, reset councillor
remuneration.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
87
-
A Tribunal will be reconstituted every five years in sufficient time to allow
implementation of the Tribunal’s determination by 1 July of the relevant
year.
-
In the intervening years between Tribunal sittings, councillor remuneration
will be adjusted in accordance with the percentage increases applied by the
Queensland Government’s remuneration tribunal for Members of the
Legislative Assembly.
-
Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to implement the intervening
percentage movement as outlined in the point above without requirement to
refer the matter back to full Council.
-
The Tribunal shall consist of three members appointed by Civic Cabinet after
consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
-
Each Tribunal member will be paid a flat fee determined by Civic Cabinet at
the time of their appointment.
-
The Tribunal will act in accordance with Terms of Reference as approved by
Council.
-
Members are appointed to the Tribunal for a term of one review only,
although they may subsequently be appointed to future Tribunals.
-
The Tribunal’s findings will be implemented without amendment and will
not be subject to review.
Authority
Council 30/07/2013
City of Brisbane Regulation 2012
AP032 – Councillor Expenses Reimbursement Policy
Policy Owner
Executive Manager, Office of the Chief Executive
Further Assistance
Executive Services Coordinator, Office of the Chief Executive
Related Information
Nil
Review Date1 July 2018
ADOPTED
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
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
88
Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2013, on matters usually coming under the
jurisdiction of the Public and Active Transport Committee, be noted.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman. There are seven petitions before us, all of
them in respect of the State Government's bus review and/or as a result of the
State Government requesting Council to undertake that bus review.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Yes, Madam Chair, thanks for the call. I just want to rise.
Seriatim - Clauses E and F
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause E, PETITION – REQUESTING A MORE FREQUENT
EVENING AND WEEKEND BUS SERVICE IN BULIMBA AND SURROUNDING SUBURBS, and Clause
F, PETITION – OPPOSING CHANGES TO BUS SERVICES AS PROPOSED BY THE QUEENSLAND
GOVERNMENT AS PART OF THE BUS NETWORK REVIEW, be taken seriatim for voting purposes and
that Clauses A, B, C, D and G be taken en bloc voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Correct. Very briefly, I have spoken about the cutbacks to the buses. They
started last Monday, and the feedback that I want to place on record is that
residents in my ward are bitterly upset. I spoke with a number of residents on
the day. I spent the majority of my day at the Inala Plaza and also at the Civic
Centre fielding angry complaints from residents. One individual particularly that
had to walk a kilometre because her bus simply didn't turn up. Now, that is a
really sad state of affairs.
My local paper, the Satellite newspaper, this was the coverage: Council hits the
brakes. Inala commuters feel ignored after Brisbane City cancels services. Then,
I pay credit to Inala resident Thelma Worldon who is upset by the suspension of
several local services, and I want to place on record my support for particularly
the seniors in the community who have been hardest hit in and around the Inala
district. As Thelma said quite adequately, I don't know what I'm going to do
about the recent bus changes; I am not sure how I get around. I usually walk to
the shops and then wait for the bus any time I need to go somewhere. Now I
don't know what is going to happen or where my bus will take me.
That really sums up tonight's argument where you've got some of the most frail
and vulnerable in the community being hardest hit by this Council. I know that
the community in Inala have been targeted by this administration. This is an
uncaring and cruel administration that treats Inala residents with contempt most
days of the week. What my call today is, as we move forward, quarantine the
services now. The LORD MAYOR and Councillor MATIC are now looking at
over $3 million worth of cutbacks into buses this year. Enough is enough.
Tonight I want Councillor MATIC to rise and stand and say, not one more bus
will be cut in and around the Inala district as part of the next round when the axe
comes down on public transport.
The community is hurting. Local residents, over 2,500, and 500 signed
submissions to TransLink to save these services; the LNP chose to ignore them.
Tonight I reiterate my call for the LNP to stop the cuts, to make sure that you
listen to what the community is saying. I'll keep fighting with them. I'll keep
standing shoulder to shoulder with them to make sure that public transport is
delivered in the south west of Brisbane.
Acting Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Just quickly in response to Councillor DICK, there were services in Councillor
DICK's ward that were specifically allocated towards connections between the
rail networks and nowhere else, averaging low patronage at peak hour and
virtually no one in the off peak. Surprisingly enough, I'm sure there was some
connection with the fact that the State Minister for Public Transport at the time
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
89
was also the state member, but apart from that, what we've actually done,
although Councillor DICK would never admit it, is that now we have evaluated
his services, they are actually going into areas where residents have never had
bus services before, and still connecting to Inala Shopping Centre and still
connecting the rail network.
Council officers were out for three weeks beforehand at all those key points
advising residents, providing feedback, with bus drivers there providing that
feedback, and also providing handouts, and another week after that, and I say to
Councillor DICK: if you've got residents who are still uncertain about bus
services, how they've improved, where the connections are, please provide me
their names and details and we will have Brisbane Transport contact them and
be able to provide them with actual unbiased information rather than what we
have been receiving from you up to date.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor MATIC; I will now put items A, B, C, D and G as a
group.
Clauses A, B, C, D and G put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B, C, D and G of the report of
the Public and Active Transport Committee Committee setting out the decisions of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2013was declared carried on the
voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen 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,
Vicki
HOWARD,
Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, 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.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item E.
Clause E put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause E of the report of the Public and
Active Transport Committee Committee setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2013was declared carried on the voices.
Acting Chairman:
I will now put item F.
Clause F put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause F of the report of the Public and
Active Transport Committee Committee setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee as delegate of the Council during the Winter Recess 2013was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
A
PETITION – OBJECTING TO BUS SERVICE CUTS AFFECTING THE
101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 116, 172, 598, AND 599 SERVICES
CA13/291928
18/2013-14
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
90
1.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, objecting to bus service cuts affecting the 101, 102,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 116, 172, 598, and 599, was presented to Council at its
meeting held on 7 May 2013, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.
2.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.
3.
The petition contained 32 signatures. One petitioner resides in Seventeen Mile Rocks, six in
Corinda, six in Graceville, three in Inala, two in Oxley, 11 in Sherwood, two in Sinnamon
Park and one from an unknown location.
4.
The TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads, an entity of Queensland
Government, is responsible for the delivery of public transport services for South East
Queensland. Council’s Brisbane Transport operates bus services under a contract with
TransLink and all service changes, including the installation of bus stops, are subject to
TransLink approval and funding.
5.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
21 March 2013 the Queensland Government handed back its review of bus services within the
Brisbane Transport network area back to Council. The Queensland Government asked
Council to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient network by reducing
the cost of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised resources to the
overcrowded routes.
6.
Council’s recommendations are a measured approach to delivering a more efficient Brisbane
Transport bus network and will not leave areas unserviced. As part of these recommendations
Council also too into consideration the extensive comments and feedback that the public
previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s review.
7.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were still
required. Proposed changes were presented for public consultation between 22 April and 20
May 2013.
8.
Council carefully considered all community feedback before passing recommendations on to
the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
Consultation
9.
Councillor Nicole Johnston has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.
Customer impact
10.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
11.
It is recommended that the petitioners be advised that Brisbane City Council made available
for public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network area and that the consultation period was from 22 April to 20 May 2013. Council
carefully considered community feedback before passing on recommendations to the
Queensland Government on 1 June 2013 .
12.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
13.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 24 June 2013.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
91
14.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
B
PETITION – CALLING ON THE LORD MAYOR AND THE QUEENSLAND
GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN BUS SERVICES AND ENTER INTO A
THREE MONTH PERIOD OF CONSULTATION
CA13/169526
19/2013-14
15.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting that the Lord Mayor and the Queensland
Government maintain bus services and enter into a three month period of consultation, was
presented to the meeting of Council held on 7 May 2013, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and
received.
16.
Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.
17.
The petition contained 58 signatures. Four reside in Acacia Ridge, five in Coopers Plains, two
in Indooroopilly, nine in Moorooka, three in Robertson, 20 in Salisbury, five Tarragindi, and
one signature from each of the suburbs of Annerley, Ekibin, Nathan, Rochedale, Rocklea,
Sherwood, Sunnybank, Sunnybank Hills, Wishart, and Wooloowin.
18.
The TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads, an entity of Queensland
Government, is responsible for the delivery of public transport services for South East
Queensland. Brisbane Transport operates bus services under a contract with TransLink and all
service changes, including the installation of bus stops, are subject to TransLink approval and
funding.
19.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
21 March 2013 the Queensland Government handed its review of bus services within the
Brisbane Transport network area back to Council. The Queensland Government asked
Council to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient network by reducing
the cost of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised resources to the
overcrowded routes.
20.
Council’s recommendations are a measured approach to delivering a more efficient Brisbane
Transport bus network and will not leave areas unserviced. As part of these recommendations
Council also took into consideration the extensive comments and feedback that the public
previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s review.
21.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were
required. Proposed changes were presented for public consultation between 22 April and
20 May 2013 and Council was unable to extend this period as the Queensland Government
has determined the timeframe for providing recommendations and the final review date.
22.
Council carefully considered all community feedback before passing recommendations on to
the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
Consultation
23.
Councillor Steve Griffiths, Ward Councillor for Moorooka, has been consulted and does not
support the decision.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
92
Customer impact
24.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
25.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that Council made available for
public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network area and that the consultation period was from 22 April to 20 May 2013. Council
carefully considered community feedback before passing on recommendations to the
Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
26.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
27.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 24 June 2013.
28.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
C
PETITION – CALLING ON THE LORD MAYOR TO PROVIDE A
GUARANTEE THAT BRISBANE BUS SERVICES WILL NOT BE CUT AS A
RESULT OF THE TRANSLINK REVIEW OF BUS ROUTES
CA13/186773
20/2013-14
29.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting that the Lord Mayor provide a guarantee
that Brisbane bus services will not be cut as a result of the TransLink review of bus routes,
was presented to the meeting of Council held on 26 March 2013, by Councillor Helen
Abrahams, and received.
30.
Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.
31.
The petition contained 93 petitioners, 68 reside in Annerley, one in Fairfield, one in
Hawthorne, two in Inala, 18 in Moorooka and three in Tarragindi.
32.
The TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads, an entity of Queensland
Government, is responsible for the delivery of public transport services for South East
Queensland. Council’s Brisbane Transport operates bus services under a contract with
TransLink and all service changes, including the installation of bus stops, are subject to
TransLink approval and funding.
33.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
21 March 2013 the Queensland Government handed back its review of bus services within the
Brisbane Transport network area back to Council. The Queensland Government asked
Council to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient network by reducing
the cost of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised resources to the
overcrowded routes.
34.
Council’s recommendations are a measured approach to delivering a more efficient Brisbane
Transport bus network and will not leave areas unserviced. As part of these recommendations
Council also took into consideration the extensive comments and feedback that the public
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
93
previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s review.
35.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were still
required. Proposed changes were presented for public consultation between 22 April and
20 May 2013.
36.
Council carefully considered all community feedback before passing recommendations on to
the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
Consultation
37.
Councillor Helen Abrahams, The Gabba Ward Councillor, has been consulted and does not
support the decision below.
Customer impact
38.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
39.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that Council made available for
public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network area and that the consultation period was from 22 April to 20 May 2013. Council
carefully considered community feedback before passing on recommendations to the
Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
40.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
41.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 24 June 2013.
42.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
D
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT BUS SERVICES BE RETAINED IN
SOUTH-WEST BRISBANE
CA13/359570
21/2013-14
43.
A petition from residents of Brisbane requesting that bus services in south-west Brisbane be
retained, was presented to Council at its meeting of 28 May 2013 by Councillor Milton Dick,
and received.
44.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, provided the information below.
45.
Department of Transport and Main Roads TransLink Division, is the entity of the Queensland
Government which is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and
infrastructure for South East Queensland. Council has noted the petitioners’ concerns
regarding the Queensland Government’s review of bus routes and provides the following
information.
46.
Of the 165 petitioners, 115 reside in Inala, 15 in Durack, nine in Forest Lake, seven in Oxley,
six in Corinda, four in Richlands and the remaining petitioners came from surrounding
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
94
suburbs.
47.
Council continues to have a major role in operating bus services in Brisbane. However,
TransLink oversees all public transport delivery in Queensland and has the authority to
support or initiate changes to bus services.
48.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
March 21 2013 the Queensland Government handed its review of bus services within the
Brisbane transport network area back to Council. The Queensland Government asked Council
to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient network by reducing the cost
of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised resources to the overcrowded routes.
49.
Council’s recommendations were a measured approach to delivering a more efficient
Brisbane Transport bus network and will not leave areas un-serviced. As part of these
recommendations Council also took into consideration the extensive comments and feedback
that the public previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s
review.
50.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were
required. The proposed changes were presented to the public for consultation between
22 April and 20 May 2013.
51.
Council carefully considered all community feedback and passed on their recommendations
to the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
52.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that Council made available for
public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network along with the rationale behind these changes and that the consultation period was
from 22 April to 20 May 2013. As part of this consultation Council carefully considered
community feedback and passed on their recommendations to the Queensland Government on
1 June 2013.
53.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
Consultation
54.
Richlands Ward Councillor, Councillor Milton Dick, has been consulted and does not support
the decision below.
Customer impact
55.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
56.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 22 July 2013.
57.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
95
E
PETITION – REQUESTING A MORE FREQUENT EVENING AND
WEEKEND BUS SERVICE IN BULIMBA AND SURROUNDING SUBURBS
CA13/333500
22/2013-14
58.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting a more frequent evening and weekend bus
service in Bulimba and surrounding suburbs, was presented to Council at its meeting of
21 May 2013 by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.
59.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, provided the information below.
60.
The Department of Transport and Main Roads, TransLink Division, is the entity of the
Queensland Government which is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and
infrastructure for South East Queensland. Council operates bus services under a contract with
TransLink. All changes to bus services, including new services, are subject to approval and
funding by TransLink.
61.
Council has noted the petitioners’ concerns calling for a more frequent evening and weekend
bus service to Bulimba and surrounding suburbs.
62.
Of the 10 petitioners, four reside in Bulimba, one in East Brisbane, two in Hawthorne, one in
each of the suburbs of Highgate Hill, Keperra and Morningside.
63.
Council continues to have a major role in operating bus services in Brisbane. However,
TransLink oversees all public transport delivery in Queensland and has the authority to
support or initiate changes to bus services.
64.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
have advised Brisbane Transport that there is no funding available for additional bus services.
65.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that TransLink Division,
Department of Transport and Main Roads, an entity of the Queensland Government, is
responsible for the delivery of public transport services and infrastructure for South East
Queensland.
66.
Council will forward the petitioners’ concerns onto TransLink for their consideration.
Funding
67.
Under the existing contract arrangements between Council and TransLink, TransLink is
responsible for approving and funding any new services or enhancements to existing services.
Consultation
68.
Ward Councillor for Morningside, Councillor Shayne Sutton, has been consulted and does
support the decision.
Customer impact
69.
The regulation and funding of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
70.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 22 July 2013.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
96
71.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
F
PETITION – OPPOSING CHANGES TO BUS SERVICES AS PROPOSED BY
THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT AS PART OF THE BUS NETWORK
REVIEW
CA13/311705
23/2013-14
72.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, opposing changes to bus services as proposed by the
Queensland Government as part of the bus network review, was presented to Council at its
meeting held on 14 May 2013, by Councillor Victoria Newton, and received.
73.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.
74.
Of the 691 petitioners, 16 reside in Boondall, 108 Bracken Ridge, 152 Brighton, 55 Deagon,
95 Sandgate, 96 Shorncliffe, 17 Taigum, 13 unknown and the remaining petitioners came
from other various suburbs.
75.
TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads, an entity of the Queensland
Government which is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and
infrastructure for South East Queensland. Brisbane City Council has noted the petitioners’
concerns regarding the Queensland Government’s review of bus routes and provided the
following information.
76.
Council continues to have a major role in operating bus services in Brisbane. However,
TransLink oversees all public transport delivery in Queensland and has the authority to
support or initiate changes to bus services.
77.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
March 21, 2013 the Queensland Government handed its review of bus services within the
Brisbane Transport network area back to the Brisbane City Council. The Queensland
Government asked Council to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient
network by reducing the cost of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised
resources to the overcrowded routes.
78.
Council’s recommendations were a measured approach to delivering a more efficient
Brisbane Transport bus network and will not leave areas un-serviced. As part of these
recommendations Council also took into consideration the extensive comments and feedback
that the public previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s
review.
79.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were still
required. Proposed changes were presented for public consultation between 22 April and 20
May 2013.
80.
Council carefully considered all community feedback and passed on their recommendations
to the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
97
Consultation
81.
Councillor Victoria Newton, Ward Councillor for Deagon has been consulted and does
support the decision.
Customer Impact
82.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
83.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that Council made available for
public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network area and that the consultation period was from 22 April to 20 May 2013. Council
carefully considered community feedback and passed on their recommendations to the
Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
84.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
85.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
meeting held on 22 July 2013.
86.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
G
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT BUS SERVICES BE RETAINED IN
SOUTH-WEST BRISBANE
CA13/359550
24/2013-14
87.
A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting that bus services be retained in south-west
Brisbane, was presented to Council at its meeting held on 28 May 2013, by Councillor Milton
Dick, and received.
88.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.
89.
Of the 685 petitioners, 263 reside in Inala, 110 Wacol, 57 Durack, 42 Forest Lake, 25 Acacia
Ridge, 18 Doolandella, 11 Richlands and the remaining petitioners came from other suburbs
in Brisbane.
90.
TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads is the entity of the Queensland
Government which is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and
infrastructure for South East Queensland. Brisbane City Council has noted the petitioners’
concerns regarding the Queensland Government’s review of bus routes and provided the
following information.
91.
Council continues to have a major role in operating bus services in Brisbane. However,
TransLink oversees all public transport delivery in Queensland and has the authority to
support or initiate changes to bus services.
92.
TransLink recently undertook a review of bus services within South East Queensland and
released their recommendations in early March 2013 for the public to provide feedback. On
March 21, 2013 the Queensland Government handed its review of bus services within the
Brisbane Transport network area back to Council. The Queensland Government asked
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
98
Council to deliver recommendations for an improved and more efficient network by reducing
the cost of the network and redirecting some of the underutilised resources to the
overcrowded routes.
93.
Council’s recommendations were a measured approach to delivering a more efficient
Brisbane Transport bus network and will not leave areas un-serviced. As part of these
recommendations Council also took into consideration the extensive comments and feedback
that the public previously provided to TransLink as part of the Queensland Government’s
review.
94.
While Brisbane’s bus network did not require a radical overhaul, some changes were
required. The proposed changes were presented to the public for consultation between
22 April and 20 May 2013.
95.
Council carefully considered all community feedback and passed on their recommendations
to the Queensland Government on 1 June 2013.
Consultation
96.
Councillor Milton Dick, Councillor for Richlands Ward has been consulted and does not
support the recommendation.
Customer impact
97.
The regulation of services and bus routes is the responsibility of TransLink.
98.
It is the decision of Council that the petitioners be advised that Council made available for
public consultation their proposed changes to bus services within the Brisbane Transport
network along with the rationale behind these changes and that the consultation period was
from 22 April to 20 May 2013. As part of this consultation Council carefully considered
community feedback and passed on their recommendations to the Queensland Government on
1 June 2013.
99.
There were no proposed changes to the route 100 service.
100.
TransLink, a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, has accepted
Council’s recommended changes as part of the bus network review.
101.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed as its
meeting held on 22 July 2013.
102.
DECISION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
NOTED
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Acting Chairman:
Petitions. Councillors, are there any petitions? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a petition on behalf of residents in Shorncliffe
regarding the draft New City Plan.
Councillor McKENZIE.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
99
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Acting Chairman. I have a petition from people in Ridge
Street, Greenslopes, concerning certain works about to be undertaken in that
street.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you; Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD:
Yes, Madam Acting Chair, I have a petition for a pedestrian shared zone in
Hynes Street, Fortitude Valley.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Acting Chair, I have a petition from a business owner in Darra
regarding parking.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you; Councillor JOHNSTON, do you have a petition?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Oh, I've got lots, Madam Deputy Chairman. I've got a petition from Corinda
residents calling for Council to install depth markers on Pratten Street and other
flood signage around Pratten and Cliveden Avenue in Corinda—number one.
Number two: I have a petition from residents opposing the future growth zone
for Annerley, Fairfield, Yeronga, Yeerongpilly, Rocklea under the proposed
New City Plan, and I was expecting to have an electronic edition to table with
that, which is why I've brought it. It closed a few days—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, just present the petitions, thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, okay. But there's another exactly the same petition, and I did think I'd have
it today. I also have a petition from Yeerongpilly residents calling for degraded
streets in Yeerongpilly to be upgraded, and I have an extensive petition from
residents across the ward calling for Brisbane City Council to urgently develop a
rehabilitation and improvement action plan for Oxley Creek.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair; I have five petitions on different matters pertaining to
the New City Plan.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Madam Acting Chair, I have a petition on behalf of myself and Councillor
HOWARD from residents of Teneriffe and Newstead in relation to safety
measures in the Vernon Terrace Macquarie Street precinct.
Acting Chairman:
Thank you. No further petitions? Councillor MURPHY, may I have a motion for
receipt of the petitions please?
25/2013-14
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Victoria 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.
Councillor
Victoria Newton
CA13/521336
Ian McKenzie
CA13/521139
Vicki Howard
CA13/521207
Milton Dick
Topic
Objecting to two aspects of the draft new City Plan and a
development application for St Patrick’s College,
Shorncliffe
(This petition qualifies as a formal submission to the new
City Plan and has been processed accordingly)
Objecting to the proposed construction of a pedestrian
refuge island in Ridge Street, Greenslopes
Requesting a pedestrian shared zone in Hynes Street,
Fortitude Valley
Requesting 15-minute-timed parking bays in Sudbury
Street, Darra
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
100
CA13/521102
Nicole Johnston
Nicole Johnston
CA13/521245
CA13/521177
Nicole Johnston
Nicole Johnston
Helen Abrahams
Helen Abrahams
Helen Abrahams
Helen Abrahams
Helen Abrahams
CA13/521234
David McLachlan
Requesting a depth marker on Pratten Street, Corinda
Requesting the removal of Annerley, Fairfield, Yeronga,
Yeerongpilly and Rocklea from a proposed future growth
zone under the draft new City Plan (This petition qualifies
as a formal submission to the new City Plan and has been
processed accordingly)
Requesting the repair of six streets in Yeerongpilly
Requesting a flood mitigation plan for Oxley Creek
Objecting to the proposed change in assessment level for
applications to demolish character buildings under the
draft new City Plan (This petition qualifies as a formal
submission to the new City Plan and has been processed
accordingly)
Requesting a review of requirements for the provision of
car parking associated with unit development in LowMedium density areas under the draft new City Plan
(This document didn’t contain sufficient signatures to
qualify as a petition under Council’s Petitions to Council
Corporate Rule and was returned to the relevant Ward
Councillor).
Objecting to the proposed designation of infill
developments in low density/character residential areas as
Code Assessable under the draft new City Plan (This
petition qualifies as a formal submission to the new City
Plan and has been processed accordingly)
Objecting to four provisions regarding residential
development under the draft new City Plan (This petition
qualifies as a formal submission to the new City Plan and
has been processed accordingly)
Objecting to the allowance of two dwellings on one site in
Character Infill and Low Medium Residential Zones
under the draft new City Plan (This petition qualifies as a
formal submission to the new City Plan and has been
processed accordingly)
Requesting a 40km/h speed limit and improved pedestrian
crossing facilities on Skyring Terrace, Vernon Terrace
and Macquarie Street, Newstead
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Acting Chairman:
In opening General Business, Councillors, are there any Councillors with
statements or matters outstanding in respect of the CCRP that they wish to raise
at this stage?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Goodness me, how would you know about a confidential CCRP, Madam Acting
Chairman?
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I'm just wondering, that's all.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON —
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Just wondering.
Acting Chairman:
—if you wish to be acknowledged, you rise to your feet—
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
101
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your assistance.
Acting Chairman:
—and say, Yes, Madam Chairman.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I'm rising to speak on General Business this evening with respect to—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, if you're rising to speak on a CCRP matter—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I'm rising to speak in General Business on a number of matters, Madam
Chairman.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, listen to me carefully. If you are rising to speak on a
CCRP matter, it is to be spoken on separately. Are you rising to speak on a
CCRP matter?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I am rising to speak in General Business. I have a number of
matters that I would like to raise—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON! I have asked you, are you rising to speak on a CCRP
matter, because if you are, it is to be taken by itself. If you have other matters of
General Business, then that is a separate item of General Business. I have asked
Councillors if there is anyone wishing to speak on a CCRP matter. You have
indicated that you do want to speak, so therefore you speak on that and nothing
else in this item of General Business, thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I am rising to speak in General Business, and I am happy if
there are other Councillors that need to speak before me. There are a number of
matters I would like to speak on, and I plan to do so this evening. I am not sure
what you are referring to. I am unaware of any such direction. I just say, Madam
Chairman, I am intending to speak on General Business tonight, and I would
appreciate the opportunity to do so, but I am happy to wait if there is something
else that I am unaware of that needs to be done.
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I gave the call to any Councillor wishing to speak on
an outstanding matter of CCRP business. You indicated you were rising to speak
on that; do you intend to speak on a CCRP matter, yes or no, thank you?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Deputy—
Acting Chairman:
Answer the question, Councillor JOHNSTON, yes or no?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am rising to speak in General Business—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON! I have asked you to give me a one-word answer: are
you rising to speak on a CCRP matter, yes or no?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I am rising to speak in General Business about—
Acting Chairman:
Resume your seat. Councillor JOHNSTON, I have given you more than ample
opportunity to follow the procedures in this Chamber, and I have asked you
quite succinctly if—and I gave every Councillor the opportunity—if they had an
outstanding CCRP matter to speak on. You rose and started speaking and
indicated you were speaking on a CCRP matter. So, Councillor JOHNSTON, if
you are not going to speak on a CCRP matter, is that the case, yes or no? Oneword answer, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I—
Acting Chairman:
One-word answer.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman—
Acting Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, you are failing to follow the direction of the Chair.
Resume your seat. Further General Business? I declare the meeting closed.
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
102
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 Victoria Newton (received on 25 July 2013)
Q1.
In relation to the 2013/2014 Council Budget, could the CEO please advise:a.
What is the total number of rateable properties?
b.
What is the total number of residential properties?
c.
What is the total number of owner-occupier properties?
d.
What is the average general rates and utility charges per property?
e.
What is the average general rates and utility charges per owner-occupier property?
f.
What is the number of Full Time Equivalent Council employees supported by the budget?
g.
What is the reduction in Full Time Equivalent Council employees from the previous year?
Q2.
What is the anticipated percentage net increase in General Rates and Utility Charges between the
2012/2013 financial year and the 2013/2014 financial year?
Q3.
Could the CEO please itemise the budgeted Council financial reserves for the end of the 2013/2014
financial year?
Q4.
Can the
years:
-
Q5.
CEO please advise how many new skate parks were built in each of the following financial
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Can the CEO provide details on how many people visited each of the following Council libraries in
2012/13:
Annerley
Ashgrove
Banyo
Bracken Ridge
Brisbane Square
Bulimba
Carina
Carindale
Chermside
Coopers Plains
Corinda
Everton Park
Fairfield
Garden City
Grange
Hamilton
Holland Park
Inala
Indooroopilly
Kenmore
Mitchelton
Mt Coot-tha
Mt Gravatt
Mt Ommaney
New Farm
Nundah
Sandgate
Stones Corner
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
103
-
Sunnybank Hills
Toowong
West End
Wynnum
Zillmere
Q6.
Can the CEO advise how much revenue Council received from Parking Meters in 2012/13?
Q7.
Can the CEO advise how much revenue Council received from parking infringements in 2012/13?
Q8.
Can the CEO advise how much revenue Council received from parking infringements in 2012/13
resulting from parking infringements incurred for vehicles parked inappropriately in disabled parking
bays?
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 the meeting on 7 May 2013)
Q2.
Can the CEO please advise the locations of new skate park facilities which have been constructed (or
will be constructed in the case of 2012/13) in these financial years:
a.
2008-09
b.
2009-10
c.
2010-11
d.
2011-12
e.
2012-13
A2.
a)
b)
c-e)
J.F. O’Grady Memorial Park, Fairfield (major upgrade and expansion)
C.A. O’Sullivan Park, Acacia Ridge and Warren Ritchie Memorial Park at Carole Park.
No new facilities built, funds diverted due to flood recovery efforts. Funding is restored in the
2013/14 financial year.
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting on 21 May 2013)
Q1.
Would the CEO please advise how many rubbish bins have been removed from bus stops in Tennyson
Ward?
A1.
7 bins have been removed and 12 bins have been installed.
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from the meeting on 11 June 2013)
Q1.
Could the CEO please advise why the quarterly reporting procedures for Council’s Reserves were for
the first time removed from the new Council Revenue Policy passed by Council on Tuesday 21st May
2013?
A1.
There were no resolutions in relation to Council’s reserves passed at the nominated Council meeting.
Q2.
Could the CEO please advise how many street tree maintenance requests have been lodged by residents
from each of the following Wards:
a.
Bracken Ridge
b.
Central
c.
Chandler
d.
Deagon
e.
Enoggera
f.
Hamilton
g.
Holland Park
h.
Jamboree
j.
Karawatha
k.
MacGregor
l.
Marchant
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]
104
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
x.
y.
z.
McDowall
Morningside
Moorooka
Northgate
Parkinson
Pullenvale
Richlands
Tennyson
The Gabba
The Gap
Toowong
Walter Taylor
Wishart
Wynnum Manly
A2.
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 of normal day to day services of Council officers.
Q3.
Can the CEO please advise of the costs of the Living in Brisbane brochure for 2013/14 financial year
with respect to:
Printing costs
Distribution costs.
A3.
Information being compiled.
RISING OF COUNCIL:
6.48pm.
PRESENTED:
and CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN
Council officers in attendance:
Rebecca McAnalen (Councillor Executive Support and Governance Services Manager)
Andrew Langford (Team Leader, Council and Committees Support)
Stephanie Thompson (Council and Committees Support Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
[4410 (Post Recess) Meeting – 30 July 2013]