MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4470 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 9 June 2015
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
Chief Executive’s Office
Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4470 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 9 JUNE 2015
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS _____________________________________________________________ i
PRESENT: ______________________________________________________________________ 1
OPENING OF MEETING: __________________________________________________________ 1
MINUTES: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: __________________________________________________________ 1
QUESTION TIME: ________________________________________________________________ 6
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: _________________________________________ 19
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE __________________________________________ 19
A
STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS _______________ 50
B
STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE OF SPECIALIST MOBILE PLANT TO
QUARRIES AND ASPHALT PLANTS ___________________________________________________ 59
C
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 2015 ______________________________________________________________ 62
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ___________________________________________________________ 63
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN TIMERS PROJECT UPDATE _________ 66
B
PETITIONS – CLEVELAND STREET, GREENSLOPES _______________________________________ 67
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE _______________________________________________ 69
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – QUT CITYCAT TERMINAL PROJECT__________________________ 70
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE _____________________ 70
A
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009: MULTIPLE DWELLING
(555 UNITS), CENTRE ACTIVITIES (COMMUNITY USE, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OFFICE AND/OR
SHOP) AND BUILDING WORK ON QUEENSLAND HERITAGE PLACE (MIDDENBURY HOUSE) (2
STAGES) ON LAND AT 600 CORONATION DRIVE, TOOWONG - SUNLAND DEVELOPMENTS NO. 8 PTY
LTD ____________________________________________________________________________ 86
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE _____________________________________ 89
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BOTANIC GARDENS_____________________________ 90
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE _____________________________________________________________ 91
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FIRE PREPAREDNESS – PLANNED BURN SESSION BRIEFING 2015 _ 91
B
PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED TREE PLANTING IN FRONT OF THE RIVER GALLERY
APARTMENTS AT 6 MERTHYR ROAD, NEW FARM _______________________________________ 93
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE _________________________________________________________ 93
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – YOUTH DEVELOPMENT TEAM - YOUTH ENTERPRISE PROGRAM __ 95
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ________________________ 97
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON COUNCIL’S EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS ___________ 97
B
COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES, INVENTORY,
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD END MARCH 2015 __________ 98
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________ 99
GENERAL BUSINESS: ____________________________________________________________ 99
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: _______________________________ 102
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ____________________ 102
[4470 (Ordinary) Meeting – 9 June 2015]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4470 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 9 JUNE 2015
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
The Chairman of Council, Councillor Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP
LNP Councillors (and Wards)
Krista ADAMS (Wishart)
Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)
Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)
Vicki HOWARD (Central)
Steven HUANG (Macgregor)
Fiona KING (Marchant)
Geraldine KNAPP (The Gap)
Kim MARX (Karawatha)
Peter MATIC (Toowong)
Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Deputy
Chairman of Council)
Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)
Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor)
Andrew WINES (Enoggera)
Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)
ALP Councillors (and Wards)
Milton DICK (Richlands) (The Leader of the
Opposition)
Helen ABRAHAMS (The Gabba) (Deputy Leader of
the Opposition)
Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly)
Kim FLESSER (Northgate)
Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)
Victoria NEWTON (Deagon)
Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the
business set out in the Agenda.
MINUTES:
641/2014-15
The Minutes of the 4469 meeting of Council held on 2 June 2015, 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.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mrs Josette Mathers - Development proposed for 153 Taylor Street, Bulimba
File number: 137/220/701/223
Chairman:
I would like to call on Mrs Josette Mathers who will address the Chamber on a
development proposed for 153 Taylor Street, Bulimba. Orderly, would you
please show Mrs Mathers in.
Mrs Mathers, you have five minutes; please proceed.
[4470 (Ordinary) Meeting – 9 June 2015]
-2Mrs Josette Mathers:
Thank you. Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors; thank you for
your time. Thank you also to the supporters in the gallery who have made the
effort to come today. I really appreciate it. I am here in my capacity as a
member of the Morningside Ward Development Advisory Panel to request that
Council vigorously defend its refusal of a development application for
153 Taylor Street, Bulimba, currently before the Planning and Environment
Court.
Council has justifiably refused this application as it does not comply with
relevant requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2000 or the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009. However, the applicant is treating the planning process with disdain
by stating in the notice of appeal that even if the application does conflict with
City Plan, it should be approved. For those unfamiliar with the area, the site is
prime, north-facing river front land within six kilometres of the CBD,
immediately to the east of Bulimba Barracks site which is soon to be
redeveloped, and directly opposite the International Cruise Terminal and
developments at Portside and North Shore, Hamilton.
The type of development proposed is inappropriate for this location, given its
close proximity to existing residential areas and its potential for future
residential development. The DA is for the construction of two large warehouses
with 20 loading bays. The facility will operate 24-7 and be serviced by 19-metre
long articulated vehicles using roads that are not designed to carry heavy
vehicles, and are not mapped as primary freight access routes.
The applicant has refused Council's request for a two-hectare land dedication for
a public park and most recent plans still show a significant portion of riverfront
as inaccessible to the public, in contravention of numerous planning guidelines
and policies, including the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan and the
Brisbane River Corridor Planning Scheme Policy. Councillor Amanda COOPER
is on record as stating that Council would require redevelopment of the
Bulimba Barracks site to provide public parkland and community access to the
river's edge; this same requirement should apply to 153 Taylor Street.
Contrary to the applicant's claim in the notice of appeal, the site is highly visible
from residential areas to the north, south and west. Council, in its refusal, has
acknowledged that it is unlikely that screening and buffering can address this
adequately. Our local community is extremely concerned by the intrusion of
heavy vehicles into a residential and light industrial area. We are already
subjected to heavy vehicles using local residential streets to access light
industries which have outgrown their current location in Taylor Street. Roads
are blocked while trucks are unloaded. Trucks reverse the full length of
residential blocks. They lie idle outside houses in the early hours of the morning
waiting for businesses to open. They double park along Taylor Street daily.
Council has been provided with photographic evidence of these occurrences,
and Council's contact centre is regularly called. The current configuration of
Taylor Street and difficulty in manoeuvring means that truck drivers prefer to
use residential streets. It is already impossible to police and will only worsen if
this application is successful.
The applicant in the notice of appeal has stated that traffic will not intrude into
residential areas because access will be via Taylor Street. This statement is
misleading, because in order to reach Taylor Street, trucks have to pass existing
houses on the south side of Lytton Road.
Road safety is a major concern of residents and commuters who use
Lytton Road. It is the route to take local children to Balmoral State High and
Bulimba State School, and it is also the route for Brisbane City and private
school buses. Adults and children alike cross Lytton Road from their homes to
their bus stops. The road is a major cycle route, and with a lack of dedicated
turning lanes, vehicles are frequently forced into cycle lanes to pass around
turning vehicles, endangering cyclists. Adding a minimum of 240 heavy
vehicles daily to this situation increases the risk of accidents.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-3The community has been vocal in their opposition to this development. Two
community petition submissions have been circulated, one following Council's
information request, and another following the applicant's response. These were
signed by more than 730 and 540 people respectively. In total, 192 valid
objections were submitted to Council. Some 433 people like the Facebook page
created to inform people about this development.
The LORD MAYOR and Councillor COOPER can confirm that many people
emailed them requesting that the DA be refused outright, and that any appeal be
vigorously defended in the Planning and Environment Court. On behalf of local
residents, I am again requesting that Council listens to ratepayers and provides
sufficient resources to defend its decision to refuse this inappropriate
development application. Thank you.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mrs Mathers; if you would like to just take a seat for a moment.
Councillor COOPER, would you like to respond?
Response by Councillor Amanda Cooper, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank Mrs Mathers for
coming in to address Council this afternoon. I would also like to thank those in
the public gallery who also came along to support you because I understand it
can be a bit daunting coming into the Council Chamber.
Before I speak on this matter, it is just important to note that this is an
application that was refused by Council and is now being appealed to the
Planning and Environment Court. So it is a matter that is before the court, and
any outcome of that matter will be a decision of the court. So Council cannot
speak of it in terms of determining the outcome; the court will determine the
outcome.
Council did refuse this application, and of course we will be going forward and
participating in the process in response to follow through on our decision to
refuse that application. There were a number of people that provided feedback,
and that feedback was certainly carefully considered by the Council officers.
The application itself was lodged with Council on 26 June last year, and it was
lodged under the former planning scheme, Brisbane City Plan 2000.
It was an application to carry out building work and for a material change of use
under the former City Plan. It was a code application. The site sits within the
Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan which was adopted in May 2012. Of
course, it was supported, I am delighted to say, by all the Councillors in this
place, including your local Councillor. I know that your local Councillor was so
happy with the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan that she gave the Council
officers chocolates, and she loves me to say that, Mrs Mathers, because she is
very proud of that Neighbourhood Plan.
In this application, the developer proposed four stages: one stage each for a
warehouse, a stage each for hard stand area and the site itself is over
4.1 hectares. This site is zoned under Brisbane City Plan 2000 as general
industry, and it has been zoned for this type of use since I believe the 1970s. So
of long standing, it has been an area that has been zoned for some kind of
industrial outcome.
As part of the application, the developer proposed just 2,870 square metres of
park fronting the river as opposed to the two hectares—so significantly more—
required under the Priority Infrastructure Plan. The developer argued that the
remaining park required by Council could and should be provided by the
Bulimba Barracks site, should it be redeveloped. Council issued an information
request on 7 August 2014, and requested the proposal be substantially
redesigned, given the infrastructure requirements which included a two-hectare
park, a sewer upgrade for QUU, road widening and road works to Taylor Street,
a six-metre minimum vegetation buffer to protect the mangroves along the tidal
drain, an acoustic report, a stormwater management plan.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-4They sought to clarify the proposed hours of operation, as well as ensuring the
proposed warehouses would be in line with surrounding residences. So, a
number of significant issues that the applicant was required to respond to.
There was a response to the information request on 5 March this year. The
officers considered this response and, of course, the submissions made by local
residents such as yourself, and there was a range of different views. Some
people had quite diverging views as to what was appropriate. But Council
officers made a decision to refuse the application, which was done on 30 April.
Of course, as you pointed out, it has been challenged in the Planning and
Environment Court, and Council will, as it always does, have all resources
appropriate to defend that decision in the court. Of course, I understand that the
local Councillor has sought for Council to vigorously defend the application.
That is always the case that Council does go along to the court and does enter
into all of the requirements that it must do to defend its decision in this regard.
There has also been another application in the local area that did go through this
process, down at Byron Street. That was an application that took nearly three
years to be resolved through the court process. Council did defend that at
considerable expense to ratepayers. I understand that the local Councillor was
comfortable with the outcome as a consequence of that. So this process will be
followed through with this application. It is certainly something that Council has
no hesitation in undertaking. Thank you very much for coming in this afternoon.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mrs Mathers.
Mr Andrew Gilbert - Development Application number A003997103, 174 Logan Road, Woolloongabba
File number: 137/220/701/225
Chairman:
I would like to call on Mr Andrew Gilbert who will address the Chamber on a
development application at 174 Logan Road, Woolloongabba.
Mr Gilbert, you have five minutes; please proceed.
Mr Andrew Gilbert:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and
Councillors. I am presenting on behalf of the Woolloongabba Community
Action Group regarding the impact of over-development of Woolloongabba next
to character residential houses, namely the development of South City Square.
The developers are misrepresenting the community's support for their overdeveloped small sites neighbouring longstanding character timber and tin
communities.
We argue there is no evidence of any community support in this case.
South City Square is not appropriate due to it actually being so close to
character residential properties and it has actually been characterised as 2 to 5
flood zone. They want to build an underground full service supermarket right
where the site floods the most. Our local community has made it clear that we
want the developers to play within the rules and the city and neighbourhood
plans, but it remains clear that, if they tick a simple box on an application, that
all becomes redundant, especially where over-development next to timber and
tin residential houses are concerned.
The community feel these developments deny us the basic rights to privacy,
sunlight, ability to grow lawns and trees, and solar panels on our roofs. The
developer has asked for a relaxation on heights, scale and bulk, yet wants
15 years to complete this development.
Furthermore, the development applicant has recently responded to Council's
information request with amended drawings in a report, but the height, bulk and
scale of the proposed buildings have not changed. The Council's information
request for a reduction in height and scale has not been addressed or considered
at all in the applicant's response.
Therefore, we request the following changes to the proposed development
before it is approved: all heights on our eastern boundary need to be reduced.
The required road widening of Deshon Street and a bus indentation on
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-5Logan Road needs to happen prior to any construction to minimise the traffic
disruption. Stormwater upgrades have recently been completed. This could have
happened at the same time.
Eastwood Apartments and Quest Apartments have recently been completed
nearby. The landscape plans clearly showed hard-planted trees and benches, but
now they are completed, there are none there. Not only have they told the
Council that Eastwood is 100 per cent sold, it is yet to lease out one of the last
commercial spaces which has taken two years. The apartments are now shortterm accommodation to fill the building. This shows signs of no demand in the
area. This is not an indication of high demand. They never applied for a material
change of use for short-term accommodation. It is things like this that create
mistrust from our community.
Community groups are gaining more support by merging together. This
indicates our groups and Brisbane residents united will make this Council
accountable for its actions in the future, particular in regards to applications that
are performance-based, with no actual visibility to communities having a
guideline to be able to create properly formed submissions.
To conclude, I would like to leave you with some issues to ponder: does this site
protect my neighbours from floods? We do not think it will. It will greatly
reduce the value of our properties and, more importantly, diminish our quality of
life and that of our families and neighbours. Our parking is restricted to the point
where, in some streets, you cannot get a fire truck down the street when it is at
capacity. Thank you.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mr Gilbert; if you would like to just take a seat.
Councillor COOPER, would you care to respond?
Response by Councillor Amanda Cooper, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr Gilbert for coming in
today and speaking about this application. I understand that you were due to
come into Council last week, so you were scheduled to come in last week but
you had to cancel due to your work schedule. I understand that, of course. But
you did actually meet with me the very next day, so we did get to catch up and
have a conversation. So I very much appreciate you being such a strong
advocate on behalf of your local area. I think that is absolutely appropriate.
I took notes while you were speaking with us today to make sure that I have
recorded all of your concerns about the proposed application. As you are aware,
this is currently under assessment, and any of the feedback that you provide to
the Council Chamber will be passed on to the assessment team to make sure that
we have everything very carefully considered as part of that process.
As you are aware, Council received an application for preliminary approval on
25 November 2014 for multi-unit dwellings. There was a childcare centre, a
function facility, healthcare services, indoor sport and rec, office, shop, hotel
and market that were proposed. It triggered the highest level of assessment
under City Plan 2014, so it is an impact assessable application, and it also
triggered referral to the Queensland Government through State Assessment and
Referral Agency (SARA) for the Department of State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) as a concurrent agency. So the State
Government also has to provide feedback in relation to this matter. I understand
that that has been provided on 12 January 2015.
There certainly has been an assessment of the application by Council officers
and the information request was issued on 22 December 2014. There was also a
second application lodged with Council for stage 2, which was lodged just after
the information request on 22 December and was deemed properly made, I
think, on 6 January 2015.
Council's issues with the application were very much in line with your concerns:
building transition, setbacks, building height, proposed car parking, the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-6proposed 15-year timeframe for development, flooding, traffic, landscaping and
street scape issues, particularly in relation to flooding. That was something that
you specifically mentioned this afternoon.
Council requested a flood risk management plan to demonstrate that the
proposed underground supermarket is appropriate and how any flooding would
be dealt with, as well as not to cause any further flooding—absolutely of prime
consideration for Council. With regard to traffic, Council also requested a
revised traffic impact analysis from the developer. There has been a response to
Council's information request on 25 February 2015 with a number of changes,
including increasing the setbacks, a revised design for the podium, a flood report
was provided, a traffic report was provided, as well as an economic report to
justify the inclusion of a supermarket as well as a stormwater management plan.
There are a number of other changes which I know that you are well aware of.
The application then underwent the mandatory 30 business days, or six weeks,
of formal public notification. That started on 6 March and went through to 21
April. There were 93 submissions received with 75 of those valid. I understand
that you are a formal submitter, and I think you have lodged five submissions,
including an ePetition.
Following review of those submissions and the revised plan, Council officers
still had a number of significant issues with this proposal and went back to the
developer on 8 May outlining those concerns. They included height, setbacks,
site cover and landscaping. The developer responded to that further information
request on 19 May, a copy of which I think you have probably seen through PD
online. I know that you are very conscious of keeping up to date with
everything.
Council officers are currently assessing that response and to date have made no
recommendation on the proposal. This is something that is being very carefully
considered. Your issues are certainly valid issues that Council must be
convinced have been addressed satisfactorily by the developer before they are
able to make a decision on the application. So, thank you very much for coming
into the Council Chamber. I appreciate you are a very passionate about your
local community. We think it is a great place to live. Certainly we want to make
sure that, in the future, it is still a great place to live. So thank you very much for
coming in this afternoon. Thank you.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mr Gilbert.
QUESTION TIME:
Chairman:
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the
Standing Committees?
Councillor MURPHY.
Question 1
Councillor MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; my question is to the LORD
MAYOR. I understand that the Opposition believed that the Left Turn on Red
trial, to quote the words of the Opposition Leader on 3 December 2013, 'are
encouraging and giving a green light to conflict between pedestrians, cyclists
and car users. I don't think that this is a recipe for common sense; I don't think it
is a recipe for road safety.' LORD MAYOR, can you please detail for the
Chamber the success of this program, and explain why you are now rolling out
an additional 25 locations across our city?
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much indeed, Councillor MURPHY, for the question. Madam
Chairman, I did note in the question that there were some comments there from
some time back. But I noted also today that they have been reinforced with
words like 'dangerous', and that 'the program ought to be scrapped'. I am
surprised that that is the Opposition's stance on this matter, because in the
budget last year I indicated that we would roll out up to 50 Left Turn on Red
opportunities at signalised intersections around the city.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-7Whilst I can perhaps understand a comment at that time expressing caution, the
fact of the matter is that we have had 25 out there operating now for some time.
We have had them operating under the observance of the Queensland Police
Service as well as our own observations as to how they might be working. So,
with that background and that confidence behind us, we have again today
outlined that there will be a further 25 signalised intersections where a left-turnon-red opportunity will be made available.
I might just say that this is not all together ground breaking. We are not into
something new and fresh and experimental with this. Left Turn on Red operates
in New South Wales; it operates in South Australia; and it operates in the
Australian Capital Territory. In spite of all of that, in spite of our circumstances
of looking at the 25 that we have rolled out here already, under the observance
of the Queensland Police Service and our own officers, in spite of all of that, in
spite of the fact that they meet the Australian Standards both in terms of the 25
we have already rolled out and these 25 new ones announced today, we still
have the Opposition saying that they are dangerous.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
I can only take it that this is opposition for its own sake. The reality is that each
of these States—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
—have rolled it out successfully, and we have also—Madam Chairman, there is
this constant interjecting from the Leader of the Opposition. If he has a speech
to make, he can make it under General Business later on today. We will be very
happy to hear what he has to say, because I would love to hear him dig a bigger
hole than he has already dug for himself on this one.
The reality is that these are creating travel time savings for people. It is
30 seconds. That might not sound a lot, but on a 20-minute trip, that is two and a
half per cent travel time saving. It all adds up. We have been committed to this.
We have been cautious in terms of the intersections that we have selected as part
of this roll out. We have been making sure that they do comply with the
Australian standards. So it is that, whilst we do not think there are too many
more where we will be rolling them out, because we have again been making
sure that we have the sight lines in place, making sure all of the safety aspects of
this rollout are there and in compliance with the Australian standards, as I have
mentioned.
If we can create a travel time saving; if we can create less frustration for people
at those intersections, why shouldn't we? It is a simple case of a common sense
overlay. If we were out there throwing them out at every intersection around
town, then I could understand why there might be some criticism from the
Opposition. But we have not done that. We have been careful in terms of the
intersections selected. Over the course of time, where the left turn at red has
been in place, there is not one incident related to left-turn-on-red that has
occurred at any of those intersections.
As the Opposition well knows, even with full signalisation, you get accidents;
you get human error that occurs. Is that to say that we should not put in traffic
lights because it might cause an accident? That is the sort of logic that we are
hearing from the Opposition. So again I say, these 25 new sites, which will
become active over the coming three-week period—they are starting to be rolled
out from today—they will be in suburbs, in the north, south, east, west and some
central areas of the city. This morning I had the opportunity to be up there at
Fortescue and Gregory Terrace intersection, and it is great to see it operating
well.
Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR.
Councillor DICK.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-8Question 2
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. On page 19 of
the quarterly financial report you are bringing to Council today, it shows your
capital works budget is a whopping $165 million underspend on what it should
be, based on the budget you presented last year. Why are you hoarding money
that should be spent on this city's infrastructure so that you can just re-announce
another 'record spend on infrastructure' in your upcoming budget next week?
Could you blame residents for not taking your budget announcements seriously
when you have such an extensive record of quietly cutting funding in later
budget reviews?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor DICK for the
question. Those figures show that we are at about 60 per cent spend in terms of
the infrastructure rollout at this time. That is historically about where it has been
at the end of the third quarter. Always, when a budget is announced, there is a
gearing up lead-time associated with capital expenditure. So, 60 per cent is right
on cue in relation to where we have historically been at that point in time.
You have to remember that the review that is out there today is a capture at a
point in time. Can I just say that I would be very happy to have the debate
around what is the issue of carryover of funds from one year to the next against
what Labor used to do year in, year out, where they had massive carryovers,
massive carryovers in terms of their spend.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
I think it was only a week or two ago I was highlighting how they used to
announce that they would be buying certain numbers of buses every year, only
to find at the end of the year that that was simply not delivered. Then it went on
year after year after year.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Councillor ABRAHAMS!
LORD MAYOR:
So, Madam Chairman, again we are—
Chairman:
Order! Councillor NEWTON!
LORD MAYOR:
We are where we have historically been at the end of the ninth month. So, at
60 per cent, that is where we ought to be. Whilst I can understand the Leader of
the Opposition wanting to try that on, try to make some political point out of
that, the fact of the matter is that we are on track.
Chairman:
Further questions?
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Question 3
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question this afternoon is to the Chairman of
Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee, Councillor
SIMMONDS. This Administration has a strong track record of delivering
projects across the city to support Brisbane's growing population and economy.
Can you please outline how Council delivers for Brisbane residents while
keeping rates and charges lower than Labor Administrations?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you very much to
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, because as she points out, in the last couple of
years this Council has taken the tough financial decisions necessary to continue
to improve Council's finances and to keep downward pressure on rates.
Unfortunately, as has been the norm, it has been opposed every step of the way
by the Labor Councillors opposite, in many cases as opposition for opposition's
sake.
First, we had the refinancing of the Queensland Urban Utilities loan which saw
Council significantly reduce its own borrowings to Queensland Treasury
Corporation and save significant money over the forward years in terms of
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
-9interest payments. This was opposed by Labor when they voted against it on
5 May. Then, of course, we had the transformational projects under BaSE and
delivering $450 million in benefits, not to mention a project which has come
some $15 million under budget, opposed by Labor on 19 June 2012.
Then, of course, we had the re-freeing up of capital from Legacy Way and
Go Between Bridge through the leasing of the tolling concessions, which is
allowing us to get on the with projects of Wynnum Road and Kingsford Smith
Drive, projects they promised to unequivocally support, and then they voted
against that particular decision on 30 July 2013. The next tranche with that, of
course, will be the Local Government Assistance Program which we have in the
papers today which will see this Council create efficiencies for both customers,
ratepayers and Council officers alike.
All of these measures which the Labor Opposition has opposed have downward
pressure on rates, has allowed us to transfer money from the back of house to
the front of house and spend a record $4.1 billion on capital investment over the
last few years, a 97 per cent increase on what Labor was able to achieve in
Administration. Contrary to their spin—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Contrary to their spin, the majority of that, $2.65 billion, was on suburban
projects in addition to the TransApex ones.
But do not take my word for it that we are delivering out there in the suburbs;
take Councillor DICK's word for it. When we heard about the retirement of
Councillor FLESSER and Councillor NEWTON, Councillor DICK said to the
Brisbane Times, 'Both have worked tirelessly to deliver millions of dollars'
worth of infrastructure and services for local residents.' Councillor NEWTON
herself—this was Councillor NEWTON's quote—'restoring the Sandgate Town
Hall, upgrading the Sandgate foreshore, upgrading facilities at Mayadeen Park
for local families, and fighting for the rebuilding of Shorncliffe Pier.
Madam Chairman, every one of them funded by an LNP LORD MAYOR—
every single one of them, funded by either an LNP LORD MAYOR or this
LNP Administration ourselves. Not only that, Shorncliffe Pier, they did not even
have it in their own costings, she was fighting for it so hard. So what we have
learned is that she was fighting for it, but she lost that caucus battle, so it was up
to this Administration to get on and deliver for her suburbs. So let's not hear
from any of those Councillors opposite over the next couple of weeks in the
budget debate that we are not out there delivering for their suburbs, because we
know—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
We know that they have liked to run—
Chairman:
Order! Councillor NEWTON!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
This is why Councillors on this side of the Chamber like to run on our record
because—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—because we are delivering. Look, we are quite happy if you want to run on our
record as well. That seems to be what you want to do.
So what have they done? Labor Councillors have voted against transformational
savings; they have voted against freeing up capital from infrastructure; they
have voted against back of house savings. So what does that leave them when
they are talking about funding their local projects? Well, it leaves rates. We
know how much they love digging into rates, because they raised rates by over
six per cent four times during their last Administration. For them, it is their
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 10 honeypot. If you needed any evidence that this is the place they are going to
raid, having opposed every other saving measure that we have brought to this
Chamber over the last three and a bit years, you only have to look at their local
submissions.
Councillor DICK, the Leader of the Opposition, for this budget for his local
ward, okay, well he is on his way up to Federal, so perhaps he is not as worried;
he put in one of the lowest submissions of the Labor Councillors, at just
$37.5 million worth of local projects. Having voted against everything else—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Having voted against everything else, he would need to raise rates—
Chairman:
Councillor FLESSER!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—by 3.95 per cent over the entire city just to fund projects in his ward alone.
Councillor ABRAHAMS, though, takes the cake; the DEPUTY LEADER of the
Opposition, who might soon be the Leader of the Opposition—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—with $165 million—
Chairman;
Councillor ABRAHAMS!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—$165 million, having rejected every other savings measure for the last
three years, she would have to raise rates by 17.3 per cent across the whole city
to fund her ward alone. So if you ever needed—
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—less rates under this Administration or lower—
Chairman:
Order! Councillor
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Will Councillor SIMMONDS table the entire ward Councillor budgets for every
Councillor in this city?
Chairman:
Thank you; Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
The difference is that we vote for savings in the back of house to fund our front
of house services; they don't.
SIMMONDS,
point
of
order
against
you;
yes,
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Further questions—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor DICK:
Touché, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
I haven’t called you yet, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Oh, sorry, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
I am waiting for a little bit of silence before we proceed.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, my question—
Chairman:
Thank you.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 11 Councillor DICK.
Question 4
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Today you
will use your LNP majority to go against the wishes of 500 Toowong residents
with a controversial development along Coronation Drive. It is bad enough that
you are not listening to residents' concerns over your approval of the new high
density development at Toowong, but why is your gift to the existing residents
to give them gridlock by directing thousands of new traffic movements from
555 unit owners directly into Coronation Drive, Toowong Shopping Centre and
High Street?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Once again Councillor DICK is showing
that he is not aware of the facts of the matter in relation to the site at
600 Coronation Drive, the former ABC site. The reality is that, based on the
neighbourhood plan, that site could have had over 700 units. The approval is for
555 units, as Councillor DICK has indicated in his question.
What this Administration has indicated is that we will be signalising Glen Road
where it links out of the estate, and that will mean that there is no right or left
hand turn into this particular development. There will be an opportunity for
people to do that via Glen Road.
The other issue, of course, which Councillor DICK has failed to take into
account is that there will be some 38 per cent site cover as opposed to what
could have been up to 50 per cent site cover. In fact, I think it is 32 per cent site
cover, as opposed to some 50 per cent site cover on this particular site. That has
been because the number of buildings has been restricted to three. It has meant
that there is now an area of nearly 60 per cent of that site which will be able to
be used for public accessibility. We will see a bikeway through that site. We
will see vegetated pathways through that site. We will see 24-hour, seven-day-aweek access to the full frontage of the river.
These are public benefits, not to mention, of course, the fact that the heritage
listed building on that site also will be preserved. It will be opened up to make
sure that its former glory can be seen for all and enjoyed by all, not only in that
district but for people across the city. So there are a number of public benefits
that are derived out of this performance-based outcome.
It could have been that that public open space, publicly accessible area, could
have been reduced to less than 40 per cent if we had gone down the track of a
neighbourhood plan. That is where the outcomes, based on performance, have
shown some very, very positive outcomes in this particular case. It is also a case
that it is a world-class architect that has designed the buildings in respect of this
particular site—another aspect of the development.
In answer to your question, Councillor DICK, if we had gone down the track of
what you are wanting, there could have been up to 700 units on that site. What
does that mean in terms of traffic in relation to the 555 approved? Of course,
there is significant car parking—800 car parks—that is provided in
association—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, we know you do not want car parks, Councillor; your view is a roads diet,
we understand that.
Chairman:
Order! Councillor ABRAHAMS!
LORD MAYOR:
You are on the record of having said that.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, you do not have the floor; be quiet.
LORD MAYOR:
So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that this is an outcome which does, I think,
provide in the circumstances the best outcome for the people of Brisbane and,
importantly, provides that 24-hour access to the river.
Chairman:
Further questions?
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 12 Councillor HOWARD.
Question 5
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee,
Councillor COOPER. Can you please explain to the Chamber how state
planning laws allow development applications to be granted which are outside
local plans and provide past precedence where this has been allowed by
previous Administrations?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor HOWARD for the
question.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor COOPER:
It is quite clear that all of those in this Chamber should clearly understand how
planning works. So there are state planning provisions, which require
performance-based planning outcomes. Performance-based planning outcomes
are the purpose of the Sustainable Planning Act. That is what we and all local
governments are bound by. As you know, Madam Chair, this is nothing new.
Performance-based planning was introduced in 1997, so it was endorsed by the
Labor State Government and it was imbedded again in the Sustainable Planning
Act in 2009.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor COOPER:
Performance-based planning stripped the development application process from
having strict rules and instead it requires—
Chairman:
Just a minute, Councillor COOPER. Councillor DICK if you want to conduct a
conversation with Councillor JOHNSTON, can the two of you go outside,
please?
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, I did not want an answer. If you continue to interject in that
way and disrupt this meeting, you will be warned. Thank you,
Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Performance-based planning means that it strips out a
development application process from having strict rules. It requires each
development—each development must be treated individually. This allows the
assessment of a development application to have some flexibility to allow for
better outcomes. There are a number of examples.
If we look at 2012, the Kings Row, Milton application, this approval allowed
Milton House to be restored, and 1000 square metres of publicly accessible
space open to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In 2012, we saw the
TransPac site which delivered 21 hectares rehabilitated and dedicated to
Council.
In 2014 we saw the Warripa site resulting in 21.648 hectares dedicated to
Council for rehabilitation on Oxley Creek. We saw at 39 Annerley Road,
Brisbane, the Mater Hill Hospital, where the Whitty Building will become a
public space as well as part of a teaching hospital. There are precincts that have
been delivered under this kind of regime. We can look at Newstead and
Tenerife, with the revitalisation of derelict urban blight former industrial areas
into thriving residential and commercial areas that have publicly accessible
space, including the Newstead Gasworks.
I think this whole Chamber seems to be a huge fan of this precinct, where
heritage gas works opens up this previously obsolete industrial site and delivers
active open space with a nightly light show in the gasometer as a result of a
performance-based planning outcome. The Coorparoo Transit Orientated
Development, the old Myer’s site, this revitalised former retail area, into a
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 13 thriving residential retail commercial activity, was also endorsed by the
Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, and local Councillor, Councillor ABRAHAMS,
which delivers complete public access through the site as well as cinemas—
again, performance-based planning at work.
So, Madam Chair, the Labor State Government in 2009 also outlined that
Brisbane had to accommodate growth. Indeed, it had to accommodate 156,000
new dwellings. There is no more land, so it was clearly a mandate from the
State Government, which Council fully understood, that we are to go up rather
than to continue to grow out and take up green space in South East Queensland.
Of course, we consulted with residents—60,000 residents—who were part of
that discussion about how to accommodate growth. We went through again,
with City Plan 2014, and all of our neighbourhood plans, to work with the
community to manage this growth and to make sure it is accommodated in
places that make sense and that the community support—places along traffic
corridors, like major roads, places with excellent public transport outcomes.
Of course, Madam Chair, in stark contrast, we saw the Labor State Government
introduce a separate piece of legislation themselves, the Urban Land
Development Authority Bill, in September 2007, where they have their own
process, where they do not sit under the Sustainable Planning Act, where they
have Caesar judging Caesar. The Urban Land Development Authority, run by
the State Government, chose the land, created the development plan, and then
assessed the development. So every step of the way there is no ability for the
community to have their say. There are no appeal rights, and there is no
commitment to infrastructure delivery, no accountability, no consultation. So, in
Hamilton Northshore, Fitzgibbon, in my own ward where they razed the green
space, where they completely destroyed areas of significant environmental
value, Bowen Hills and Woolloongabba, where—
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 6
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, just say no, Councillor COOPER, you can do it. Madam Chairman, my
question is to the LORD MAYOR. Today the University of New South Wales
engineering faculty has released a significant report targeting the need for
improved drainage and land management use by local councils with respect to
stormwater flooding from climate change. Can you please explain to my
constituents and everyone in Brisbane why you are cutting or rolling over
another $11 million of budgeted drainage expenditure today? Why has this
funding been underspent and rolled over instead of making a significant
investment into the drainage needs of a flood-prone city?
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor JOHNSTON
for the question. We have covered all of this ground just a week or so ago when
we had the quarterly review, when we went through all of the line items in
relation to drainage. Of course, Councillor JOHNSTON did not then, and she
does not now, accept the fact that there were savings that were recorded in
relation to some of those drainage works. There was also a transfer where we
added more works into the maintenance of the creek systems in this city.
As Councillor JOHNSTON well knows, this city experiences creek flooding
more so than it does that of river flooding, but it is not to say, of course, that
river flooding is not very important, and we invested a significant amount of
money in this city in backflow prevention valves following the 2011 flood
event.
We continue, following on from the Lord Mayor's Flooding Taskforce, set up
around 2006, to roll out a program—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 14 Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR; yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, my question was about why $11 million of drainage
expenditure—this is on pages 28 and 29 of the annual quarterly report before us
today—it says it is being re-phased, and I have asked why are we underspending
and rolling over $11 million in drainage infrastructure desperately needed by the
city.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, the LORD MAYOR has five minutes to answer the
question, as you know. I can see nothing wrong with the way in which the
LORD MAYOR is answering the question. I am not upholding your point of
order. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. This is the problem when
Councillors do not understand. Re-phasing does not mean abandoning;
re-phasing is a term that is used in relation to the timing of issues. It can be
various reasons why that timing has been adjusted. So that is the reality.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Councillor FLESSER, I would not interject too much if I were there, because I
have your numbers here from the time when you were Finance Chairman—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
I might even sneak a few of those out during the E&C Report just to keep you
interested. The reality is, Councillor JOHNSTON, the key word is re-phasing.
That is the key to it. This is not abandoning projects. We indicated a couple of
weeks ago when we had a report to this Chamber—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
—that this Administration remains committed to drainage works. We have had a
lot of drainage works. Can I say we have also had a lot of money spent around
the Flood Commission of Inquiry, a lot of money spent around studies, and
those studies, unlike those opposite, have been made public every time that we
have had fresh information. I recall not so long back tabling a whole host of
information around additional flood studies in this place. Some of the works we
are doing around those studies also are an engagement with the State and other
local authorities.
So, Councillor JOHNSTON, you might not want to accept the fact that we have
got to do these studies, I do not know—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
I would just remind you that there was a time in this place before you arrived
when there were flood studies being conducted that were being kept secret over
and over again in that period. That was well highlighted in 2003 when there was
a myriad of studies which were simply kept secret from the people of Brisbane.
As we know, we now provide not only those studies in a publicly available
form, but we also have a very significant flood information base where it is
easily consumed by people without having to read myriads of reports. That is
free of charge information to the ratepayers of this city.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
LORD MAYOR:
So on the issue of the $11 million—
Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
I have dealt with the $11 million.
Chairman:
Point of order against you. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, my question was why the $11 million that has been
underspent and has been rolled over, why has that occurred, given the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 15 significance of drainage to this city that floods, and I haven’t actually heard a
reason from the LORD MAYOR. He has talked about Councillor FLESSER, he
has talked about flood studies, but why is the $11 million in drainage being
rolled over, or as the LORD MAYOR likes to describe it, re-phased?
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I do not uphold your point of order. The
LORD MAYOR is answering your question. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I have answered the issue of re-phasing. I thought I had made
that clear, and I thought there might have been some confusion on
Councillor JOHNSTON's part around what the definition of re-phasing is. There
might have been some misunderstanding on her part. But it is not—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
No, Councillor JOHNSTON, there were some savings—
Chairman:
Just a minute, LORD MAYOR; Councillor JOHNSTON, if you continue to
interject and disrupt this meeting, you will be warned. You have asked a
question; be quiet while the LORD MAYOR answers it. Thank you,
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
So to be clear, Madam Chairman, in some areas there were savings made, right?
So that was not reducing the scope of the project. There were genuine savings
made based on the original estimate. We then added extra moneys into areas
such as creek maintenance in this city. But what we are talking about in terms of
this re-phasing is a timing issue, Councillor; that is all it is. It is a timing issue of
when the money was expected to be spent versus when it will be spent. But it
has not been put off indefinitely at all; it is simply a question of timing, and it
will be spent.
Chairman:
Further questions?
Councillor WYNDHAM.
Question 7
Councillor WYNDHAM:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to Councillor McLACHLAN,
Chair of Field Services Committee. In the past months we have had a number of
successful events initiated through the Waste and Resource Recovery branch of
Field Services, including the Recycling Art Competition and the Garage Sale
Trail. Can you please tell the Chamber of the benefits these events and other
initiatives bring to our city and its residents?
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to Councillor WYNDHAM for the
question. The short answer to the question is, the benefit for the city and local
residents from these events is a cleaner, greener Brisbane. That is our objective,
and it is what we are delivering. That is why the Keep Australia Beautiful folk
named Brisbane as Australia's Most Sustainable City for 2014.
The Recycling Art Competition, which is only in Brisbane, and the Garage Sale
Trail, which is a national event, are about encouraging the reuse of recyclable
objects, the recovery of resources that can be used again for their original use or
for something new.
The winners in the Recycling Art Competition for this year were announced on
26 March following an exhibit and public voting process at the Brisbane Square
Library. Bec Peart and Martin Pedder received the most votes for their entry, for
the second year in a row, with their creation, Octopus's Garden. Their entry the
previous year, Junkalina and the Clockingbird, did set a very high standard, and
they met that standard again themselves. But there were plenty of other strong
competitors in that competition.
I do encourage all Councillors who have not already done so to check out those
entries. That artwork is still on the Council website, and it is certainly
innovative, interesting and very artistic. Our Recycling Art Competition, which
was formerly called the Tip Shop Art Competition, gives artists the opportunity
to enhance their portfolio and public profile by exploring the creative potential
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 16 of recycling household items, furniture and indeed, even throw-away items. It is
also about inspiring a wider audience of residents to see the possibility in things
that might otherwise be thrown away. It is about giving further credence to that
old saying: one person's trash is another's treasure.
We first held the competition in 2012 to promote and encourage visitors to go
along to our Tip Shops, another of our waste minimisation initiatives designed
to keep reusable furniture and household items out of the landfill. The Tip Shops
provide some revenue, and more importantly, job opportunities for our partners,
the Endeavour Foundation, who run and manage these shops. To encourage
recycling, we have established Resource Recovery Centres at Willawong and
Chandler. We will have two more to open at Ferny Grove and Nudgee by the
end of this term of Administration.
This means more material diverted from landfill to the Tip Shops to sell, more
creative opportunities available from that material for future entrants in the
Recycling Art Competition, and I do see this as a kind of spiral growth in
Brisbane recycling.
Councillor WYNDHAM also asked about the Garage Sale Trail which is a
national event that organises communities, including Brisbane, to hold garage
sales on the same day—24 October is the date to mark in the calendar for this
year.
The Garage Sale Trail complements our key waste and resource recovery
messages of Towards Zero Waste: a good way to promote reuse, to create new
neighbourly connections, to provide a platform for local fundraising and
economic growth, and more importantly to reduce the amount of waste sent to
landfill which does make Brisbane cleaner and greener.
In 2014, Brisbane's Tip Shops again played a key role when they were registered
as the biggest garage sale in the city, selling quality recycled items like books,
furniture, toys, sporting equipment and bric-a-brac diverted from Council's
transfer stations. In Brisbane in 2014, there were 43,000 items sold at Garage
Sale Trails weighing more than 52 tonnes.
Council's litter counts consistently find that cigarette butts and chewing gum are
amongst the most littered items in the city. Together, cigarette butts and
chewing gum represent about 80 per cent of all littered items. A business called
TerraCycle says there is value in recycling the residues found in cigarette butts,
organics, plastics and chemicals. Unfortunately, there is no value in old chewing
gum. But they are keen to get hold of cigarette butts.
So we have commenced a trial with TerraCycle to supply them with the contents
of our butt bins attached to waste recycling bins throughout the city. These
stickers have appeared on butt bins in an area of the CBD today to draw
attention to this great initiative. It is a six-month trial. Of all of those butts and
ash that is otherwise sent to landfill, if this trial is successful, there will be one
less item that does end up in landfill.
So this is a great initiative. We are looking forward to its success. We do believe
that there is great opportunity from those materials. They do send a lot of nasties
through to landfill if they are not collected. There is apparently plastics in the
filters which can be turned into outdoor furniture and pallets, and the organics,
the tobacco and papers, are turned into fertiliser. So we do look forward to the
results of this trial, and we will continue our drive to encourage recycling and
reuse wherever we can.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor DICK.
Question 8
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Why in the
quarterly report you are bringing to Council today is operations in the public
health and safety program, which covers mosquito and pest services, underspent
by $2.5 million? Four weeks ago you cut funding for mosquito and pest services
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 17 in your budget review. With Brisbane suffering its worst ever Ross River and
Barmah Forest virus outbreaks, and the threat of Dengue Fever coming to
Brisbane, why have you underspent Council's public health and safety
operations program by $2.5 million?
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Councillor JOHNSTON might want to
answer this, it sounds like, Madam Chairman.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Councillor DICK, in terms of the operations—you have mentioned mosquitoes.
As I have said here previously, we have a figure in our budget every year around
mosquitoes, but as I have said ever since I came to this role—and it was the
position long before I came to this role—we spend on the basis of advice from
our medical entomologist; it is that simple. If the medical entomologist says he
needs more money to spray, he gets more money. It is as simple as that. It is an
area of the budget where we do not place a restriction. We have to have an
allocation in the budget, and we do that. But it is a matter of the science, and if
the science says we require that particular money for expenditure for spraying,
be it through aerial, 4-wheel drive, quad bike or whatever form of spraying it
might be, those moneys are provided.
Councillor DICK, in relation to the broader question, I will have to take that on
notice, and will do that by way of a response during the debate. This matter, of
course, will be debated today. So we will very much make sure that that
question is addressed during that debate in a few moments' time.
In relation to the question, again I just say that we bring this forward. All of
these issues were in fact debated just a couple of weeks ago. So this is the
quarterly financial report. We had the budget review where all of these matters
were open for debate a couple of weeks ago. This is simply a snapshot in time of
the budget position. But I am happy to respond to the Councillor later.
Chairman:
Councillor WINES.
Question 9
Councillor WINES:
Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of
Brisbane Lifestyle, Councillor ADAMS. Council has a variety of programs
which acknowledge and value the unique contributions that Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people make to our city. These programs also support the
work of these Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Can you
please elaborate on these important programs, including Council's involvement
in marking National Sorry Day late last month and the upcoming Black History
Month?
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor WINES for the question,
because we are very, very proud of the work we do with our Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander population within Brisbane. Queensland is the second
largest population in Australia. We have a very large number of Indigenous
residents in our local government area. LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK and
this Administration definitely recognise the important and diverse contribution
they make to our community each and every day.
We recognise the role of our traditional owners, the elders, their connection with
the land and the water in Brisbane, and also the layers of connection that exist
within the city between many of the communities in our Australian Torres Strait
Islander (ATSI) communications. We actually have an Indigenous team within
the Brisbane Lifestyle portfolio, and their main role is to make sure that we
strengthen these relationships and connections with our ATSI communities and
provide opportunities for them to shape the life of the city and ensure that they
actually have engagement with us, and are at the forefront of our service
delivery as well to connect with their communities and the outreach as well.
We have seen some real positive work out of our Indigenous teams over the past
few years, and we have had a significant improvement with our community
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 18 relations with those communities and councils. Some of those through the
activities mentioned by Councillor WINES like Sorry Day and Black History
Month.
We have an aspiration strategy, and that strategy is all about making sure that
we can facilitate the ATSI community to be fully involved in our Brisbane
lifestyle, to promote their cultural relevance and their community involvement,
to build on their capacity to make sure that they can connect with their young
ones, to engage with Brisbane City Council as well, and wherever possible,
facilitate and coordinate their relationship with other government sectors across
Queensland and Australia, if possible. We really do have a commitment to this
facilitation in our Indigenous aspirations.
With regards to events, there have been so many events that we have been
coordinating and facilitating. I have to talk about Stylin' Up. It has only just
launched in the last month. It is totally changed this year. It is 15 years that
Stylin' Up has been supported by Council, and it has been a great way to
demonstrate youth arts and cultural development, performances and workshops.
But in the 15th year, the community came to us and said, 'We would like to do
something different in the Stylin' Up space. We don't think the festival itself is
something that is connecting with our young people and with our community.'
They came to us with another proposal about how they could reimagine their
community consultation and facilitate Stylin Up through a range of different
events—NAIDOC, Black History Month, Gathering and Clancestory.
So what we actually see in our Stylin' Up for this year is four elements: a
Stylin' Up Creative program, Dreaming Up—a communication and consultation
strategy; Partnering Up—so trying to do partnerships with a development
strategy; and Training Up—a very important part of it of now actually a training
program that sits alongside the program Manager to help the young people in
their Indigenous culture and support them and mentor them through the
traineeships, whether it be in the arts or the creative or in the business place for
them as well.
We officially opened it on 20 May in the Queen Street Mall, with Christine Anu,
which obviously always draws the crowd, which was absolutely fantastic. Of
course, we had our dedicated new Nukayugura performers there to Welcome to
Country. We had Darren Brady as the MC; he is a descendant of the Birri Gubba
and Kuku Yelangi people as well. The Diamonds were there. We had the
gorgeous all-girls troupe of Indigenous girls who do cheerleading, and that was
a gorgeous display by them; their first real big public demonstration, so they did
a great job as well. We also had the Twinnies. The Twinnies are now an 18year-old duo of twins—obviously—hip-hop dancers who first got their big
break when they won at Stylin' Up at eight years of age. They have gone on to
do great things across their work with their scholarship with Stylin' Up and their
hip-hop dancing and styling which was really fantastic.
On top of Stylin' Up, obviously we are coming into Black History Month;
Gathering—I cannot go without talking about Gathering, an annual and cultural
program that is the only program of its type in a capital city in Australia. We
have a platform, and we see performers every week in the Queen Street Mall
sharing their stories and their cultures with an annual attendance of nearly
12,000 people. We are the only capital city that delivers that type of opportunity
for our ATSI communities on a regular basis.
Of course, Black History Month is running throughout July as it does every
year. It is our signature event that recognises and celebrates ATSI island
cultures, heritage and history. This month we have everything from family fun
days, art exhibitions, story-telling; there is local activities right throughout
Brisbane. Please get on to What's On to see what's happening. We had over
39,000 people attend last year. We are expecting this year to see many, many
more. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor ADAMS. That concludes Question Time.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 19 -
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 June 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Just a moment, LORD MAYOR.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Seriatim for debate and voting - Clause A
At that time Councillor Nicole Johnston rose and requested that Clause A, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION –
PROVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, be taken seriatim for debating and voting purposes.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Before coming to the report itself, I
just want to deal with some other issues. Not wanting to disappoint
Councillor FLESSER, I indicated earlier that I would just give a little bit of a
relaying of the financial position at the end of the third quarter under his
stewardship as Finance Chair. I said today that we were at 60 per cent of our
infrastructure spend. I can say under Councillor FLESSER in 2007, that was
59.17 per cent; in March 2006 under his stewardship it was 58.36 per cent. The
other important point—and this is—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Both under 60 per cent, yes. Therefore—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, why would you bother? It's just a joke to them. I will tell you
what is a joke, Madam Chairman. What was a joke was that last question from
Councillor DICK. If I looked a little confused, let me tell you why.
Councillor DICK has cobbled together four figures to come up with his issue
around public health. He has then introduced mosquitoes. It was nothing to do
with mosquitoes in terms of the four figures that he has added together to come
up with the total.
Let me say what is worse. He talked about it in terms of it being a reduction. If
he looks at the columns, it is very simple. Immunisation services, that is an
unfavourable position. In other words, we have spent more than we actually had
anticipated. Why is that? That is because it is a timing issue awaiting revenue
from school-based immunisation programs.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
LORD MAYOR:
It is not a cut; it is a timing issue. This is what Councillor DICK does all the
time in his questions. He cobbles together some numbers, and then, on a
question without notice, tries to create some sort of a political point. Let us have
a look at the second one. Public health strategies and services. That is a
reallocation of funding for the mobile dispatch scheduling and response project.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 20 That is a favourable outcome there, and it is an expense, and it will be a
permanent saving.
The third line was that of public health strategies and services. It was $847,000.
That is a favourable outcome, but that is also due to savings in depreciation
costs, so nothing to do with the actual real outcome. It is associated there with
an accounting mechanism. There are also some genuine savings that were a part
of the water safety outcomes and form integration projects and re-phase. This is
there for him. It is not as though this information is not there. What he has tried
to do in a tricky way is to cobble together some numbers and try to create some
sort of political issue.
The fourth one there is associated with law enforcement and animal
management services. It is a favourable outcome, and that is because of the
timing of animal registrations. It means that we have received revenues faster
than normal. It is also a result of penalty revenue and animal shelter fees. So that
is what that amount is. To somehow cobble together into that a question around
mosquitoes, none of those numbers has anything to do with mosquitoes. I often
place too much in good faith some of the questions that Councillor DICK puts to
me.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
I did not know the answer, that is correct, because you had cobbled together four
figures in your own—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
—arithmetic. You did not even take the favourables from the unfavourables to
come up with it. You have just added the favourables and unfavourables all
together. No wonder I did not have a clue what the question was about,
Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Councillor DICK!
LORD MAYOR:
Let's go to some items. We saw the Queensland Day celebrations on 6 June. I
had the opportunity with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to conduct the
Citizenship Ceremony at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, where
we saw some 250 new Australians sworn in. I have also acknowledged the
establishment of some new markets in the city, in fact, at Bakery Lane in the
Valley, the Bakery Lane Providore Markets, and just acknowledge that that is up
now as another offering for the people of Brisbane.
The Caxton Street Festival was held on Sunday 7 June. I did not get to it this
year, but I believe it was okay; it went pretty well.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
You were there? Good, okay, thank you Councillor. Also I just want to
acknowledge all of the recipients of the Queensland Birthday Honours List. I
congratulate them on their honour. In particular I just want to acknowledge
Councillor John Brent, the Mayor of Scenic Rim. Mayor Brent has been Mayor
now for some 21 years. He has made great contributions, not only to
Local Government but to the agricultural industry. I would just extend our
congratulations to Mayor Brent on this worthwhile and very richly deserved
recognition.
A few festivals are coming up. The Regional Flavours will be running from
18 to 19 July, so I just put that one out there for people who might want to get
some information to their constituents. It is a great event. Also the Brisbane
French Festival has been drawn to my attention, which will run from Saturday
11 to Sunday 12 July. That will be at the South Bank Cultural Forecourt. More
information is available on www.brisbanefrenchfestival.com.au.
It has also been drawn to my attention that The Family Law, a new comedy
series, is currently being filmed out at Sunnybank Hills. It is not often that we
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 21 get films of that sort coming, although we have had quite a bit of success lately,
but that again is another little win for Brisbane with the filming of that at
Sunnybank Hills.
I want also to just outline the fact that there is now a hew Heritage Trail in
Spring Hill that has been launched. The Spring Hill area of course played an
integral part in the early history of Queensland, with the Redcliffe Penal
Settlement first shifting to the area in 1825. Spring Hill is now the Council's
11th Heritage Trail, following the launch of guides for Albion, Ascot, Hamilton,
Indooroopilly, Bulimba, City Centre, Fortitude Valley, Milton, Brisbane River,
Rosalie, South Brisbane, plus a natural history trail for Kangaroo Point. The
Spring Hill Trail highlights 21 different sites spanning over 3.2 kilometres.
People having a look down the river will notice that the 21st CityCat, Gilwunpa,
is now in the water, bearing the colours of our wonderful Queensland Firebirds.
I congratulate them on another win on the weekend as they work towards the
finals. This is a great side. They went through undefeated in 2011. To Laura
Geitz and her team, we wish them well with their following games ahead.
Importantly, this is a lasting recognition of that team. I certainly invite people to
get down, and if they can jump on Gilwunpa and have a look at the way that
CityCat is decked out. It is about making sure that we have a vibrant fleet of
CityCats on the river celebrating the whole notion of Team Brisbane.
The final point I wanted to note today was that Councillor KNAPP celebrated
her last Committee meeting this morning, and did so with cake and style.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Slice—no cake? All right, cakes are out; slice is in. Whatever it takes. I am sure
there will be more said about that at another time, but I just wanted to
acknowledge that event. Item A today is—
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, before you continue, your time has expired.
642/2014-15
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of DEPUTY MAYOR
Councillor Adrian Schrinner, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
Chairman:
Can I just say before you proceed with that, a reminder to all Councillors about
the commercial-in-confidence restrictions that are embodied in that item.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Item A, if we go back, I suppose Council
has seen the successful delivery a little while back of more than 60 systems into
a single system called BaSE. That involved the transition of some 12.5 million
records transferred from out-of-date systems into that new BaSE system. The
reality is that Council has many more systems that need updating and replacing
because they have reached the end of their useful lives. So it is, through this
item today, Item A, that we see the Local Government Systems bring together
Development and Regulatory Tracking (DART), Service Delivery Environment
(SDE)—which performs online transactions, Core Land—which maintains core
property data, Revenue Information Management System (RIMS)—which is a
rating and receipting of payments, and the Integrated Customer Contact System
(ICCS)—which is waste collection software.
Council is also taking the opportunity to replace other systems that will reach
the end of their useful life over the course of the contract and come as part of the
package. This system is obviously vital to Council and Council's customers,
mainly our ratepayers. It is estimated that 60 per cent of requests to Council will
be covered by this new system. After a rigorous and independent tender process,
TechnologyOne, a local company, was selected to undertake the $108.2 million
contract.
Some 25 per cent of Australian Councils are apparently using TechnologyOne
as customers, and many Queensland Councils. Some 27 per cent of all
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 22 Australian rates are now generated and managed by a TechnologyOne solution.
So we are not dealing here with a new player, but they are a Brisbane-based
company with 27 years of history in our city and over 900 employees. Item B is
the—
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, Item A was moved for debate and voting, so if we just do Item
A only at this stage.
LORD MAYOR:
Absolutely. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate on Item A?
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks very much, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on Item A. Labor Councillors
have some big concerns regarding this new approach that the Council is
undertaking. With the E&C indicating that the implementation phase is
estimated at $26.9 million over the first two years and then roughly the
E&C paper indicates $81.3 million worth of ratepayers' money going into this
program. We have a couple of concerns, particularly regarding the issue of
privacy and the data that the new system will undertake.
We were not convinced today at the limited briefing from
Councillor SIMMONDS that the issue of residents' data will be adequately
protected. We all know, as we move towards new systems, that should be the
number one concern and the number one protocol I guess, in place. The
evidence presented to Councillors simply does not indicate that that is
adequately going to be protected. The LORD MAYOR did not touch on that in
his debate today. He did not indicate that. So we certainly are calling for
guarantees and certainly calling for adequate protections to be put into place.
The last thing we want to see with $80 million worth of ratepayers' funds going
into a system where there will be, I guess, the risk put out there where our
residents' data could be used in an illegal way.
Going through the E&C paper, the risks associated with this contract are very,
very lengthy indeed. I am talking about operational risks. I refer to page eight on
paragraph 50, where Council customers are impacted as a result of the delivery
of new online and self-service channels. The project fails to deliver on the
required go-live date; the data migration issues; the contract risks including
delivery system functionality, the hosting of Council core systems in a cloud
environment leading to security breaches or loss of data.
We know that when this is being implemented, and I ask the Chair today
deliberately questions about what was the data, what was the evidence that this
Council undertook to make sure that some of these risks wouldn’t be addressed.
He either deliberately withheld that information, or in my opinion perhaps did
not know what the relevant data was. Has enough due diligence been done to
make sure that residents' privacy has been protected?
We know when this company has also undertaken some similar projects back in
2013, we know when similar systems have been outlined in Victoria, there have
been major consequential issues surrounding the implementation. We have
serious concerns surrounding this new system. We are not convinced yet by the
LNP's delivery of the limited information that they have provided in the
45-minute briefing, with 15 minutes of questions, or 30 minutes of questions or
whatever it was, you know, 20 if you are lucky, without adequate answers being
provided to the elected officials.
It is a pattern that you see with the LNP time and time again. We know that
there is bad news for them today in the operational plan progress and quarterly
financial report which we will deal with shortly. It is always the same pattern
where, when there is bad news, they lump it all together all at one meeting.
For those reasons, and certainly I was waiting to hear on the privacy protection
from the LORD MAYOR and he did not address those at all, so I would
encourage him today, in the final debate, that he does outline what measures are
put in place to ensure that residents' privacy, particularly as we look at an
$80 million spend, should be and hopefully will be protected.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 23 Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to Item A on the agenda
today. This is, of course, a very significant project to maintain the
Local Government Systems with TechnologyOne. This is a Brisbane-based
company with over 20 years of experience in local government systems. The
project will be implemented from July of this year. The solution will be preconfigured with a working Council prototype of the system to inform and design
workshops with Council staff. It will ensure that our Council can deliver its core
local government services more efficiently and effectively. They will also
provide regular updates at no cost to Council.
The project affects Development Assessment, City Planning, Finance,
Information Services Branch, Rates and Compliance and Regulatory Services
(CARS). Specifically DART, ePlan, Infrastructure Revenue Information System
(IRIS)—it will also improve our outward systems, Property Development
Online (PD Online), that critical system that has been operating since 2007 that
offers every single member of this city access 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, to all of that information between Council and any applicant. So it is all
there transparently, accountably. It also provides the ePlan information and
interactive mapping. It will really work better to provide improved customer
service.
TechnologyOne has certainly got a lot of experience in this area, and it is used
by over 100 councils, I understand, across Australia, as the LORD MAYOR
noted. So it has significant expertise in this area. Some of the relevant outcomes
will be in the area of development assessment technologies, with DART which
was introduced in 2004 and replaced previous systems such as Building
Information and Development System and the Development and Building
System. This is used by Brisbane Lifestyle, by the CARS and City Planning and
Sustainability (CPAS) Development Assessment Branch.
It was built to meet processing needs such as processing and tracking
development applications, pre-lodgements and other DA requests. Council
currently is the only—let me repeat that—the only council that uses DART. It
requires upgrading to match Windows upgrades and enhancements. The last
update was in April 2015. There are over 200,000 development and prelodgement records for Development Assessment in DART, and these records
date back to 1982. So, from 2011, DART has replaced the need for hard copy
files which ensures a more unified and complete process. We believe that this
system will improve that even more.
In terms of IRIS, which is the Infrastructure Revenue Information System, it
was created to support our first Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP). It was custom
built to suit Brisbane's own infrastructure charging policies. It allows users to
create and issue infrastructure charges notice and then track, record payments,
and report on these notices. It applies varying degrees of complexity and
mathematical calculations to calculate charges under a capped planning system.
It talks, or it interacts, with DART, Core Land and Geographic Information
System (GIS) to prepare and store charge notices. It is used by
Organisational Services, Development Assessment, City Planning and
Economic Development (CPED), Corporate Finance, CARS and
Brisbane Lifestyle. It began being used in June 2011 and is still being used
today. It tracks and reports on charges of over 9,000 developments, nearly
$3 billion in charges, which includes Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU)
charges, and dates back to 2002.
It is currently operating on a software and hardware platform which is now
superseded, a situation that many Information Technology (IT) systems face
from time to time in their lifespan. This represents a risk to Council with regard
to future enhancement and maintenance. It is currently being enhanced to
comply with Sustainable Planning (Infrastructure Charges) and Other
Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (SPCOLA), that piece of legislation which I
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 24 will not outline for you right now, and provides additional functionality to
manage and report on infrastructure works and land. Other local governments
now have similar systems at varying levels of sophistication to manage this
process. But it is critical to manage the ongoing management of up to
$100 million per annum of Council's revenue.
PD Online, as I mentioned earlier, was introduced in 2007. It replaced Council’s
View, a development application online function which was introduced in 2003.
By 2013, 78 councils across Australia and New Zealand used a form of
PD Online all providing the function of viewing a development application and
level of assessment calculator. The tool is used by developers, land owners,
government agencies, submitters, commercial entities, community organisations
and the media to access planning and development information. The system is
linked to DART to make development information immediately accessible. It
has evolved to assist in compiling all sorts of information to be used for
assessment.
Interactive mapping was introduced as part of New City Plan in March. It
included the ePlan, allowing the public to access the entire plan as well as the
planning scheme mapping for the first time. The Priority Infrastructure Plan
mapping and information was added on 18 February 2014. The interactive
mapping includes multiple layers of information, similar to GECKO (Council’s
web based mapping and spatial information tool), so property labels, contours,
aerial photography, pre-46 zoning, Neighbourhood Plan precincts and overlays.
It includes the ability to produce property reports which allows users to print the
details of the draft plan relating to a property. It was developed by Esri Australia
especially for the Council project, and is hosted by Amazon cloud to ensure
smooth and fast service.
Other systems include GECKO, which replaced iBiMAP in 2009-10. It also
allows Council to review development in the context of its surroundings and
infrastructure alignments, Local Government Infrastructure Plans, Priority
Infrastructure Plan mapping, and is made up of layers ranging from waterways,
road networks to community facilities, utilities and land topography. It was also,
of course, used by the neighbourhood planning team to develop boundaries and
overlay mapping. It is a source for other mapping information such as
interactive mapping.
Madam Chair, there is a whole range of systems that will benefit from this
initiative. I thank the LORD MAYOR and Councillor SIMMONDS for
supporting our continued investment in making sure that we deliver excellent
customer service and maintain the high standards that we expect within this
organisation to continue to serve the people of Brisbane. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A, the provision of
Local Government Systems under this contract before us for approval. Firstly,
can I put on the record my concern about how the briefing unfolded today in the
Council Chamber about this matter. It is quite technically complex, and it is
quite a detailed area and a very large and significant contract for our city.
The Chief Information Officer gave us a presentation and then we had about
20 minutes of questions. To me, that is absolutely not enough. I certainly had
further questions which I will raise as I go through this process before us this
afternoon. I guess what I am trying to understand here is where we are going
with this. What we've got with what the QUIRK Administration has done this
term is that we will be spending half a billion dollars in ratepayers' funds on new
IT services for Council. That is combining the approximate cost of BaSE and
this TechnologyOne contract. That is in the past two or three years, half a billion
dollars of expenditure.
I cannot at this point outline how these things are actually going to benefit either
Council employees or the ratepayers of Brisbane. I have just listened to
Councillor COOPER speak for 10 minutes, and I still do not know how
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 25 PD Online is actually going to be improved. Are we going to put more
information online? No. Are we going to change the way that we upload the
documents so that you can read them on a tablet; that would be helpful. I do not
know if that is what this is going to do.
What I would like to understand, rather than the Administration just saying this
is going to be an improvement and pooh-poohing anybody who has genuine
questions about what that actually means, is to stand up and explain to us how,
for example, PD Online will be better. It has just had an upgrade. The layout has
changed; the functionality has changed. That has been a small improvement. But
what exactly is going to be better with PD Online? Councillor COOPER spent
10 minutes talking about how everything is going to be so much better with the
new contract, but without actually saying how that is going to be better, what is
changing, what impact it is going to have.
I have so many questions about this. It is such a significant issue. If something
goes wrong with what we are proposing to do here today, it could have
disastrous impacts for Council, ratepayers and our continuity of service in
running the city. I understood that BaSE—and this is the way it was sold by the
LORD MAYOR, and I went back and looked at all the media reports of it—we
were going to combine all of these Council services together into one
platform—BaSE.
Now we find out that, oh no, BaSE only did a few of Council's services, 62 of
Council's services. Now we are going to do these other 11 in this contract before
us today. We still do not know how many other services are sitting out there.
Are we going to go from half a billion dollars to $1 billion within this term of
government? I do not know.
If there is a strategic plan for the rollout of our IT services and upgrades for our
community, we do not know what that is. We were told it was BaSE. I
remember the LORD MAYOR—he has had a go at the Labor Party year after
year about not understanding BaSE and not knowing about BaSE, but he has
sold BaSE to us as the be all and end all of what we needed to do to improve our
IT. Well, clearly that is not the case before us today, and I have significant
questions about the arrangements that are here.
I had a bit of a look at TechnologyOne. They seem to be a reputable publicly
listed company, but there is not a lot of information on their website about the
other councils that they have supported. Again we have heard the
LORD MAYOR stand up and say there are all these other councils that are
being supported. I would certainly like some practical examples of those
councils and how that is working.
The LORD MAYOR, I believe, and so did Councillor SIMMONDS, used the
figure of 27 per cent of all Rates notices are sent out using this system. Well, we
could have a bigger Rates base than those 27 put together. I would certainly like
a little bit more information about the due diligence we did to understand how
this system was working effectively in other councils. To me, there was a
genuine question being asked about whether we knew of any problems with the
rollout of this technology at other councils in the briefing this afternoon, which
Councillor SIMMONDS simply could not answer. He could not answer.
I would have hoped that we have had either discussion at officer level with the
other councils involved to determine what they do versus what we do; I would
have hoped we have had them at the administration level with other mayors and
other Councillors to determine how the rollout of these systems is working in
those areas. We are about to undertake a very significant project, and we got
20 minutes of obfuscation from Councillor SIMMONDS today instead of
answering questions. That is a real concern to me—the scope of this project, and
also how it is working in other areas.
More importantly, I have some concerns with the rollout issue, and I know that
we have a two-year rollout which we are estimating is going to cost $26 million.
What concerns me, though, is we are now seeing the problems emerging with
BaSE, and it seems as though they are dribbling out. We had just a week or two
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 26 ago from the CEO, an email to all staff saying that there were problems with the
rollout of BaSE and officers were having trouble delivering BaSE and delivering
outcomes from BaSE because of the complexity of the service.
It was in an open email to all Council staff. He said that they are committed to
the ongoing use of it, and they are equally committed to ensuring employees are
supported to doing their job, so they have appointed a new project manager to
help sort of smooth over all the problems they are having which are described as
“disruption to day-to-day business activities stemming from the implementation
of SAP and how its implementation has altered the way they work”.
What we are proposing to do here, I think, sounds more significant than what
happened with SAP. So if SAP is not working properly now from a rollout point
of view, if it is a training issue or a delivery issue or a systems issue, that is not
clear to me that we are managing that well, so how can we rely on the fact that it
will work well with this TechnologyOne contract? The proof so far is that BaSE
has not worked, so just trust us; we'll try and get it right this time around. So I
am very concerned about that.
I am extremely concerned about the extensive operational risks that are outlined
in here. I am concerned about the migration of all of our services over to this
new platform. I am concerned about the privacy issues with having all of this
data located up in a cloud—apparently a cloud we share with every other
council—and we are all going to be sharing our security with all of these other
councils because we are all going to be chipping into the pool to pay for the
upgrades and the security that goes with this. It just seems a bit odd to me.
I would want to know a lot more about this before we actually approve it.
Councillor SIMMONDS did get back to me with the answer to the question I
asked earlier today, which leads me to believe there will be a lot more than
$108 million over the life of this contract, which is quite significant. Up to
20 years is the contract term, so we are locking ourselves into a very long-term
and financially complex arrangement, which leads me to the incentive based
performance scheme.
As I understand it, if these guys save money; that is, if they cut costs and cut
corners, they get to keep those savings. That does not seem to me to be a good
way to run our most vital service which is a secure online platform which just
underpins everything this Council does. It is probably the same as our current
CEO contract; let's cut the mowing budget, then the CEO gets a bigger bonus.
That is not a good way to be running a business. That concerns me, the way the
incentive scheme has been outlined.
There are extensive lists of operational and financial risks that are outlined in
this report, and there seems to be very little given to the mitigation of those risks
in terms of an explanation. The top one, for example, is that there's a significant
business transformation project being undertaken, and it could lead to
suboptimal outcomes regarding time, cost and quality. Presumably that would
mean something like the CARS officers are unable to undertake food health
safety audits because the systems are down or we do not have access to them,
and therefore they cannot input the information, it cannot go back into the
central platform and be viewed by everybody for the internal approval—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I wish I had 10 minutes more.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; I rise obviously in strong support of
Item A and to speak in favour of it. I am happy to deal with some of the items
that have been raised by Labor Councillors, because the items in themselves
around privacy and how we mitigate risks are very legitimate debating points for
this particular contract, as they are for all significant contracts, which is why the
information has been provided to them in an incredibly open and transparent
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 27 way both through the Stores Board, on the file and also in a briefing that I
personally conducted.
The problem I have with the debate from the Labor Councillors opposite is,
when they do not have very much, they just umm and ahr and say, well, I've got
a bad gut feeling and all of this. I am happy to debate in a very sensible way, but
I am not here to address gut feelings. This Administration has the record on the
board. We had a $350 million implementation in BaSE which we have delivered
on time and under budget—on time and under budget. That is almost unheard of
in the IT world.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I will tell you who couldn’t do it. It was the State Labor Government. It couldn’t
even pay people out of it. Have you heard of anybody not getting paid? I tell you
what; I bet you would if there were Council officers not getting paid. I bet
everybody would have heard about it by now.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
So, a Labor State Government could not do it, so their argument was that an
LNP Council should not do it, but look, we have done it—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—and we have done it under budget.
The debating point that Councillor DICK used about the Victorian example—
and I see he has done a simple Google search; good on him. If you put in
Google and you put in TechOne, that is what comes up. But he hasn’t delved
much deeper because the example of the people who implemented that was a
State Labor Government. Again, what is the common denominator? I am not
going to not choose a system just because every time Labor mucked it up. If I
did that, I would never choose any system. This LNP Administration has. We
are not asking you take us at our word, take us on what we have achieved, which
is a $350 million transformational project on time and under budget.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
So let us have a chat about it. As we said, there are over 110 councils using this.
They talked about due diligence and talking to these councils. They are councils
like the Sunshine Coast, Noosa and Townsville. Of course, we talked to them.
But guess what; you do not sell the same package 110 times across Australia
and New Zealand if it does not work. You just do not.
We have spoken to those councils and all the rest of it, but just common sense
alone would tell you that you do not sell that 110 times; you do not produce
27 per cent of the Rates bills in Australia—one in every four Australian pays
their Rate bills generated out of this system and this cloud. You do not do that if
it does not work. So this is a very well-worn path we are treading with this
solution, with a company in TechOne who has 20 years' experience in local
government, 27 years' experience in IT, are Brisbane-based with 900 employees.
What a success story.
In terms of the privacy—and I will just switch to that for a minute—
Councillor DICK and I have very different memories of the briefing today. I do
not remember him asking me a question about the privacy. He asked a question
about whether I had known of any other implementations that had not worked,
and that is very different from privacy of data in the cloud. I suspect he did not
ask it because it was an entire slide in the presentation. I will just run it through
the Chamber.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 28 As part of making sure, as part of the due diligence, that Council has
undertaken, because we want, of course, the data to be protected, and it is—I
have every confidence that it is, and this is why—Council's ICT security and
assurance officers reviewed it themselves. Not only that, but they had an
external audit report produced by Ernst & Young to make sure that those
protections were in place. The end of year (EY) audit and Council's findings, so
both of us, provided confidence in the cloud services. I note that all data will be
stored in data centres in Australia, so it will remain in country, and can only be
operated or can only be used by TechOne employees—no third parties.
Because it stays in Australia, as it should, it is subject to all of that legislation
that we have in Australia, the privacy laws and everything. It is fully protected
in terms of the privacy issues. In relation to data security, because that is another
thing that you have to consider, the TechOne cloud is based on multiple
availability zones in Sydney, so that ensures that if one goes down, we always
have continuity of data.
TechOne also provides regular security tests and audits to ensure protection of
data in its cloud environment, including penetration testing vulnerability
assessment. TechOne also works closely with suppliers to identify and eliminate
zero day threats even before the public release of security vulnerabilities, and
the TechOne cloud business unit continually offers—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—global denial of service—
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Would Councillor SIMMONDS take a very genuine question? He told me he
would earlier.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
No. I am running through the important security protections, including the
TechOne cloud business unit continually monitoring global denial of service
activities and sharing these results of the security tests continually with Council.
So, we can be assured that our data is protected. It is protected in Australia
under Australian legislation and privacy laws. It is protected from any external
threat or hack, and not only that, but we are doing nothing different than
110 other councils are doing. So they trust their data to this system, this cloud
and this company, and we are doing exactly the same. I have found no evidence
in the significant due diligence that this Council has undertaken to have
anything other than full faith in the solution that is provided.
The Councillors opposite also talked about the risks that we have identified. I
would not be doing my job if we did not identify risks and look at ways to
mitigate them. It is an IT project. They do not come without risks. But what they
failed to mention was that the risk of doing nothing, so continuing the system as
it is, is in fact labelled extreme. That is the officers' words, not mine. The risk of
continuing the current systems, which are in most cases, virtually all cases, over
10 years old, is labelled extreme. That would be the risk we would have to
mitigate if we left it as it is. Instead, what we have is a series of risks associated
with transitioning to this new system, which we have then successfully
mitigated. We have mitigated them in a way that is open for every Councillor to
see as part of this documentation here. So, for every risk that they mentioned,
and they have only selectively quoted, there is a mitigation in place, and a
residual risk rating which is lower than what they have quoted. That is why you
have to be careful when those opposite selectively quote.
Think of a car company designing a car and then not thinking about the risks of
a crash and therefore putting in airbags. It would be like saying to the car
company, don't think about what happens if the car crashes, and mitigating that
risk with an air bag. That is what those opposite are asking me to do. Don't think
of the risks and think of the mitigation. Of course we are going to do that. That
is just good proper governance, and I am not going to apologise for showing
those risks and how we are going to mitigate them. Those opposite should be
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 29 talking to us about the transparency of showing all those risks, rather than
simply saying, oh gee, we've got a gut feel.
Councillor JOHNSTON said we spent half a billion dollars. Again, you cannot
take what they say at face value. BaSE is a $350 million system over 10 years,
and this is $100 million over 10 years, so even if I added them both together as
she did, I still do not get it over 10 years. I get $450 million over 10 years. She
talked about half a billion dollars, $500 million, in the last couple of years. This
is why you have to interrogate everything that they say. You cannot take it at
face value.
So there are significant benefits for ratepayers as part of this. The new system,
as I said to Councillors during the briefing, will improve accessibility, web
compliance accessibility, and that goes to disabilities as well, and people
accessing our website and other systems. It improves the mobile device
capability. So, yes, Councillor JOHNSTON, they will be able to do those things
on their mobile devices. That is what it is there for. That was up in the display
during the briefing, if she had bothered to read it. The ability to track the
progress of service requests: this is what residents will be able to do. The ability
to pay for multiple Council services online in one transaction using a standard
shopping cart functionality are just some of the things that will be improved.
But the idea that we only have 62 systems now that BaSE is done, and we are
not doing anything else in IT is laughable. We are a $2.9 billion organisation
that spans everything from mosquito spraying and immunisation through to
waste pickup, through to economic development, through to planning; the idea
that we have only got 62 systems now that BaSE is done just shows a
fundamental understanding of not just IT but the entire organisation. So we are
continuing to improve, but importantly, when we replace systems like the ones
that we have, we replace them in a more sustainable way. We are replacing the
11 customised unsupported systems with one single system which is not
customised, which can be easily upgraded—
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—by all accounts. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to enter the debate because it seems to me,
having listened carefully to the two LNP Councillors, we have been told that the
detail of the technical background of this proposal should be sufficient for
Labor Councillors to support it. We have also now just heard the Chair of
Finance, in a very verbose way; explain that the merits of this project are so
wide that it has to be acceptable to us.
But, Madam Chair, from my perspective, today's debate is crucial in terms of
confidence. Does the Opposition have the confidence, first, in the LNP and their
Administration, and second, in all of IT contracts that we have seen in
South East Queensland? Where it comes to confidence in terms of the LNP, I
just go straight back to the most recent transition that we have had, which was
the transition to iCloud in the Council offices. I was, I think, one of the middle
people in my ward office to be changed, and I had just finished saying to the
officer, as he put—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
There has been plenty of flexibility; people have spoken about BaSE and
everything, but we are on the ward office system now. That is not involved in
this contract at all.
Councillor interjecting.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 30 Chairman:
Yes, back to this item please, Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor DICK, I
don’t need your input.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, I take that interjection, but I was given a confident statement that
there would be no problem, and within 15 minutes, there was a problem that
took more than 24 hours to get me on track.
Chairman:
Back to this item, please, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, because this item will also do the same management
of the raw data—
Councillor NEWTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Will Councillor ABRAHAMS take a question?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
I would like to take a question, yes.
Councillor NEWTON:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, do you feel that you can have confidence in the LNP
managing this rollout, given the problems that we have had with our own ward
office experiences in moving to the iCloud?
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Councillor NEWTON, an excellent question. It was the very point
that I was making. While one person confidently told me that I would have no
problems, 15 minutes later, on a system that is going to be replaced by this
system to look after the data, I was black. Councillor NEWTON, I understand
you were in the same situation. Do you know what happens when you have not
got SAP? It means nothing works.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, either speak on this item, which has nothing to do
with SAP, or resume your seat.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, when I am talking about confidence, I then go to
the information that we have been given. The information we have been given
has 11 operational risks that have been assessed. Of those, nine are high risk.
The only risk of the two that that they have put as low is the capacity of the
cloud to manage the system. The rest of them are operational in terms of
translating information across, software changes and management changes.
With a full review, they have got down to where, of those, you have seven that
still have a medium risk.
Why was it so relevant to what I was talking about? I was told there was no risk,
yet there was the loss of data, and a ward office without. We are now today
being asked to accept risks that have got a medium risk only after that has been
mitigated in the main by Council officers taking over from TechnologyOne to
actually do the work, and it is still a medium risk.
I would suggest that, to support this, we would need a lot more confidence in the
briefing that that risk meant, if the officers that were doing the enforcements
part of their data went down, it did not translate into all of the other sections of
this software package that we have got. I have looked at what was on the file.
That information is not there. So, if there is one flaw somewhere in this process,
we as Opposition Councillors do not know whether that means the whole system
has time to come down.
I also talked about confidence. We had to ask specific questions about what
were the penalties. The penalties are put in place to gain confidence. If they
were not open enough to give us information on what the penalties are, how can
it be a transparent process? I went to the file and looked at all the briefing on the
file for me to read. Is there one page with a heading of privacy on that
document? No, there is not. So, when it gets to confidence, it is what the
community outside will believe they have confidence in Council when they
understand that all of their data is now on the cloud organised by Council, and in
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 31 theory, protected by Council, although there was no information about that
protection in the information we have here.
I do not want there to be delusions of grandeur and to think that I am the
American spy services, but they have tried very hard with their cloud based data
to stop it being hacked. We know from The Age that that has been unsuccessful.
They are being hacked, and the document from The Age quite clearly says in the
last few months there has been a series of massive data breaches that have
affected millions of Americans.
I do not have delusions of grandeur. I do not actually think that spies in some
other country want to know our database, but I am concerned that commercially
someone might want to know our database. I am also concerned that someone
who is very bright on IT, who just wants to do it to prove they can do it, will be
able, with a cloud-based system, be able to do it.
I have been talking to people in the IT industry, and they say the cloud based
systems are the easiest to hack. My question to that very transparent
Administration over the other side is: have they actually asked how many hacks
have happened into the data that we've actually had? Could they give us
information so that the lay people—which means the media—can understand, so
they can tell our ratepayers how their database is going to be protected? Until
that has happened, we cannot take on confidence from this Administration that
is the most secretive there is, and hasn’t addressed the two core issues of this
proposal.
Chairman:
Councillor MURPHY.
ADJOURNMENT:
643/2014-15
At that time, 3.59pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan 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 locked.
Council stood adjourned at 4.05pm.
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chairman:
Further debate on Item A of the E&C.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I did note
that during the course of the debate that there was a statement made to the effect
that I somehow inferred that when the 62 systems were rolled into a single BaSE
system that that somehow involved every single system that this Council has.
Madam Chairman, I do want to make it clear that that was never the case. I
never ever did say that. What I did always say however was that as of One
Council and as an Administration striving towards a One Council approach that
the bringing together of 62 systems into a single system was a very important
step forward.
Madam Chairman, today through Item A we are of course bringing together
additional systems that need upgrading and that is what this does. I think
Councillor SIMMONDS has outlined very adequately the issues relating to
security around the IT system that is proposed. He's outlined several councils
that are currently engaged, particularly in Queensland with the use of the
company TechnologyOne including Noosa, Townsville and the Sunshine Coast,
just a few examples. But importantly that 27 per cent of all Australian Rates are
generated and managed through TechnologyOne Solutions. So the point being
we're not again a trailblazer, we're not going into the world of uncertainty in
relation to this.
Madam Chairman, any IT system has a prospect of security issues. There are
some smart people in the world let's face it, some very smart people in the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 32 world. Nobody, me included is ever going to give an ironclad guarantee that a
system can't be entered. The White House can't do it, how the hell am I
supposed to stand here and give some sort of guarantee, Madam Chairman, that
something would ever, ever happen.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS!
LORD MAYOR:
Well you mightn't have but your friend to your left certainly did.
Madam Chairman, no one is ever going to be in a position to do that and that's
why the question is asked of course because he knows full well that nobody who
is honest enough, Madam Chairman, can provide such a guarantee. But what we
can say is this; that we have undertaken all the appropriate internal and external
audit checks to make sure that in so far as is humanly possible,
Madam Chairman, we can provide that sense of certainty about the system into
the future.
So, Madam Chairman, I look forward to the upgrade. These systems are
certainly in need of upgrade. We've spent a lot of money in the IT space,
Madam Chairman, it's one which is with all organisations I guess, consuming
more and more expenditure as a part of the digital way of life that we have today
but, Madam Chairman, I'm very happy to support the recommendation.
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 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Ryan MURPHY and Kim MARX 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, and
Councillors Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT, 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 Shayne SUTTON.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 -
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, Items B and C.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, Item B is
Stores Board Submission for the supply and maintenance of specialist mobile
plant to quarries and asphalt plants. The submission is recommended to Council,
Madam Chairman, after the consideration of the most advantageous outcome for
the provisions of these required services. Hastings Deering Australia Proprietary
Limited is the recommended company. Madam Chairman, they have achieved a
non-price score of 84.8 with its closest rival being 72.9 and an overall value for
money index score of 28.49 against its nearest rival of 24.74.
The contract, Madam Chairman, is to procure plant and equipment on a dry hire
basis to service equipment at quarries and asphalt plants comprising dump
trucks, excavators, dozers and loaders. A dry hire arrangement inclusive of
maintenance and repair has proven beneficial in meeting Council's ongoing
requirements. So, Madam Chairman, in terms of this, it's a significant contract.
The way it would work is that there would be a three year initial term with an
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 33 option for Council to take up a further two years but not exceeding a total
maximum five year period. Madam Chairman, Item 5, sorry, Item 3—
Chairman:
C.
LORD MAYOR:
—C, is the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for
the period ended March of 2015. Well, Madam Chairman, this follows on from
a third budget review. This March report indicates once again that Council is in
a strong financial position. If we have a look at the ratios set out on page 4,
Madam Chairman, again our interest coverage where we seek to have a target of
less than 10 per cent, we are at 6.36 per cent. When it comes to debt servicing as
a proportion of total income where we seek to be less than 33 per cent, we are
currently at 12 per cent.
In terms of net debt as a proportion of total income we attempt to be under
150 per cent; we're currently at 114.93 per cent. In terms of the working capital,
Madam Chairman, we seek to be more than one, we're at 1.32. Total assets as a
proportion of total liabilities, we seek to be more than three, we're at 7.13. When
it comes to the average debt maturity where we seek to be less than 15 years, we
are currently at 14.03 years. So, Madam Chairman, within all of those matrices
it is a demonstration that the financial status of this organisation is in a good
place. It reflects the fact that the Queensland Treasury Corporation rating of this
Council is strong with a neutral outlook.
Madam Chairman, the report indicates a number of other things. It certainly
highlights once again Council's efficiency in achieving some savings. Things
like the $1.717 million saving on 100 per cent green power purchase that we
have. That's simply due to favourable market prices for renewable energy
certificates. There's also been a $309,000 saving in the Green Heart Wisdom
project, $1.5 million saving in Shorncliffe Pier and $3.597 million saving on
construction costs of bus build. These are just some of those areas,
Madam Chairman, where we have been able to make a financial gain in terms of
the budget process, genuine savings, no reduction in the actual output or the
actual performance of Council.
There are also several projects where we've been able to run ahead of schedule;
Norman Creek, transfer stations, resource recovery centre projects—one of
which I opened recently out there at Chandler—pool maintenance, cemetery
maintenance, Madam Chairman, being other areas. Council's capital spend to the
end of March as I said during Question Time sits at 60 per cent and that's where
it is traditionally sat now for a number of years. Madam Chairman, given the
weather conditions that we've had this year with a lot of rain in the first half of
this year, Madam Chairman, I'm satisfied that we are in a fairly strong position
given those circumstances. So, Madam Chairman, I'm happy to move the report
and have it debated.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Seriatim - Clause C
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause C, ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2015, be taken seriatim for
voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Look, thanks, Madam Chair, I rise to speak briefly on Item B and Item C.
Labor Councillors will be supporting Item B today listed in the E&C paper
which is Stores Board Submission for the supply and maintenance of specialist
mobile plant to quarries and asphalt plants. We understand the importance of
that work being undertaken for the city. As all Councillors know that's core
business for our organisation. We certainly have no objection to the supply and
maintenance of that product. Madam Chairman, I would like Item C which I will
extend my remarks to, be taken seriatim for voting purposes please.
Chairman:
Thank you.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 34 Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, we've heard a little from the LORD MAYOR
about Item C which is the Annual Operational Plan Progress and
Quarterly Financial Report for the period ended March 2015. Madam Chair, I
want to go through a whole range of projects which clearly show either this
Administration cutting corners once again or simply dropping the ball and
enabling a number of this funding to simply be rolled over for next week's
budget. It's a pattern that we see time and time again. The Council's got some
buzz words when it comes to gimmicks, when it comes to this Plan Progress and
Quarterly Financial Report. They always use the word, “it's a snapshot in time”.
When you read page 2 of the document the Quarterly Financial Report has been
prepared to show the approved budget against the year to date financial position
while the Annual Operational Plan Progress Report records variances in delivery
of the Annual Plan. It's the variances that I want to speak about today because
we've had a little debate so far. In addition, this report gives an overview of the
commercial operations in financial wellbeing of Council services. So I don't
believe it is a snapshot at all, Madam Chair, that's just nonsense and spin from
the LNP.
What this is, it's a report card. It's a report card into just how well this budget is
falling apart because we know each year it's the same thing and the same time
again. I'm going to reference a few documents for you, Madam Chair, today
which is the LORD MAYOR's speech from last year in the 2014-15 budget
document, which we're dealing with I guess the variances today. We know when
it comes to what the LORD MAYOR says on budget day in just over a week's
time, to fast forward if he is still the LORD MAYOR of this city, what the LNP
trick is. It's about announcing things and then not delivering on those key
projects and it is worse than that.
It is about using that money to then con and hoodwink the people of Brisbane to
somehow suggest it is brand new money. It's not. It's absolutely not. So let's go
through program by program to debunk the myth of how good this Council is
actually on delivering on its word. So I turn to page 19 which the
LORD MAYOR and I noted what he said today, around 60 per cent is the mark
of where we should be when it comes to delivering. I think that was the answer
today and he reinforced that today. I'm specifically referring to the Council
summary of applications of capital funding.
You only need to look at where we're at in terms of Clean, Green and
WaterSmart City, 48.81 per cent, not 60 per cent. Your Brisbane, 34.93 per cent;
public health and safety, 30.86 per cent; Future Brisbane 12.28 per cent.
However, there is one area in Council that we're not behind in. One area that
we're exceeding 60 per cent. Shooting for the stars, Madam Chair, shooting for
the stars. You can always—no, you can set your watch, whether it be projects,
public transport, health and safety, basic services, frontline services, what is it,
Madam Chair, then I thought we are, well it's where we should be.
Economic development, 97.02 per cent.
Of course Brisbane Marketing cannot miss out on one single dollar, absolutely
not. Squeeze the stone dry of blood. Absolutely, get every last drop out, every
last drop. So, Madam Chair, you betcha, you betcha, Economic Development
has exceeded the 60 per cent where we should see it. It went up to 97.02—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you Councillor DICK.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I'm just wondering if Councillor DICK will take a question.
Councillor DICK:
Sure, Madam Chair.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I'm just wondering if he is aware that—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON!
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 35 Councillor SIMMONDS:
I'm just wondering if the figures he's aware relate to capital spend and that
Brisbane Marketing has no capital spend whatsoever. So the figure he quotes
has nothing to do with Brisbane Marketing. Are you aware of that?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I was making the point, Madam Chair, I was making—
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I know it hurts the glamour Councillor of the LNP,
Madam Chair, but we know for a fact when it comes to economic development,
when it comes to Brisbane Marketing, every dollar is spent where it should be,
on the LNP propaganda unit and machine. We know that front and centre.
Forget Councillor SIMMONDS the fact that you're overseeing a massive
underspend. Forget the fact that you're not delivering on your own commitments
and word when it comes to economic development, and Brisbane Marketing you
can guarantee that Councillor SIMMONDS is front and centre delivering
everything that he can while sacrificing frontline services.
Madam Chair, you only need to look at the Clean, Green and WaterSmart City
program, the capital variance is under by $32.785 million; that's as I said 48.81
per cent. I want to go through some of these Items. I draw Council's attention to
page 23. When you look at capital expenditure again and this is where the
LORD MAYOR says they should be sitting around 60 per cent. Remember he
said that? That's the definition apparently of what a good capital spend is, a
successful—well we are nowhere near that.
The managed contributed stormwater asset services varies by $10.16 million and
this nonsense and we sort of heard the LORD MAYOR skip a beat today where
he said, no, this one is actually a genuine savings. Did you hear that one? So
there are savings and now there are apparently genuine savings. Well that's
right, hung by their own words, Madam Chair. So the Park Development and
Planning service varies by $4.546 million due to quote re-phasing. This is a
good one, the closed Landfill Management Services by $4.099 million due to rephasing.
Now look, there may be very good reasons as to why these have happened and
I'm sure the Chairs have been typed up notes by the spin doctors to actually read
out why they are not delivering on some of these projects. But I specifically, I
specifically turned to some of those Items because I noted in last year's budget,
in the budget speech, the LNP were very quick to talk about delivering on a
number of these projects and we saw the media stories surrounding BMD to
build the—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK to this report only thank you, not last year's budget.
Councillor DICK:
Well, Madam Chair, this is about last year's budget.
Chairman:
This is a quarterly report.
Councillor DICK:
About last year's budget.
Chairman:
It's—no, don't twist the words. It's a Quarterly Financial Report for the period
ended March 2015.
Councillor DICK:
Yes, which we're talking about the 2014-15 Budget. Yes. Thank you. So,
Madam Chair, at the time when these announcements came through that we are
noting the variances today from the LORD MAYOR's own commitment, there
was no talk of re-phasing, there was no talk that we're going to blowout by
$4 million on some of these projects. We're seeing time and time again you
simply can't trust what the LORD MAYOR says in his budget speech because
fast-forward to 12 months later it's a completely and utterly different story.
We talk time and time again, Madam Chair, about Parks Maintenance and
Enhancement Services, $4.45 million however we know there is more coming
in, more millions coming in but less being spent, less being spent. On page 27 of
the Quarterly Financial Report we talk about $518,000 for the Conservation
Reserves Management. We've revised timing and expenditure in the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 36 Conservation Reserves Management program to meet project timelines. What
does it say? It's permanent, it's permanent. So this is not a timing issue, it's a
permanent cut and any way you look at it this is a cut to these projects,
Madam Chair.
We're also looking at a whole range of park development and planning. On page
26, $4.546 million temporary and permanent re-phasing of expenditure in the
Parks Infrastructure Charges program in the Frew Park Milton projects to meet
project milestones. The variance is partly offset by accelerated expenditure for
the key city park upgrade project and the reallocation between expenses capital
for the Frew Park Milton and City Park Upgrades project.
Well we know looking through this documentation, Madam Chair, and also
under parks maintenance enhancement $4.45 million re-phasing and this great
word of re-phasing which is sometimes genuine but sometimes not genuine for
the Parks Maintenance and Enhancement Services.
So the other issue that we've got concerns about and we get lectures all the time
about the Shorncliffe Pier project where we're seeing $7.155 million. So that's
also temporary impermanent. So we want some explanations. Instead of wanting
all of the political grandstanding that we hear from the LNP, what is exactly
going with your so called signature projects, which I may add which was on the
front cover of the budget last year, of the budget document last year. So we also
know in Councillor—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK your time has expired.
644/2014-15
At that point, Councillor DICK was granted an extension of
Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS, seconded by Councillor Victoria NEWTON.
Councillor DICK:
time
on
the
motion
of
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Chamber. On page 29 the reason I
read those reports out earlier is we're looking at $4.09 million re-phasing of
expenditure on the remediation of the Cannon Hill Community Link. I was
making the point that at the time when the announcement came through in
Wednesday's budget, Council allocated $5.2 million to remediate the
Cannon Hill Landfill. They didn't put an asterisk in any of their media
statements. They didn't put a little notation to say well in a year's time we're
actually not going to be spending $4 million of the $5 million, just post script.
So there's none of that, time and time again when the LNP go out at budget time,
this time tomorrow week where they will be asking for support, they simply
cannot be trusted. Now I move to another signature area that the LNP likes to be
lecturing about and that's in Your Brisbane. Now Your Brisbane is the same
again, play it again Sam, 34.93 per cent. Listen Councillor ADAMS you're not
going to become LORD MAYOR with these figures I tell you that.
You look at on page 46 and they list some of those items listed here in the report
today. I'll just turn to page 46 and this is shocking reading because you list out
the review of Your Brisbane program and under the capital programs you see a
whole range of expenditure issues there. Time and time again, we're seeing the
community hall services, the ageing and disability services and the sports fields
and hard court services. But it is under page 46 where they list some major
projects, three major projects, which we're pushing out to 2015 and 2016.
Now just take a guess where those projects are in random terms? Is it the
DEPUTY MAYOR's ward? No. Is it Bracken Ridge ward? No. These are
significant projects that were all listed, no, listed in the LORD MAYOR's own
speech that he wanted a pat on the back. All in Richlands ward. All in Richlands
ward. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? That's right when it comes to the
south side, forget it, absolutely forget it.
So let's go through them and we know the Skate Facilities project for the Inala
and Paddington facilities will now be completed in 2015 and 2016. Now this
was completely different to what was in the LORD MAYOR's speech last year.
There was no, we're going to allocate money only to push it out to the next year.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 37 Now I have been campaigning for five years for that skate bowl to be improved.
Each year it's the same story over and again; trust us, trust us, trust us. Well the
LNP cannot be trusted on delivering on their word.
The South West Sporting Complex program, it is not anticipated the land action
will be finalised this financial year and as such the project can no longer be
started. It's the same appalling state for the Richlands State School site
development which will now be completed in 2015-2016. A completely
different story from the LORD MAYOR's own words but one thing is clear, that
Councillor ADAMS is incapable of even delivering on the most basic of
projects. I know, wait for it; it will somehow be Peter Beattie's fault,
Anna Bligh's fault, Jim Soorley's fault but never the relevant Chair's
responsibility.
So just once I would like the relevant Chairpersons when it comes to my ward
and any other ward in Brisbane just to be honest and apologise and say look, we
didn't get it right. We misled the community and we should have delivered it but
we weren't able to and then you wouldn't hear peep from me. But it's the same,
it's the same—well you never get that. All you do is get lecture after lecture.
I wouldn't be saying too much if I was you Councillor MARX when you look at
what they've done to you in the Karawatha Ward in terms of the
Environmental Centre and Councillor MURPHY what they've done to you. Talk
about cutting the new ones loose. Talk about cutting the one termers loose. Well
I tell you what, I wouldn't be particularly happy and endorsing if I was the local
Councillor when I saw the axe coming down and the rollouts occurring right
across the city.
On page 49 we're looking at $1.98 million for the South United soccer facilities
and highlighted in the budget speech once again last year not delivered, the
commitment not met. Of course we are supposed to be spending $1.4 million on
Souths and $273,000 on St Pauls as well which was listed in page 104 of the
Budget last year. Of course the grand Taj Mahal of the south side, the longawaited Southside Multicultural Performing Arts Complex gets another mention
at $1.373 million. Now they built the Taj Mahal in 20 years but I tell you what,
we're going to reach that probably under this project as well.
It's the same with the listing of the $2.432 million in the Public Pools project.
We're supposed to be spending around $6.463 million in this year's budget and
even last year—sorry we're supposed to be spending on pool refurbishment
$935,000. We're not even half of that; we're not even half of that. So do not
come in here, through you, Madam Chair, any LNP Councillor wanting a pat on
the back and saying that you are delivering record infrastructure. You're not.
You're not, Madam Chair.
So we know time and time again, when it comes to delivery, when it comes to
the review of the Moving Brisbane program, the Moving Brisbane capital
expenditure program varies by a whopping $103.5 million and of course page
35, $2.8137 million of course re-phasing of expenditure to $1.563 million. Less
being spent on public transport services, $4.75 million despite increase in
revenue from TransLink. So more money coming in from TransLink, less being
spent.
The question we have on behalf of commuters, the LORD MAYOR talks about
savings, when it comes to public transport, why aren't we reinvesting that money
in public transport. Why aren't we actually getting on with the job? Instead of
seeing bus patronage numbers reducing, how about instead of cutting public
transport and you actually invest in it.
So we know, Madam Chair, that the report is littered with page after page after
page but Future Brisbane, where the LORD MAYOR says around 60 per cent of
the capital should be expended, we're down to 12.28 per cent. So is it any
wonder, is it any wonder why residents are getting so frustrated with the
neighbourhood planning or lack of consultation that we're seeing, why residents
are sitting in the gallery today disappointed, angry with Council because we're
simply not delivering on the basic services. We're simply not providing the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 38 adequate support for a growing city when it comes to planning and
development.
On page 42, there's $1 million extra that we aren't helping eligible community
organisations. Well I want to know why aren't we doing more to promote, why
aren't we doing more to assist clubs, why aren't we doing more to actually help
them. Yet again we're seeing more money coming in than expected and less
being spent on what we said it would be spent on. So time and time again there
is a pattern emerging inside this LNP Council. Taking more from residents but
delivering less.
So, Madam Chair, whether it be Future Brisbane, Your Brisbane or even down
to public health and safety—once again the 60 per cent is the key figure and
we're down to 30.86 per cent. Crime Prevention Planning and Services by
$215,000. The Taskforce Against Graffiti—now how many presentations, media
stunts have we heard about the Taskforce against Graffiti but a week out from
the budget we see the magical $1.26 million re-phasing of this.
So when it comes to basic services, when it comes to the important projects that
the LNP want credit for, this report is damning, it's a damning insight into just
how bad. After 30 years sitting in this Council and 12 long years we're not
surprised sitting on this side of the Chamber because we see it week in week
out. The difference now is, Madam Chair, the people of Brisbane are finally
waking up to that the LNP simply cannot be trusted to deliver on basic services
and important projects to meet our city's needs.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, I rise obviously to support and speak
about Item C, the March quarter report. So Councillor DICK has tried to make
light of it but the fact is that this report is a snapshot in time. What it's a snapshot
of is the phased spending within the financial year and that's important. When
we use the word re-phased it's because at the start of the year we start a budget
with a certain amount right? Let's say it's $6 million or $8 million, for the sake
of maths. We would allocate for you to spend $2 million every quarter, right?
That's how it works; it's pretty simple.
An $8 million budget you'd spend $2 million every quarter, so guess what?
When it is a backend project that requires design and consultation or some other
factor or the materials being ordered, and instead they spend $2 million in the
first three quarters of the year and there's the other $6 million right at the end
when they pay for the materials that are arriving and do the work. That would be
an example of a re-phase. A perfect example.
That's why this is a snapshot in time because unlike a budget review, a quarterly
report does not move money in the budget, doesn't take it away, doesn't put
more in. It doesn't change the budget at all. It is reporting on the phasing that we
have originally allocated at the start of the year that didn't necessarily bear any
connection to the type of work that would be undertaken or the challenges
involved in individual projects.
This is where, again, we have seen Councillor DICK do it in his question. It was
an outrageous example where he has added four line Items and said we're
cutting that amount of money. He put it to the LORD MAYOR as that, and it
was just totally false, right? We can't use the word lie in this place but I tell you
what, that's about as close to one as you could ever get. Because for a start two
of the Items weren't even expenditure they were revenue. They were revenue
right? So to add the four of them together and say you're cutting that much
expenditure is—I won't use the L word again but gee, it's as close as you could
possibly get.
Then on top of that, having all the information in the comments, right? Didn't
mention mosquitos, well, I didn't mention mosquitos because the funding has
nothing to do with mosquitos and having all that information there he then said
it was about mosquitos. Well I won't use the L word but I tell you what, that's
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 39 about as close as you can possibly get. This is the problem, these Councillors
opposite, Madam Chairman, through you, overreach and they overreach every
time because what they want is a political headline rather than to debate the
facts. We're all happy to debate the facts. We are all happy. That's why we bring
a very comprehensive report to the Chamber.
What we are going to respond to is total fabrications and look, and this is
where—so he's done that during Question Time, he's continued that theme,
Councillor DICK. Because first of all he stood up here and he said that having
spent 97 per cent of the Economic Development capital, that this was
Brisbane Marketing spending up. Well guess what; as I pointed out to him
during the question, Brisbane Marketing has no capital budget. That percentage
figure doesn't even remotely relate to them, right?
The only capital budget that I had in Economic Development this year was
finalising the Valley Mall; the Brunswick Street Mall upgrade. Guess what; we
finished it in July. So why do you think I've spend 97 per cent of the budget.
This is not a conspiracy guys; this is really straightforward stuff if you'd be
happy to read the report. So let's keep going. Again this is where you've got to—
to the journos or to the people in the gallery or to the Brisbane residents reading
this—you've got to read the report. You've got to strip it back, you've got to get
rid of what the hyperbole that Councillor DICK carried on.
Let's have a look at his examples. Remediation on Cannon Hill, right? $4.9
million, a phasing issue. It's a perfect example of a phasing issue because guess
what; there's $5 million we're giving to the company undertaking remediation as
a lump sum and they've only just started. So they've just started, after the third
Budget Review (3BR), so according to the 3BR phase, according to the third
quarterly report, they haven't spent any money but guess what; all of that money
will go to these people who are currently onsite, undertaking the work.
You can go out there and take a photo of us delivering what we said. It will all
be paid by the end of the financial year. Okay? Done. So no cut, no carryover,
no not delivering. We have delivered. We said we'd do something in the
financial year and we have the whole financial year to do it, right?
Let's go to the next one Shorncliffe Pier. Well again, this is another one where
you can drive down and you can see the work done. You can literally take a
photo of us delivering what we said we were doing, right? So we've awarded the
construction, it's under construction. I feel like the Labor Councillors opposite
through you, Madam Chairman, would prefer us just to say to the contractor, I
tell you what, have all the money upfront. You know what, I've got it in the
budget, I've got to spend it, I'll just give you the money upfront.
Don't worry about where you're at in construction. Don't worry about what the
contract payments are. Don't worry that you've saved money as part of the
procurement. Labor says, I have a budget I have to get to. You can have it all.
Well, what a ridiculous notion. What a ridiculous notion. This is where they
expect that somehow when a budget, when it's delivered, is frozen in time. What
about the Karawatha Environment Centre? Under construction. Go out and have
a look, right? Go out and have a look at the fact that we're delivering what we've
said we're delivering right?
You just can't handle it that we're out there constructing the projects that you
want to construct, right? What about the Taskforce Against Graffiti? Well, here's
another example of phasing. We've allocated a certain amount to clean off
Graffiti and guess what, without any changes to scope, without any changes to
the taskforce, without any changes to what we've been doing in the last couple
of years to the levels of service, there's less graffiti to clean off. So we're
delivering exactly what we said we are, right? But there literally isn't the graffiti
to clean off, okay?
So I'm not going to spend money on cleaning graffiti that isn't there, right? This
taskforce has been incredibly successful. The Labor Councillors—
Councillors interjecting.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 40 Chairman:
Order! Councillor SUTTON!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—the Labor Councillors would dream of having this success. Their wildest
dreams would dream of having the success that we've had removing graffiti
from this city, right?
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
That's not to say, Madam Chairman, there won't be graffiti in the future, that
there isn't examples of graffiti out there but what we're saying—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—is there literally isn't the graffiti out there to spend the amount of money—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—we've allocated, right? to spend the money that we've allocated.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
So guess what, we've got more money than we anticipated there to clean up
graffiti. So when Councillor DICK in an effort to prove me wrong races out
there with a spray can, right? We will be able to clean it up. What about the
grants? Well, Madam Chairman, of course grants are another excellent example
of phasing, because while we would allocate an equal amount of grants money
to be allocated every quarter, it doesn't work like that because every grant has its
own opening times. It has its own assessment times and then it is awarded.
So again, all I'd say to the Leader of the Opposition is, rather than picking that
example, just think. Just take a moment to think before you say it and think,
well, why would the grants need to be re-phased? Well, because they're
currently being assessed and they will be awarded outside the scope of this
quarterly review.
In terms of public transport, well, here's a fantastic example because what
Councillor DICK is railing about when he says that we haven't delivered is the
fact that we have delivered the buses we said we would but under budget. We've
delivered the buses we said we would at under budget. We delivered the ferry
services we said we would but under budget, right? This allows us to reinvest
money into public transport infrastructure because this Administration is
spending more on public transport than any Administration ever has, ever has—
no, it's true, it's a matter—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
It is an undeniable fact—
Chairman:
To the chair please Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—I can show them the dollars, Madam Chairman—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—this Administration—and they don't like to hear it because they don't like to
accept that they've lost the ground on public transport. They're no longer the
party of public transport. The fact that it's an LNP Administration that's
spending more money on public transport than any—well there's less—I'll take
Councillor ABRAHAMS's interjection. She said there's less passengers. Well if
we're not meeting our passenger projections it's because there's a Labor State
Government who are intent on 15 per cent fare increases, right? I can't control
everything—
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 41 Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—but what I can do is deliver the buses—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—what we can do is deliver the buses we said we would, which is more than
Labor ever managed to do. They said in their budget speeches that they would
deliver a certain amount of buses and didn't do it. We, on the other hand, said we
would deliver a certain number of buses and have delivered them under budget.
Under budget. Labor, again, in their wildest dreams would never be able to have
a reputation of that.
In terms of skate parks, well here again, woe is me, little violins playing. It all
happens in their wards, despite the fact they're in their local paper saying how
much they're delivering for their local wards on the back of this Administration's
good financial management. Inala skate park for example, has had to
undertake—the reason for its time—has had to undertake full community
consultation, including a reference group. So perhaps Councillor DICK is
suggesting that we should have scrapped the consultation. No need for that.
Well, he wouldn't feel the need for that. He's going into Oxley, isn't he? He
doesn't feel the need to talk to his residents. He just needs a project to plead so
he can put it in his preselection brochure, his election brochure, right?
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on Item C, the Annual Operational
Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report. Now, we've heard the standard
lines from the LORD MAYOR, and now Councillor SIMMONDS, that this is
simply a snapshot in time. If it is simply a snapshot in time, Madam Chairman,
it's not one you'd put in the photo book because it presents an ugly and a
recurring picture of the financial misadministration by this LNP team.
Madam Chairman, I mean it's interesting isn't it?
It's kind of like groundhog day in here whenever we get these quarterly reports
or the budget reviews, the Finance Chairman stands up and says, no, no, no, you
can't count, you can't read. You don't know what you're talking about. Yet report
after report after report tells us exactly the same thing. There is a consistent
pattern to the way in which this Administration undertakes its financial
obligations in this city.
That is, it goes out at budget time—and we'll see it next week—it goes out at
budget time, it makes a huge announcement that we know they cannot actually
deliver on. Then it spends the rest of the year progressively rolling back, cutting,
rolling over—re-phasing is the latest term du jour—the funding, because they
cannot deliver on their promises. That is what we are talking about here today.
Councillor SIMMONDS has summed it up so beautifully in terms of his
discussion about it today.
The budget doesn't bear any relation to the work that will be undertaken. Now
that's absolutely true, Madam Chairman. I agree with him. The budget has
become this show pony—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you Councillor JOHNSTON.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS?
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 42 Councillor SIMMONDS:
Claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
He can claim it all he wants, Madam Chairman. It was such a good quote, I
wrote it down. He was using it to give us an example of his re-phasing. Madam
Chairman, that is the problem we have here that they think that this is some
evidence of good financial practices and good operational management. It's not,
Madam Chairman, because basic services are not being delivered for our
ratepayers. Worst of all, Madam Chairman, is we've heard the LORD MAYOR's
tired excuses today and they're almost the best ones I've ever heard.
He stands up here and criticises Councillor FLESSER for being the worst
financial manager this city has ever seen and says that Councillor FLESSER, at
the same time in his last budget, had 59.1 per cent of expenditure. But the
LORD MAYOR says that's terrible, that's horrific, he was hopeless, but it's okay
because I'm at 60 per cent of expenditure. Madam Chairman, they're both
appallingly bad, both of them. The fact that the LORD MAYOR is standing up
and justifying his poor financial budget accountability as I'm less worse than
Labor, isn't a valid excuse for the residents of this city and I'm sick of hearing it.
I'm actually glad I'm not in the Liberal Party anymore because their whole
fundamental excuse for when things go wrong is, oh look, well we're doing less
worse than Labor so it must be okay. It's pathetic. It doesn't reflect well on the
Labor Party and it certainly does not reflect well on the Liberal Party either,
Madam Chairman. Now we heard the LORD MAYOR earlier today try and
stand up and say I didn't understand what re-phasing was. Wel,l that was a good
one, Madam Chairman, because I've read this budget review and I am simply
appalled at the magnitude of changes that have been made in this quarterly
financial report.
It is astonishing, the size of this. If this was a report card, you would give the
LNP an F because they are delivering nothing on time and they're delivering
nothing on budget. Now I know what's going to happen next week. The
LORD MAYOR will stand up, he will incorporate all of the funding he's talking
about here that's being rolled over or re-phased, if you want to use that word,
and he'll announce it as part of his record budget expenditure next year. That is
the big L word here that we're talking about tonight. I won't use the word lie,
Madam Chairman, but the big L word is really how the LORD MAYOR goes
about announcing his budget, and we will see it next week absolutely in stark
contrast.
I guarantee you the $11 million in budget expenditure on drainage that has been
not spent, failed to be spent, failed to be delivered—all of the things that are not
a good thing, Councillor SIMMONDS—that they will be re-announced next
week and he'll be talking about how great his expenditure on drainage is. It is
exactly the same thing that happened last year. Massive million-dollar rollovers
in drainage last year and is happening over and over again. The drainage is not
actually being built.
The LORD MAYOR then stood up and said, but it's okay, we're investing that
money in the flood reporting. Well, Madam Chairman, that's being cut, a quarter
of a million dollars for the flood reporting and flood investigations. That's been
underspent and that's been rolled over as well. ‘If it's flooded, forget it’ has
taken on a new meaning with this Administration because that is what they are
doing on the ground in the communities that I represent. It is not good enough
that you go about announcing projects that you never deliver, that you fail to
deliver on time, that you fail to deliver on budget. That is not good
administration.
This LNP team stand up and say, look at me. Look at me, I'm a fantastic
financial administrator, the Labor Party were hopeless. Meanwhile they're doing
exactly what the Labor Party did. It's not good enough, it's not good enough.
Now the litany of rollovers and cuts and savings and deferments and whatever
else you want to call them, add up to one thing. The LNP Administration is
failing to deliver on its promised services and infrastructure for the residents of
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 43 our city. It doesn't matter whether it is on parks. It does not matter if it is on
drainage. It does not matter if it is on public transport. There are massive road
cuts here to local road projects.
The funding is absolutely astonishing. There's half a million dollars in flood
planning that's behind schedule that has not been spent today; $11 million in
drainage. It's just phenomenal the amount and the size of what are essentially
cuts because that means, in my view, that you are failing to deliver on the
services that you have promised. I don't have any confidence that you'll be able
to do it by the end of this financial year. I am certain we're going to see massive
rollovers into the new budget and yes, Councillor SIMMONDS, smile all you
want. We know what you're up to.
Madam Chairman, I can't actually stand up and claim that they've been cutting
things out in my ward because they haven't delivered any funding out there. Not
even the LORD MAYOR this year put out a budget newsletter in Tennyson
Ward because they did not do anything. Two roads got resurfaced; one of them
was a main road and the other one was such a tiny road it was about 25 metres
long. It is a joke, the way that this Administration is starving some wards of
funding. It is a joke, the way that this Administration is cutting and rolling over
expenditure and failing to deliver basic services.
There is a test coming up next year and I really hope that the residents of
Brisbane can see through the glossy brochures, the multimillion dollars on
marketing expenditure by this LORD MAYOR, and they look at what he does;
not what he says he does.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Sorry, Councillor SIMMONDS you were misrepresented.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
That's okay, Madam Chairman. Just quickly, I stated that the phasing did not
bear a resemblance to the challenges or the technicalities of a particular project.
It was simply split within the four quarters, obviously not the hyperbole and spin
that the other Councillor put on my comments.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair, I just rise to enter this debate and to respond to some
of the things that Councillor SIMMONDS said in his contribution to this debate.
I want to start with the phasing argument. The LNP, as we've heard today, often
says that this is actually a snapshot in time, it marries up with the third budget
review. I have to agree with Councillor JOHNSTON. If it's a snapshot in time
it's not a very pretty picture.
If you're to accept Councillor SIMMONDS's argument that all of these projects
are phased throughout the year, then you would think that at the third budget
review or the quarterly report, given that it's three quarters of the way through
the year, that you would expect that the capital spend that has been allocated to
each of the programs, as listed on page 9 of the quarterly review, that each of
those would have been pretty much around 75 per cent expended by this point in
the financial year. Three quarters of the way through the financial year. Three
quarters of the way through the spending would make a broad amount of sense.
So you can understand then, Councillors starting to raise concerns when the
Clean, Green and WaterSmart City is only 48 per cent expended of its capital
budget. You can understand why Councillors may be concerned that in terms of
the capital spend and the capital allocation for the Future Brisbane program, that
we have only spent 12.28 per cent of that capital budget. We raise alarm bells
when we see, in terms of Your Brisbane capital spend, that rather than 75 per
cent of the budget being expended three quarters of the way through the
financial year, that only 34 per cent has been expended.
So the issues that we are raising are real in terms of the very phasing argument
that Councillor SIMMONDS expects us to accept. Now, we get that some
project costs come in at the end of the delivery phase. Some invoices come in at
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 44 the end of the delivery phase but still, in a program like, say, Future Brisbane,
where we have just spent 12 per cent of the capital budget allocated to that; not
anywhere near the 75 per cent that you might expect us to have spent at this
stage of the financial year, that is concerning.
These are legitimate questions that the Opposition and the Independent
Councillor are entitled to ask of this Administration. In fact, that is our role. I
think it speaks to the arrogance and contempt of the LNP Councillors here that
those questions are not robustly answered or defended or even any kind of
legitimate explanation given. All we get is arrogance and contempt from the
Councillors opposite who think that they are born to rule. They think that they
are entitled to be on that side of the Chamber forever and a day that shall be so.
Well it won't, Madam Chair, through you, if they continue along with this type
of attitude. Because not only will we not cop it, the residents of Brisbane will
see through you. They can spot a phoney and they are looking at a whole room
full—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON, you're getting off the subject here
and I find some of your language verging on offensive. So please get back to the
Item in front of you and not next year's election. Thank you.
Councillor SUTTON:
How unlike you, Madam Chair, to be offended by something that I'm saying.
Well it's something that you say. I'm just noting the fact that it's something that
you say to me regularly. I don't think that's a cause for moaning, I'm
acknowledging. Madam Chair, on public transport, Moving Brisbane portfolio, I
have said time and time and time again in this place that I believe that if we are
making savings in terms of delivering transport services, that we should be
reinvesting any of those savings back into providing additional services to
Brisbane residents.
Just like in the third budget review, this quarterly report shows that we have a
saving of around $5 million for the provision of ferry services. Madam Chair, as
Councillor for Morningside I have been running a campaign to make the
Bulimba cross river ferry service free of charge. We don't have any kind of
connecting bridge. We don't have any kind of free connection service. So again,
when you talk about trying to put savings that have been achieved through a
whole range of different initiatives to best use, what I say to this
LNP Administration is that they should not be just sending these savings back
into general revenue.
They should be using it to provide more services, public transport services, to
the people who are asking for them, and that is the Brisbane residents who every
day are trying to do their bit to help with Brisbane's traffic congestion issues by
catching public transport into the city. There couldn't be a better example and a
better act of goodwill than making the Bulimba cross river ferry service free.
The cost of doing so, Madam Chair, is far, far less than the savings that have
been achieved in this quarter.
Yet it would be of significant benefit to the residents of the Morningside Ward if
this is what we were to do with savings, rather than just putting it back into
general revenue to plug budget black holes in this LORD MAYOR's budget.
Madam Chairman, there's been a bit of debate about the status of the funding for
the BMD decontamination of the Cannon Hill golf links. That $5 million. I have
a little bit of a different slant on that. I actually think, ethically and morally, we
shouldn't have been giving BMD that money at all, because the conditions of
their development application were that they were to fund this remediation.
So I actually think this entire $5 million could be better spent delivering other
local parks infrastructure in the suburbs where they are needed rather than to
provide and to bail BMD out to the tune of $5 million doing something that their
own development application conditioned them to do in the first place. So I'm
actually quite pleased that only $1 million of that money has been spent. I would
advocate for the $4 million that hasn't been paid to them not be paid to them and
that it be put into local sports fields' remediation for better playing services or
other local parks infrastructure.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 45 In terms of the Future Brisbane under-spends, I am concerned. I am concerned
at a time where we have got so many residents coming into this Chamber talking
time and time and time again about the development issues that they have in
their local suburbs, that we are $1.33 million behind in our neighbourhood
planning and our plans for the suburbs and other development areas.
$1.33 million. There has never been another time where Brisbane residents have
been crying out for proper planning in their suburbs. Yet this Administration has
dropped the ball entirely on planning for our city and what's more making
developers stick to the plans that they develop.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this portfolio to bring it to a stage
where Brisbane residents have an expectation that it should be. Of course, in this
entire debate I think the biggest porky I have actually heard for a very long time
is that we haven't spent the anti-graffiti budget because there is just less graffiti.
There is all of a sudden no graffiti left in Brisbane that needs to be done. It's all
done. I'll tell you what, Madam Chair, all I can say to that is obviously the
graffiti artists were really afraid of those pink jumpsuits Campbell Newman
tried to implement because clearly they didn't want to deal with the penalties
associated with potentially what happened if they got caught.
Madam Chair, no one, no one believes that. I doubt if Councillor SIMMONDS
even believes that there is less graffiti in this city and that's why this budget is
underspent. You know what? On the sliver of a possibility that is actually
correct, well, I'll tell you what, if that is true, what are we doing in terms of
graffiti prevention and community murals and public space street art? I know
Campbell Newman was always against street art. He just called it graffiti. What
are we doing in that space in terms of ensuring that doesn't pick up.
I challenge Councillor SIMMONDS to go around this city, take off his
blindfold, walk around Brisbane streets, walk around Brisbane suburbs for a
week and tell me he doesn't spot a single piece of graffiti because—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON to the chair please.
Councillor SUTTON:
—because, Madam Chair, I can tell you this right now, one social media post
from anyone of us here—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON your time has expired.
Councillor SUTTON:
—I bet you'll get a picture of a tag up on your page.
Chairman:
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I stand to talk on Item C today and to rebut some
of the ridiculous comments we've heard about how re-phasing is a furphy and
how things are actually rolled out, in particular within the Your Brisbane
portfolio. I'll touch on some of the things first of all that Councillor DICK
mentioned in his speech in the Your Brisbane portfolio. As
Councillor SIMMONDS said towards the end of his speech—he just ran out of
time which is a pity because we were thoroughly enjoying his speech—the skate
parks in Inala and Paddington, and also Bracken Ridge.
They have involved a lot of community reference groups and consultation;
Bracken Ridge is about to start. I say to Councillor DICK through you,
Madam Chair, as Councillor SIMMONDS did, he would be the first to jump up
and down if we just came out with a design and said that's how it is. We have
done 12 months of consultation with the local group, with members of the
community that he suggested to go and reference group. He's been along to the
meeting and seen that we have been working very carefully to make sure we get
this design right.
There are a lot of issues with the Inala skate park, with the bowl that is more of a
day care centre if the kids get stuck in it, than an actual bowl. We have to make
sure that we can get that fixed as well as making this a destination park for the
south side of Brisbane as well. I am not making any apologies for making sure
that we got the design right before we went out and started construction.
Southside Soccer; this really is a re-phasing because I think Councillor MARX
was the lucky person that who got to represent the LORD MAYOR at the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 46 opening of the AstroTurf that is out there. That is completed, done. The perfect
example of how this is a snapshot in time. That project is completed and they
are playing on the fields.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS:
Completed. The Performing Arts Complex at Sunnybank Rugby Union is going
to be a spectacular complex but it is not fully being delivered by Council. It is a
public private partnership with Sunnybank Rugby Union. They are looking after
the DA, they are making sure they get it right. They also have a group working
on the business plan to make sure that they are going to be delivering the best
outcome for the community on that site. It is not our DA. So to say that we, here
on this side, are dragging our feet on the Performing Arts Complex is an insult
to Sunnybank Rugby Union that have been working diligently on this for the last
two years and looking forward to turning that sod within the next month as well.
So, a fantastic outcome as well.
Here's one where Councillor DICK really should have spoken to his caucus
mates; $750,000 on pool refurbishments that are not getting done. Well I can tell
you they are not getting done at Sandgate Pool because it's in Planning and
Environment Court and, obviously, we can't spend the money if we can't build
the pool. So maybe Councillor NEWTON should have mentioned that, but when
it comes to that L word it's so close, Councillor SIMMONDS, but we're not
quite—if only they would just talk to each other. So we actually cannot deliver
if we don't have a DA.
Again I'm sure those on the other side would be the first to jump up and down if
the DA process was not followed to the T by our community projects.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS! Order! Councillor ABRAHAMS. If you continue like
that you will be warned. You don't have the floor and you don't have the right to
just sit there and object so loudly and interrupt this meeting.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS:
I'm happy to take—
Chairman:
I beg your pardon Councillor DICK?
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Thank you Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take Councillor ABRAHAMS's interjection.
Well who's doing the DA? We're doing the DA but we're not the ones who have
taken it to Planning and Environment Court. There's a very conscientious
objector that lives or works across the road again who is holding us up. I know
Councillor NEWTON is nodding because she agrees this is a very, very
unfortunate situation that we would love to be spending the money on the
Sandgate Pool but we are still waiting—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor ADAMS:
—because they are now going to mediation which is not working so we'll have
to—it's a wait and see on that one. I'm sorry Councillor DICK but again we can't
spend the money if we can't spend the money. When it comes to Richlands State
School—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair, with regards to the Richlands State School, again
Councillor DICK stands up here and purports that nothing is being done in his
ward and woe is me. Complaining that all the projects that are being delivered in
the Richlands ward are not happening now; not happening in time for his
preselection or his campaigning for the Oxley Federal campaign.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 47 However, Councillor DICK is totally aware of what's happening at
Richlands State School. Again, DA matters that we have been working through
diligently with the SES have now been finalised and the work is commencing. I
notice he's still mumbling over there, doesn't want to hear what actually is
happening, Madam Chair. Will stand up and whinge but not interested in
hearing the actual truth about these projects because he knows this.
He knows this because the briefing note full explanation went to this office on
29 May explaining how the process has started now. We have started the works,
we have told the local community. We are waiting now for the DA on the
community site as well and we will be delivering that community site within the
next 12 months, as was the promise in this election term. We have not finished
that term as yet.
To finish off, Madam Chair, with the graffiti, I'll take Councillor SUTTON's
point about the graffiti. Yes, of course there is still incidences when you can go
around and find graffiti, but it is commonly known with the QPS, the Council
officers, with Crime Stoppers, that the success of the taskforce against graffiti,
combining graffiti removal, education, our sponsorship and campaigns, our
partnership with the Queensland Police, has resulted in reducing both volumes
and the size of tags across the city.
It has been accepted on feedback received from internal and external
stakeholders that visible graffiti in Brisbane is reducing and that the profile of
vandalism in the inner city has decreased in recent years. That is because of
what this Administration has been doing in graffiti removal over many, many
years, and I do not make apologies for making savings when we are doing things
well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor COOPER?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor COOPER:
So we had some, as usual, ill-informed comment from those on the other side of
the Chamber. I note Councillor DICK was castigating us about infrastructure
charges reduction for eligible community organisations, which was never
offered in any way, shape or form by the Australian Labor Party as an
opportunity to assist our charitable organisations in this city.
So this was something that the LORD MAYOR, I think, absolutely was keen to
deliver. So this has been a pilot project, and I would say to every single
Councillor in this Chamber if you are not encouraging your community groups
to apply for this—and every single Councillor's had correspondence asking them
to advocate with their community groups to get people to understand the
opportunity that this presents; this generous commitment from the
LORD MAYOR to support them—then you are not doing the right thing by
your local community, because I certainly take every opportunity to tell people
that this is something that they can take up.
So this is clearly where the LORD MAYOR has over-prepared the Budget so
he's made sure that there is adequate funding there that community groups can
take up. Of course, it can only be taken up at that certain point when they are
ready to actually commence doing works on that particular project. So they
might have an approval, but until they've got their funding agreements in place,
until they've got all their arrangements underway, this is not something that they
are able to take up at that time.
So it is there—it is clearly there for community groups to apply for that rebate to
relieve that cost of providing those sorts of outcomes on their site. So I would
say to all Councillors, please promote this to your local community, and the
reason it is there is because this LORD MAYOR is committed to supporting our
community organisations.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 48 In relation to the issue with the neighbourhood plan, so there certainly is an
under-spend there, but guess why there's an under-spend there, Madam Chair?
Because we're waiting to get neighbourhood plans back from the State
Government. So, we can't take a plan out until we have got sign off. We can't go
out and talk to the community so we're still waiting for the City Centre Master
Plan to come back.
It's been languishing up there. I hear it's on the Deputy Premier's desk. Maybe
she's reading it and reading it and reading it again in her bid to understand more
about planning that I know she's committed to.
We've also got the Dutton Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan; we've also got
City Centre. Where are these neighbourhood plans? Madam Chair, through
you—where are they? Because until we get them, until the State Governments
gets their act together, gets on with doing the things they need to do to get this
state happening in terms of investment in this state, then we can certainly go out
and talk to the local community. But we can't do it with no assistance from the
Australian Labor Party in George Street.
So this nonsense—this absolute nonsense—from those on the other side of the
Chamber shows their absolute—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor COOPER:
—their absolute nonsensical arguments here this afternoon. It's pretty
disappointing to see that this is the kind of standard of debate we get in this
Chamber week after week after week. We're committed to making sure our city
continues to grow and prosper. They should get on board or they should find
something else to do with their time. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR?
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Well thanks very much, Madam Chair. The chairs of Committees have
responded extremely well to the matters raise by the Labor Opposition and
Councillor JOHNSTON here today. I just want to add one point—
Councillor SUTTON talking about graffiti and about how she's a non-believer
that things have improved.
I note that one of my colleagues in the Council of Mayors in the Gold Coast
Bulletin the other day was saying that on the Gold Coast, where they take a
similar approach to Brisbane and a zero tolerance to graffiti, they have seen a
40 per cent reduction in the graffiti. Their expenditure on removal of graffiti is
also coming down because we are winning the fight.
We have made more than 450 arrests on over 16,000 charges in this city in
relation to graffiti offences, and we have been very deliberate about that and we
are seeing the results of it. We still have, obviously, many teams out there across
the city making sure that graffiti gets removed quickly from public space.
I'd just say this; that we are winning. We are winning the war. It is down and I
reported that earlier this year at a press conference together with Crime Stoppers
and Councillor ADAMS where we were able to report that the incidence of
graffiti is down.
Now you talk about public art. Well, Councillor SUTTON you obviously didn't
pick up on the Cirque du Soleil public art that we've done on the
Go Between Bridge infrastructure along Coronation Drive. So that is just one
example and we will be seeing more public art. I think it's great to be able to
enliven and to enrich our public infrastructure, Madam Chairman, with
opportunities of genuine public art, and it is something that, as an
Administration, we are committed to doing more of.
But that is very different to tagging and unlawful acts of graffiti. We make a
very clear distinction about that. In many of our public parks we've done murals
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 49 of a whole range of things, be they on toilet blocks or buildings or whatever they
might be, to help again enliven and make for a better city.
Now, Madam Chairman, there were some comments about the Shorncliffe Pier.
Well there's the progress of the pier. There is the progress and it has come in
under budget and I think even the Labor Party voted for this when we elected to
do the concrete piers. Then the project went to Golding; we were able to get it at
a competitive price and it's under the $20 million and that's something that
should be celebrated not condemned; that we're getting the project, the full
scope of that project, undertaken and getting a saving in terms of the ratepayers'
contribution out of that.
What's to be said negatively about that? Getting on with the project and so there
it is, there's the progress. The saving's there. The saving was indicated—I think
about $1.5 million wasn't it that I reported on earlier today on a $20 million
announced project. So, Madam Chairman, I don't quite get that.
Finally, for Councillor JOHNSTON's sake, there's the Budget report from last
year. 2014-15 Budget Newsletter, Tennyson Ward, where we talk about the
green light for the Graceville upgrade, talk about Annerley Road to benefit from
road resurfacing, Council's Active School Travel Program—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, you don't have the floor.
LORD MAYOR:
Well you're obviously right across it out there because it went out—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
—it went out in thousands across the ward, Madam Chairman, so there it is. So
I'm happy to move the report.
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 was declared carried on the voices.
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 was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Milton DICK immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
AYES: 19 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors
Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP,
Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian
SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 8 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 50 Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper,
Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.
A
STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SYSTEMS
165/830/179/274
645/2014-15
1.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2.
The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in
Attachment A, submitted on file, on 22 May 2015.
3.
The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the
provision of the required services.
Commercial in confidence
4.
The highlighted details in the Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C) submission, which
outline contract costs and commercial aspects are considered to be commercial-in-confidence. The
commercial-in-confidence details have been removed from this report and replaced with the words
‘[commercial-in-confidence]’. The commercial-in-confidence details are marked in yellow highlight
on the E&C submission (submitted on file).
Purpose
5.
The Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves
entering into a contract with Technology One Limited (TechnologyOne), ACN 010 487 180, for the
implementation and maintenance of Local Government Systems (LGS), Stage 2.
6.
The implementation phase is estimated at $26.9 million [commercial-in-confidence] and exclusive of
GST) and is planned for completion within the first two years. It includes implementation on a
[commercial-in-confidence], and the provision of two years of cloud services.
7.
Support and cloud services, available for delivery over the possible remaining 18 years of the contract
term will be provided on a schedule of rates basis estimated at $81.3 million (exclusive of GST).
Background/operational impact
8.
This contract is to procure a suite of information and communications technology (ICT) systems for
local government to replace a number of ageing legacy systems that support many of Council’s core
local government services such as rates, development assessment, city planning and compliance and
regulatory services.
9.
The systems will be procured as an enterprise software-as-a-service (SaaS), cloud-based solution.
10.
This aligns with Council’s ICT direction to move ICT provision to the Cloud and to re-focus on
outcomes rather than managing ICT. The proposed service will enable staff and customers to access
Council services anywhere, anytime and on any device with an internet connection.
11.
On 15 April 2013, the Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C) approved the Significant
Contracting Plan for this procurement exercise.
12.
A Request for Information (RFI) was publicly issued by Council on 10 December 2013 which
described the in-scope business processes and sought systems which could support/enhance these
processes. The RFI also included problem statements and future visions, and sought organisations with
proven local government solutions at either the suite level or a suitable degree of expertise in a niche
area. A market briefing was also held on 10 December 2013.
13.
Seventeen submissions were received in response to the RFI.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 51 14.
A Project Reference Group (PRG) comprising process owners was utilised to approve the
recommendations of the early shortlisting rounds.
15.
Seven proposals were shortlisted from the first round of shortlisting as they offered lower development
risk, with the majority offering local government suites or solution components or other possible
alternatives for consideration. This first round shortlist was approved by the PRG on 25 March 2014.
16.
A second round shortlist of three parties [TechnologyOne, Infor Global Solutions ANZ Pty Ltd (Infor)
and Northgate Public Services Pty Limited (Northgate)] was approved by the PRG on 27 May 2014
based on non-price based scores.
17.
A probity auditor was engaged for this second and subsequent rounds of evaluation and selection
leading up to the High-Level Design (HLD) phase.
18.
Direct negotiations with the three shortlisted respondents took the initial form of a scoping workshop
phase that involved numerous workshops with key functional, technical and commercial areas. These
workshops were used by each vendor to further inform their deliverable responses which were then
evaluated by the evaluation team.
19.
Northgate was not progressed from the third round evaluation as its offering was assessed as not being
a proven solution for the Australian market. Their United Kingdom based product was not easily
modifiable to the Australian market and Northgate indicated that significant development would be
required to close this gap.
20.
The final two parties entered a fourth round of evaluation consisting of workshops, a response to a term
sheet and a response to a quotation brief. The workshop phase entailed two three-day detailed
workshops with each vendor, one with staff from Development Assessment and one with staff from the
Rates processing area. During these workshops the vendors worked with Council staff to explore
current issues, pain points and proposed system functionality. This significant input from the business
areas informed the parties’ fourth round responses. The evaluation panel then evaluated these responses
and made a recommendation to the Project Control Group (PCG) comprising of relevant Divisional
Managers, Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Executive Manager, Support Services Centre.
21.
Infor was a strong proposition for Council to consider with a favourable assessment of existing
functionality and integration capability although the proposal had some shortcomings especially in the
areas of cloud delivery, user provisioning, core code base commitment and limited depth in local
resourcing.
22.
TechnologyOne was assessed as potentially the most advantageous to Council with experience in
providing SaaS and associated cloud services, commitment to accessibility compliance and maintaining
the integrity of the core code of their product.
23.
The PCG endorsed the preferred vendor, TechnologyOne, from this fourth round evaluation, to
progress to Stage 1 – High-Level Design and Business Case Development in support of the future
implementation and maintenance of LGS (Stage 2).
24.
On the 18 December 2014, the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) then approved
entering into Stage 1 with TechnologyOne to develop a HLD and business case. TechnologyOne had
been evaluated against the field of respondents and represented the best fit to Council’s stated
evaluation principles and represented the most advantageous option to Council. A summary of the
responses to the RFI, scoring against the evaluation criteria and the rounds of shortlisting undertaken is
provided at Annexure 1.
25.
A joint Council and vendor project team was established to undertake Stage 1 with the vendor to
conduct a proof of capability and develop a HLD and business case.
26.
The proof of capability component was to determine TechnologyOne’s capability to address the
functionality gaps between its current software and Council’s business process requirements, as
committed to by TechnologyOne during the RFI process. The proof of capability allowed
TechnologyOne to demonstrate, prototype and workshop the enhancements required to satisfy a
selection of key perceived functional gaps in their current software.
27.
The HLD in support of Stage 2, the future Implementation and Maintenance of LGS, was approved by
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 52 Council’s Business Process and Information Management Council (BPIMC) on 7 May 2015. The HLD
was jointly developed by TechnologyOne and Council and involved workshops with Council subject
matter experts from Development Assessment, City Planning, Finance, Information Services Branch,
Rates and Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) to increase TechnologyOne’s understanding of
Council’s process requirements and Council’s understanding of the solution offered. The joint project
team developed technical position papers, an organisational change management strategy,
communications strategy, process catalogue, technical architecture, integration architecture and an
implementation plan which have been approved by the relevant Council governance bodies and
stakeholders. The project team have used this context to jointly develop both resourcing and cost
estimates to inform the business case. The cost estimates were developed on the basis of rates put
forward in the original evaluation phases of the process.
28.
The business case was to assist with evaluating the implementation of the TechnologyOne system
(Option 2) compared to maintaining current systems (Option 1). The business case also sought to
identify and evaluate further opportunities for additional outcomes and benefits for Council. The
business case recommends Option 2, implementing and maintaining the LGS with TechnologyOne.
This has been approved by the PCG as the preferred approach for progressing with Stage 2. Option 2 of
the business case (as discussed in detail in dot point 42 below) forms the basis of this submission.
Summary of responses
29.
Name
Technology One
Limited
(TechnologyOne)
Address and ABN/ACN
Level 11, 540 Wickham Street,
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
ABN 84 010 487 180
Value Index
[out of 100]
73.2
Final Negotiated
Price (ex GST)
$108.2 million*^
estimated
Note:
* Exclusive of [commercial-in-confidence]
^ Estimated over the potential 20-year contract term
Value Index: The Value index incorporates a percentage allocated for a value for money
assessment.
Evaluation of responses (Stage 1)
30.
Prior to the first round of shortlisting, Council engaged with conforming respondents in face-to-face
meetings to ensure a thorough understanding of the proposals received.
31.
The first round of shortlisting assessed proposals against functional and business fit elements of the
evaluation criteria:
Functional fit – process group support 20 per cent (how the solution supports process,
roadmap and relevant Council strategic systems)
Functional fit – general 15 per cent (future vision, additional functionality, implementations
approach)
Business fit – 15 per cent (replication of information assets, architectural alignment, referees,
solution flexibility, maturity, support, vendor viability, local industry engagement).
32.
The second round of shortlisting assessed the seven proposals against the remaining non-price
weighted criteria:
Information environment (25 per cent) (business intelligence, integration, mobility, data
migration,
web
content
management,
Geographical
Information
System,
accessibility/usability, fit with technical architecture, scalability, security, hosting options,
configurability, support, upgrades, availability and performance).
Cost and value for money (25 per cent) (indicative implementation and ongoing cost
proposals, value/business propositions and innovation).
33.
The next phase of assessment requested three further deliverables from the two remaining vendors:
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 53 a)
b)
c)
A detailed ‘deep dive’ discovery process for both vendors incorporating three full day
workshops for Development Assessment and three full day workshops for the Rates
processing area resulting in a deliverables response from both vendors;
A response from both vendors to a term sheet for the Implementation and Maintain Phase
(Stage 2); and
A response to a quotation brief from both vendors for Consultancy Services to develop a HighLevel Design and Business Case (Stage 1).
34.
The evaluation panel assessed the three deliverables and conducted a functional re-evaluation of the
responses.
35.
TechnologyOne was endorsed by the PCG to undertake the final phase of Stage 1– High-Level Design
and Business Case development which was subsequently approved at Stores Board on 18 December
2014.
Objectivity and probity (Stage 1)
36.
Council’s external probity advisers for this project, O'Connor Marsden and Associates (OCM), have
provided a full probity report on the RFI process. No probity issues were raised. OCM was not engaged
for the high-level design phase.
High-level design (HLD) and business case phase (Stage 1)
37.
For the HLD and business case phase (Stage 1), TechnologyOne was engaged under a contract to
demonstrate its competence in a number of key areas (proof of capability), develop a high-level design
for the implementation of its solution and develop a business case for Council’s consideration.
38.
The proof of capability component was to determine TechnologyOne’s capability to address the
functionality gaps between its current software and Council’s business process requirements, as
promised by TechnologyOne during the RFI process. This proof of capability was successful and
subsequently approved by the Divisional Manager, Organisational Services and the Divisional
Manager, City Planning and Sustainability.
39.
The HLD involved workshops with Council subject matter experts from Development Assessment,
Rates processing area and Compliance and Regulatory (CARS) to increase TechnologyOne’s
understanding of Council’s process requirements. Following these workshops, TechnologyOne
developed a set of HLD documents for the implementation of its solution. The HLD produced is
comprised of a number of related documents including an organisational change management strategy,
communications strategy, process catalogue, initial performance testing, technical architecture,
integration architecture and implementation plan. The preparation of these documents enabled the
development of resourcing and cost estimates by both Council and TechnologyOne which informed the
business case. A joint (executive level) Council and TechnologyOne risk workshop was undertaken
and risk mitigations subsequently identified and incorporated into plans, costings and the contract. The
HLD was endorsed by Council’s BPIMC on 7 May 2015.
40.
The purpose of the business case was to assist with evaluating the implementation of the
TechnologyOne system compared to maintaining current systems. The business case also sought to
identify and evaluate further opportunities for additional outcomes and benefits for Council.
41.
The business case, developed by Council in collaboration with TechnologyOne, has been informed by
the HLD and associated position papers. The HLD and associated position papers, including an
Implementation Plan, were presented to and approved by relevant governance forums including the
BPIMC, Architecture Assurance Board and Council’s ICT Strategy Board.
42.
The following alternative options were explored in the business case taking a 10-year (commencing
2015-16) view:
(a)
Option 1 – Maintain the As-Is
This option is based on keeping the existing systems running for 10 years. This option includes
budgeted maintain and operate costs as well as forward year estimated costs for hygiene upgrades and
essential legislative and functional changes. The As-Is scenario assumes no systems in the LGS scope
are replaced in the 10-year period.
The business case concluded that Option 1 is unsustainable, high cost, provides poor value to Council
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 54 and customers with declining overall business value as system flexibility and maintainability reduces
with age. There is an increasing risk of sustaining more frequent system outages or failures.
(b)
Option 2 – Implement and Maintain the LGS
This option is based on implementing the TechnologyOne Property and Rating system (and associated
modules) as an enterprise SaaS cloud-based solution to enable Council’s in-scope business processes.
This option involves working with a joint Council and TechnologyOne team from July 2015 with
TechnologyOne’s solution pre-configured as a working Council prototype of the system to inform
design workshops with Council staff. Working with a prototype from project inception is a key point of
difference from previous large ICT investments in Council enabling early insight and an iterative
approach to design, testing and implementation with a proposed go-live scheduled for mid-2017.
Investment in the proposed LGS realises significant value to Council and customers. Working as a key
partner with TechnologyOne over the longer term, Council will have a sustainable and functionally rich
platform from which to realise value for Council and customers as the city grows. The LGS will
significantly reduce the risk exposure to Council of operating ageing and non-supported systems, by
transitioning to a vendor supported cloud-based solution.
43.
The HLD has been endorsed by relevant Governance groups in Council including the BPIMC, ICT
Architecture Assurance Board with input from a Management Level Business Reference Group, Audit
and Assurance and oversight by the PCG which comprises the directly impacted Divisional Managers.
44.
Option 2, outlined in the business case, has been approved by the PCG as the preferred approach for
progressing with Stage 2 – Implementing and Maintaining the LGS.
Recommended tenderer
45.
The recommended respondent for undertaking Stage 2 – Implementing and Maintaining the LGS is
TechnologyOne as it achieved the highest evaluation score and represents the most advantageous offer
to Council.
(a)
Key differentiators which support this recommendation
TechnologyOne:
Has strong local engagement and local research and development (R&D) capability.
Is experienced in providing cloud solutions (eight existing customers, 15 in progress)
and has a track record of providing application-managed support.
Provided a commitment to delivery of the required functionality within the stated
implementation costs and timeline to Council, including incorporation of
functionality which is to be developed into the core TechnologyOne product
(decreasing risks of upgrades which may have otherwise been required if Council
specific customisation was undertaken).
Represents an opportunity for Council to influence the direction of the core product
via participation in TechnologyOne’s Local Government Customer Advisory Board
and its Local Government R&D Laboratory and by collaboration to drive mutual
awareness of both organisation’s business and product outcomes.
Demonstrated a commitment to maintain a single core product code base.
Demonstrated a willingness to work closely with Council on future opportunities for
Council [commercial-in-confidence].
[commercial-in-confidence]
Offered Council flexibility to review options for provision of cloud services, should
the need arise, to assist with management of risk and cost.
(b)
Other TechnologyOne strengths which support this recommendation
TechnologyOne:
Demonstrated highly competitive functional process support across all areas (with
commitment to address the functional gaps in Rates, Development Assessment and
City Planning).
Has a solution with strong existing capability for reporting and extracting,
transforming and loading data which supports open data and Council’s current and
future business intelligence needs.
Has a solution with dashboard functionality that will help team leaders manage
performance.
Has a solution with revenue modelling, debt management and revenue collection
capability.
Has a solution with user authentication which aligns with Council’s approach.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 55 -
(c)
-
-
Has depth in the proposed implementation team.
Has committed to obtain and maintain current Payment Card Industry Data Security
Standards (PCI DSS) compliance for the solution.
Has a user interface called Ci Anywhere which is modern, intuitive and adaptive to
any connected device. The interface also has the ability to allow access by external
parties such as waste contractors.
Is committed to obtaining and maintaining accessibility compliance for the solution
for the external and internal solution.
Demonstrated a commitment to the local government sector as 26 per cent of its
revenue comes from its Local Government Vertical market product.
Has a solution that resolves a number of existing business pain points with the current
legacy systems.
Has developed an online facility for its customers to interact with TechnologyOne
and each other to help develop the product and establish a community of practice for
users.
Drivers of Value
Proven product not developed as a bespoke system for Council.
Broad customer base to share future cost of system changes.
Legislation changes incorporated into core product support.
Regular upgrades providing enhanced functionality at no extra cost.
Industry standard product with changes for all of their local government customers.
Demonstrated a willingness to review pricing at the end of each contract term with a cap on
price rises [commercial-in-confidence] and an ability to benefit from cost reductions.
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
Preconfigured processes guide process design and simplification.
Stood by the statements and commitments it made during the competitive negotiation stage.
Provided transparency in its indicative implementation costs.
TechnologyOne developed significant knowledge of the potential risk areas for the
implementation and operations phases and developed detailed pricing submissions with
Council having full transparency of the implementation and ongoing resource requirements.
TechnologyOne maintained and, in some areas, improved upon the unit rates and payment
terms that were negotiated in the early stages of the process.
46.
The recommended tenderer has indicated that it will ensure compliance with accessibility standards by
June 2016.
47.
TechnologyOne’s head office, in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, has a six-star environmental rating.
48.
TechnologyOne’s Research and Development Team for ongoing product enhancements is based in
Brisbane.
49.
TechnologyOne’s resources for the implementation phase are also being sourced from Brisbane.
50.
The key risks associated with this contract are summarised below.
Risk
Rating
Mitigation
Residual
Rating
High
Council with its recent transformation
experience will take the lead on this
business transformation project and will
harness
the
knowledge
that
TechnologyOne has gained from its
significant experience in implementing and
supporting software for local governments
across Australia and New Zealand.
Governance
arrangements
will
be
established that include TechnologyOne
participation in key Council governance
forums including as a member of the PCG
Medium
Operational Risks
A significant business
transformation
project
undertaken in Council
without engaging a known
Tier 1 System Integrator
leading
to
project
suboptimal
outcomes
regarding time/cost/quality
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 56 Risk
Rating
Mitigation
Residual
Rating
and joint arrangements for management at
the project level.
Council
customers
impacted as a result of
delivery of new online and
self-service channels
High
A comprehensive communication strategy
based on early involvement of the
Corporate Communication branch for clear
messaging to external parties has been
developed as part of this initial phase. This
plan has been endorsed by the Corporate
Communication branch.
Medium
Project fails to deliver on
the required Go-Live date
High
An implementation plan has been
developed jointly by Council and
TechnologyOne.
This
collaborative
approach will be integral to ensuring
transparency of progress. A detailed
project plan and cutover plan will be
developed in the project initiation phase.
Medium
The PCG is aware of the timeline and will
ensure that appropriate Council resources
are available and that required decisions
are made within the timeframes set out in
the project plan.
Data migration issues
High
Significant effort has been undertaken in
HLD to understand the data structures in
the legacy systems and the target system.
A specific data migration stream is
included in the program. Senior resources
from TechnologyOne and Council have
been allocated in the project plan to lead
the data migration activities.
Medium
System integration issues
High
Council will take advantage of its
investment
in
Service
Orientated
Architecture (SOA) and recent experience
in developing integrations. A specific
integration
architecture
has
been
developed with TechnologyOne and
Council integration experts.
Medium
Early visibility of integration prototypes
are included in the implementation plan to
enable early testing and there has already
been significant discovery and detail
established through HLD.
The solution is not as
scalable as anticipated and
fails to perform at an
acceptable level
High
An initial scalability/performance test of
the proposed solution and design was
undertaken during the HLD. Based on the
sample used, the scalability and
performance of the TechnologyOne
solution was considered acceptable, taking
into account that it was not fully
representative of volume and Council
specific requirements.
Low
Additional performance and scalability
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 57 Risk
Rating
Mitigation
Residual
Rating
testing and assessment will be conducted
during the implementation phase to ensure
appropriate design and support for Council
requirements.
Contract Risks
Deliver
functionality
system
High
The contract includes suitable provisions
to ensure the delivery of the system
functionality.
Low
A satisfactory proof of capability
assessment of TechnologyOne was
undertaken during the HLD phase.
Hosting of Council core
systems in a Cloud
environment leading to
security breaches or loss of
data
High
TechnologyOne currently [commercialin-confidence] using enterprise grade
technology and ‘active/active’ architecture
to achieve the reliability, scalability and
elasticity that the LGS solution requires.
Medium
A technical architecture document has
been developed and agreed which
addresses
requirements
including
monitoring, backup and recovery and
disaster recovery. Levels of service for
availability and performance have been
contractually agreed.
Council has performed a cloud due
diligence exercise on TechnologyOne’s
cloud service provision and assessed
external audit reviews of TechnologyOne’s
compliance against industry standard
controls – Service Organisation Controls 1
and 2.
Governance/ management
arrangements
are
insufficient leading to a
poor project outcome
Medium
Strong program governance will be
required based on transparency of all
project resources, timeframes, risks and
costs. The contract includes agreed
governance
arrangements
including
appropriate escalation procedures to ensure
issues can be resolved quickly should they
arise.
Low
Future
requests
software changes
Medium
TechnologyOne has agreed to carry out (at
TechnologyOne’s cost) any amendments
that are needed due to legislative changes.
Low
for
Other more immediate changes requested
by Council may be dependent on the
requirements of the broader local
government customer base in order to
maintain the core product for ease of
upgrades.
Council has the opportunity for
involvement
in
future
roadmap
enhancements to the property and rating
module.
Finance Risks
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 58 Risk
Rating
Mitigation
Residual
Rating
Implementation
costs
exceed expectations
High
The implementation component is on a
[commercial-in-confidence] Any scope
variation will be scrutinised and approved
through the Program Sponsor and the
PCG.
Medium
Strong program governance will be
required based on transparency of all
project resources, timeframes, risks and
costs.
51.
The implementation phase will be on a [commercial-in-confidence]. The implementation phase is to
be completed within two years (during the initial term).
52.
[commercial-in-confidence] (exclusive of GST). The ongoing support and cloud service phase of the
contract will be on a schedule of rates basis. The fees for ongoing support and cloud services over the
possible remaining 18 years of the contract term are estimated at $81.3 million (exclusive of GST).
[commercial-in-confidence].
53.
Prices will be fixed and firm for the duration of the initial term. At the end of the initial term, a rise/fall
review will be conducted for the ongoing support and cloud services, [commercial-in-confidence].
54.
Arrangements will be established for software and key documentation to be in escrow in the event of
insolvency of TechnologyOne.
Funding
55.
Estimated expenditure under this contract over the potential 20-year contract term is $108.2 million
[commercial-in-confidence] and exclusive of GST).
56.
The Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.
57.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL APPROVES:
(i)
ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH TECHNOLOGYONE LIMITED (ACN 010
487 180), FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS;
(ii)
The contract will be for an initial term of five years with five optional additional periods of
three years each, not exceeding a maximum term of 20 years;
(iii)
The implementation phase estimated at $26.9 million ([commercial-in-confidence] and
exclusive of GST), and planned for completion within the first two years. It will include
implementation [commercial-in-confidence] for the first two-year period;
(iv)
The ongoing support and cloud services, on a schedule of rates basis over the potential
remaining 18 years of the contract term estimated at $81.3 million (exclusive of GST);
(v)
The optional additional periods in the contract may be exercised following approval from the
Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board), subject to the satisfactory performance of
Technology One Limited; and
(vi)
That the Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, is empowered to sign and manage the
initial contract term on Council’s behalf and thereafter to be managed by the Category
Manager, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services.
ADOPTED
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 59 -
STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE OF
SPECIALIST MOBILE PLANT TO QUARRIES AND ASPHALT PLANTS
B
165/830/179/245
646/2014-15
58.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
59.
The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment
A, submitted on file, on 26 May 2015.
60.
The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the
provision of the required services.
Commercial in confidence
61.
The highlighted details in the Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C) submission which
outline contract costs and commercial aspects are considered to be commercial-in-confidence. The
commercial-in-confidence details have been removed from this report and replaced with the words
‘[commercial-in-confidence]’. The commercial-in-confidence details are marked in yellow highlight
on the E&C submission (submitted on file).
Purpose
62.
The Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves
entering into a Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) in the form of a Preferred Supplier
Arrangement with Hastings Deering Australia Pty Ltd, ABN 49 054 094 647, for the Supply and
Maintenance of Specialist Mobile Plant to Quarries and Asphalt Plants.
63.
The CPA will be on a schedule of rates price basis, for an initial term of three years with the option to
extend for an additional period of up to two years, not exceeding a maximum term of five years.
Background/operational impact
64.
This contract is to procure plant and equipment on a dry-hire basis to service requirements at quarries
and asphalt plants, comprising dump trucks, excavators, dozers and loaders. A dry-hire arrangement,
inclusive of maintenance and repair, has proven beneficial in meeting Council’s ongoing requirements.
Summary of responses
65.
Name
Hastings
Deering
Australia Pty
Ltd
Komatsu
Australia Pty
Ltd
Sherrin
Rentals Pty
Ltd
The Trustee
for The M
Address and ABN/ACN
Nonprice
score
[out of
100]
Final
Tendered
Price* (ex
GST) [after
any
negotiations
]
Recommended Offer
1123 Beaudesert Road
84.80
$4,928,689
Acacia Ridge Qld 4113
ABN 49 054 094 647
Shortlisted Offers not Recommended
50-60 Fairfield Street
72.9
$4,953,599
Fairfield East NSW 2165
ABN 71 143 476 626
Offers not Recommended
87 Bancroft Road
46.1
$5,229,080
Pinkenba Qld 4008
ABN 52 074 173 756
62 Spencer Road
44.7
$5,410,148
Nerang Qld 4211
Whole-of-Life
Cost (excl.
GST)**
Value
for
Money
(VFM)
Index*
**
$30,569,622
28.49
$30,333,807
24.74
$37,728,559
12.54
$39,796,746
11.67
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 60 -
Name
Turner Family
Trust trading
as Turners
Engineering
Onsite Rental
Group
Telgrove Pty
Ltd trading as
P&E Francis
Plant Hire
Repmont Pty
Ltd
*
**
***
****
Address and ABN/ACN
Nonprice
score
[out of
100]
Final
Tendered
Price* (ex
GST) [after
any
negotiations
]
Whole-of-Life
Cost (excl.
GST)**
Value
for
Money
(VFM)
Index*
**
ABN 34 687 334 485
Non-conforming Offers****
651 Johnson Road Forest
Lake QLD 4078
ABN 74 126 102 485
55 Wacol Station Road
Wacol QLD 4076
ABN 80 010 626 034
4 Maureen Court
Broadbeach Waters QLD
4218
ABN 75 006 551 355
Final tendered price is the estimated annual hire cost (equipment only).
Whole-of-Life cost is the Net Present Value of the five year Whole-of-Life cost, which
includes the hire rate inclusive of tyre replacement, and estimated fuel usage (for plant hired
on an hourly basis). Estimated fuel usage is based on the manufacturer’s published average
consumption rates and, for Hastings Deering, guaranteed fuel consumption rates where
applicable. Whole of Life cost does not include value-added services (refer Section 6).
The VFM index is the non-price score divided by the Whole-of-Life cost.
Onsite Rental Group submitted an offer for monthly hire only (nine plant items) and not
hourly hire (23 plant items). Francis Plant Hire submitted an offer for monthly hire, but only
three items (out of 23) in hourly hire. Repmont Pty Ltd did not submit an offer for monthly
hire and submitted an offer for only three items (out of 23) in hourly hire.
Evaluation of responses
66.
Onsite Rental Group submitted an offer for monthly hire only (nine plant items) and not hourly hire (23
plant items). Francis Plant Hire submitted an offer for monthly hire, but only three items (out of 23) in
hourly hire. Repmont Pty Ltd did not submit an offer for monthly hire and submitted an offer for only
three items (out of 23) in hourly hire.
67.
Sherrin Rentals and Turners Engineering did not progress past the shortlisting round on the basis of the
VFM assessment. Both tenderers had low non-price scores and high tendered prices.
68.
With regard to non-price assessment, key influencing factors for Sherrin Rentals were a longer lead
time to supply (up to 60 days), non-supply of proximity systems and a minimum charge for all
equipment of 160 hours per unit per month. Turners Engineering only supplied plant and equipment as
delivered by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and did not supply add-ons required by
Council, such as proximity detection systems, suspension seats, payload sensing or data systems, and
only limited automatic lubrication availability.
69.
Hastings Deering and Komatsu attended negotiation meetings and were given an opportunity to review
their offers and provide further details with respect to pricing, plant and equipment add-ons, provision
of repair and maintenance services, and value-added services, in particular back-up plant to be kept on
site.
Recommended tenderer/s (most advantageous outcome for Council)
70.
The recommended tenderer is Hastings Deering Australia Pty Ltd.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 61 71.
Hastings Deering has the highest VFM and non-price scores. Hastings Deering also has the lowest
aggregate annual hire rate ($4.93 million versus $4.95 million for Komatsu) and is only marginally
more expensive on Whole-of-Life cost due to marginally higher estimated fuel consumption.
72.
Hastings has also offered significant value-added benefits.
Current value-added benefits to be maintained
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence] fixed component in price escalation formula
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence].
Value-added benefits provided as additional in current offer
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence].
The value of the above benefits is estimated at [commercial-in-confidence] million over the potential
five-year contractual term (not included in Whole-of-Life cost calculations).
Additional benefits to Council that are not costed include:
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
[commercial-in-confidence]
Excavators and wheel loaders to conform to US Tier 4 Interim Emissions Regulations (EU
Stage 3B)
engine fuel efficiency improved by up to five per cent
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) reduced by 50 per cent and 90
per cent respectively.
73.
Komatsu Australia Ltd, the other shortlisted tenderer, is not recommended. They have a lower VFM,
higher aggregate annual hire rate and their Whole-of-Life cost is only marginally lower due to lower
estimated fuel consumption.
74.
Additional value-added benefits offered by Komatsu comprised one full-time fitter based at Bracalba
Quarry and two items of on-site stand-by plant (one excavator and one loader).
75.
Workplace Health and Safety, Environmental Sustainability and Quality Assurance criteria were
assessed in the evaluation and considered acceptable by the evaluation team. All product items are
imported.
76.
Hastings Deering is providing environmental benefits through the provision of excavators and wheel
loaders that conform to US Tier 4 Interim Emissions Regulations (EU Stage 3B).
77.
The key risks of the contract relate to product quality and continuity of supply. These have been
mitigated by requiring the recommended contractor to have appropriate warranties, conform to
Australian standards, maintain quality systems and certification, and to maintain standby plant and
equipment on-site.
78.
The Estimated expenditure under this CPA is $4.9 million per annum or $24.5 million over the
potential five-year term of the CPA.
79.
The average price increase under the proposed contract has been limited to 1.01 per cent. This is an
acceptable outcome given that Hastings Deering (the current and recommended contractor) has
increased prices only once in the five-year term of the current contract and they have agreed to
maintain a [commercial-in-confidence] per cent fixed component in the price escalation formula.
80.
The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.
81.
RECOMMENDATION:
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 62 THAT COUNCIL APPROVES:
(i)
ENTERING INTO A CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) IN
THE FORM OF A PREFERRED SUPPLIER ARRANGEMENT WITH HASTINGS
DEERING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ABN 49 054 094 647) FOR THE SUPPLY AND
MAINTENANCE OF SPECIALIST MOBILE PLANT TO QUARRIES AND
ASPHALT PLANTS;
(ii)
The CPA to be on a schedule of rates price basis, and for an initial term of three years with the
option to extend for an additional period of up to two years, not exceeding a maximum term of
five years;
(iii)
The optional additional period/s in the CPA may be exercised following approval from the
Chief Procurement Officer, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services, subject to
the satisfactory performance of the contractor; and
(iv)
That the Category Manager, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services, is
empowered to sign and manage the CPA on Council’s behalf.
ADOPTED
C
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2015
134/695/317/459
647/2014-15
82.
The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services provided the information below.
83.
The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012, sections 196(2) and (3), state that the Chief Executive Officer
must present financial reports to Council at least quarterly. The reports are to state the progress that has
been made in relation to Council’s budget.
84.
The Annual Operational Plan progress and Quarterly Financial Report March 2015 (Attachment B)
separately identifies and reports the financial results of Brisbane City Council, Brisbane City Council
Core Services (i.e. Council excluding business units) and Brisbane City Council Business Units. The
written commentaries provide explanation of the figures.
85.
Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must
present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the annual operational plan to
Council at least quarterly.
86.
The previous financial report for the period ended 26 December 2014 was presented to Council on 24
March 2015. The current report relates to the period ended 27 March 2015.
87.
The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
88.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 2015
As:
(i)
Section 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that the Chief
Executive Officer present financial reports to Council at least quarterly;
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 63 (ii)
Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer
must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the annual
operational plan to Council at least quarterly,
(i)
Council directs that the Annual Operational Plan progress and Quarterly Financial Report for
the period ending March 2015, as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file, be noted.
Then:
ADOPTED
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Ian MCKENZIE, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 2 June 2015,
be adopted.
At that time, 5.38pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.
Deputy Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. We have two Items on the agenda. One is a
presentation on the rollout of pedestrian countdown timers and the other is a
petition regarding Cleveland Street in Greenslopes.
The Committee heard that Council has progressively rolled out the pedestrian
countdown timers across the city and by the end of this month we will have
achieved the rollout of pedestrian countdown timers at around 20 per cent of all
signalised intersections across the city.
So that is a great outcome for a program that's only been running for a relatively
short period of time. It started off with a small number of intersections in its first
year and then has progressively geared up from there, and now we're seeing
these countdown timers rolled out right across the city, including in the suburbs,
and we're seeing the benefits of these rolled out in many areas.
The feedback that Council has received about the pedestrian countdown timers
has been very positive. Certainly, people believe that they make it safer for
people to cross, and there's a strong level of support for these being used on a
wider basis right across the city.
So we will continue the rollout of this initiative, something that we promised we
would do at the last Council election and have delivered. Now just within a few
short years 20 per cent of intersections have the countdown timers, and I thank
Councillors for their ongoing support of this great initiative.
Deputy Chairman:
Further debate?
Deputy Chairman:
Councillor McKENZIE?
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd just like to rise to speak quickly on Item B of
the report and that's to do with a petition regarding Cleveland Street,
Greenslopes crossing.
This crossing is situated at the corner of Cleveland Street and Logan Road at
Stones Corner. A very busy crossing; a lot of traffic moving through there
during the morning and the afternoon, and also conflicts with mothers walking
their children to the Buranda State School which is in the neighbouring ward.
The problem, Madam Chairman, is that the cars tend to come around the corner
at such a speed and they don't necessarily stop for the residents trying to cross.
I've been onsite with the residents of the area and we've had a full discussion on
what could go on there. What has been done at this stage is that Council officers
have been onsite, inspected the site to see what could be done, and considered
the outcomes.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 64 Those outcomes would be to include further origin and destination analysis of
motorists and pedestrians in the area, undertake further consultation in the area
with regard to local businesses and schools et cetera, and finally correspond with
the head petitioner.
We're not only dealing with a crossing here, but there's numerous people
involved here, Madam Acting Chairman: commuters, shoppers, shop employees
parking their vehicles, local residents, pedestrians and general users. So we're
very pleased with the outcome of this petition and I look forward to working
with the head petitioner in due course to have a satisfactory solution. Thank you.
Deputy Chairman:
Further debate?
Deputy Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS?
Seriatim - Clause B
Councillor Helen Abrahams requested that Clause
GREENSLOPES, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
B, PETITIONS
–
CLEVELAND
STREET,
Thank you, Madam Chair. Wow, is there not a difference between what I'm
going to say and what Councillor McKENZIE has said. I have spoken to the
head petitioner and she's not happy. She's not happy at all.
What I have seen in response to this petition—let's start at the beginning—this
petition arises from the Buranda State School where the parents of that school
who, let me just remind you, had 100 per cent of the students actively travel to
school on the day they determined to do so, and still had an incredibly high
level, identified this intersection as a very unsafe intersection for children.
I met with Councillor McKENZIE and the parents and while we were there we
saw cars from all directions come through what has had significant safety
improvement, in that it's got a central pedestrian island. But even with that, the
drivers and the pedestrians have so much conflict it's extremely difficult for
school children, and their parents walking with them, to safely cross that area.
Councillor McKENZIE, when we were there we saw a near miss as well, and
we listed a number of issues that could be investigated by Council.
Madam Chair, this petition indicates all of those issues have been investigated.
Some of them, such as moving of lights—possibly it was funding more than
anything else—have been rejected.
But I am very concerned because when I got the draft petition to comment on, it
had a lot more additional information, and, in fact, it had a diagram showing
what a driver had to take into account when turning from Logan Road into
Cleveland Street. The driver had to look from a range of about 110 per cent of
the vision to undertake that movement safely, and there were five different
directions with which someone they had to avoid.
Do you know which was the one on the most extreme of their sight line? The
children walking from the park across to the first part of the pedestrian island in
Cleveland Street. That is the problem. The response identified just how unsafe
that intersection is.
So what did the response say? Well, we've got to work out where the drivers are
coming from before we tell them it's not safe enough for them to make that turn.
If they come from one area of Brisbane does that mean we don't restrict the
turn? If they come from a different area does that mean, oh well, we will restrict
the turn?
I'm sorry, I don't understand why we actually need to have a path generation if
the petition has determined that the movements at that intersection are unsafe.
Madam Chair, it did. It did with a diagram that has been removed.
So, Madam Chair, do you actually think that the parents would like to say, well,
we've done it and we've looked at all of the traditional ways to improve the
safety and decided no, no, no, no, no because there was five of them?
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 65 So we will go back to first base and do some traffic counts. They're not happy.
They want action. They don't want a study; they want action and they want
action now. After all, it is every day that their children are using that intersection
to get to school, and we all know that the child only needs to be half a metre
ahead of you to be under a car even though you're, as a parent, with other
children. That was the concern, Councillor McKENZIE, they raised with us.
So, Madam Chair, I reject this response. I would have suggested, having
identified this as a safety issue, that traffic study should have been done straight
away. The results of that traffic study and the direct consequences of that
investigation is what the petitioners want.
What happens at the moment with this response is there is no timeframe for
those traffic studies. There is no coming back together to Council so that the
school community knows when and what. That is my greatest concern and,
Madam Chair, therefore I do not support this response.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the
Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the
Infrastructure Committee 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: 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 OWENTAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 8 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Infrastructure Committee
was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chairman), and
Councillors Margaret de Wit, Victoria Newton and Norm Wyndham.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Councillor Milton Dick.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 66 -
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN TIMERS
PROJECT UPDATE
648/2014-15
1.
Sachin Mhatre, Acting Traffic Signal Operations Manager, Congestion Reduction Unit,
Brisbane Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on the
Pedestrian Countdown Timers Project. He provided the information below.
2.
Pedestrian Countdown Timers (PCTs) are used in several capital cities throughout Australia and in
many overseas countries.
3.
In 2012, the Lord Mayor initiated a program to improve Pedestrian Safety with the introduction of
PCTs.
4.
A four-year program was initiated, and PCTs have been installed progressively over the last three
years.
5.
The independent research conducted in 2012, involving 1,170 face-to-face intercept interviews,
revealed:
76 per cent of pedestrians think that the PCTs will make it safer for them to cross the
intersection, whereas only three per cent stated that the PCTs will make it less safe
84 per cent of pedestrians think that PCTs are a useful addition to the intersection’s signals
79 per cent of pedestrians agree that the PCTs should be rolled out to other intersections
across Brisbane.
6.
A high proportion of pedestrians support the installation of PCTs.
7.
Council has received a number of requests from the public to install PCTs at various intersections
throughout Brisbane.
8.
Studies indicate that installing PCTs contributes to greater efficiency of the pedestrian clearance phase
and also make pedestrians feel safer while crossing.
9.
A table was displayed detailing the PCT installations up until 2014-15. By 30 June 2015, 20.5 per cent
of all BCC signalised intersections will incorporate PCTs.
10.
In 2014-15 there were 20 intersections upgraded to PCTs. This program adds PCTs to intersections that
already have LED lanterns installed and aims to improve safety for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable
road users.
11.
In 2014-15 there were 40 intersections upgraded to LED which incorporates installation of PCTs. This
program improves road-user safety with better visibility of lanterns, particularly when lanterns are
shaded, glare or conflict with other intersections in close proximity. In addition, savings in operational
costs like energy, maintenance and a longer service life, are also achieved.
12.
In 2014-15 there were 46 minor modification intersection improvements incorporating the installation
of nine PCTs. This program delivers safety and efficiency improvements through the installation of
enhanced facilities such as: pedestrian audio-tactile devices, turning-arrows, pram-ramps, sign posting
improvements, phasing adjustments, etc.
13.
There were also seven intersection refurbishments incorporating four PCTs installations during 201415. The refurbishment program updates the traffic signal infrastructure at the intersection and installs
PCTs where needed. This program aims to deliver improved performance of the intersection therefore
reducing congestion with higher infrastructure reliability and better compliance practices.
14.
A graph was shown detailing the pedestrian crossing installations from July 2012 to May 2015.
15.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Mhatre for his
informative presentation.
16.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 67 -
ADOPTED
B
PETITIONS – CLEVELAND STREET, GREENSLOPES
CA15/104427 and CA15/135656
649/2014-15
17.
Two petitions calling for Council to review pedestrian safety at Cleveland Street, Greenslopes, was
presented to the meeting of Council held on 17 February 2015, by Councillor Ian McKenzie, and
received.
18.
The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
19.
Council has received two petitions, one containing 197 signatures and the second containing 316
signatures. The petitioners have raised concerns about pedestrians crossing Cleveland Street, at the
intersection of Logan Road, Greenslopes, as motorists are not taking care turning into Cleveland Street,
from Logan Road. In particular, the petitioners have requested the following:
improved signage
construction of a raised platform/wide speed hump
“lollipop person”
relocating the current pedestrian crossing lights
extend the bikeway under the bridge at Logan Road.
20.
Cleveland Street, at this particular intersection, has a high pedestrian volume due to schools in the area
and a nearby bikeway (Norman Creek Greenway). Currently, pedestrians are able to cross Logan Road
with the use of the signalised pedestrian crossing approximately 20 metres to the east of Cleveland
Street. To cross Cleveland Street pedestrians utilise an un-signalised pedestrian crossing, with an
incorporated refuge island and local area threshold pavement marking. Although there is no right-turn
pocket, motorists are able to turn right from Logan Road into Cleveland Street at any time.
21.
Currently, motorists wanting to turn right into Cleveland Street from Logan Road need to negotiate
with the motorists from the two westbound lanes, as well as people walking or cycling across
Cleveland Street westbound. There is much less potential for the motorists to observe a person walking
or cycling across Cleveland Street eastbound as they could be obscured by a vehicle queuing at the
O’Keefe Street roundabout or the traffic sign on the centre island.
22.
23.
Request for improved signage
An inspection of signage at the mentioned intersection was recently completed. Currently, there is
limited signage for motorists turning right from Logan Road into Cleveland Street alerting them of
possible pedestrian movements. However, there is no current infrastructure, such as overhanging
signals or median strip, that would allow for this type of signage to be erected. Additionally,
pedestrians should be utilising the splitter-island on Cleveland Street and waiting and checking for
oncoming traffic before proceeding.
All other signage for the intersection has been deemed appropriate. Council attempts to prevent an
undesirable proliferation of signs where possible, as this has implications on the aesthetics of an area,
as well as effecting safety by increasing the amount of critical information to be taken in by motorists
during the task of driving.
Construction of a raised platform/wide speed hump
24.
The construction of a raised platform at this intersection has been assessed and is deemed to be
unsuitable. At this site, motorists approaching from the east along Logan Road and those motorists
turning right from Logan Road into Cleveland Street would not be adequately warned and therefore
would need to excessively brake to slow down to be able to manoeuvre over the raised platform. This
excessive braking in turn may result in rear-end collisions.
“Lollipop person”
25.
The Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads is responsible for identifying
sites that are suitable for school-crossing supervisors known as “lollipop ladies”. There is a strict
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 68 criteria for the selection of appropriate sites, including the site being within close proximity of a school.
As such, this site would not be appropriate to have a school-crossing supervisor in attendance.
Relocating the current pedestrian-crossing lights
26.
The current signalised pedestrian crossing is located approximately 20 metres to the east of the
Cleveland Street intersection along Logan Road. Relocating the current pedestrian-crossing to the
intersection of Cleveland Street and Logan Road is not currently proposed by Council. Any relocation
of this type would require significant funding and would result in a major intersection upgrade.
Additionally, due to the close proximity of the existing pedestrian-crossing, this would also need to be
removed to adhere to appropriate road standards.
Extend the bikeway under the bridge at Logan Road
27.
Council acknowledges the petitioners’ request regarding extending the Norman Creek Greenway under
the Logan Road bridge to connect with the existing bikeway on Gladys Street. A shared pathway is
planned to go under the Logan Road bridge structure as part of improvements to Hanlon Park, which is
outlined in the Norman Creek 2012-2031 Master Plan.
28.
This improvement has no precise timeframe and has a number of dependencies including developments
within this section of the corridor. Any development conditions would then be applied and their
implementation would also be subject to future budgets and in line with city wide priorities.
Proposed solution
29.
It is proposed that Council undertake further traffic and pedestrian surveys, including origin and
destination analysis of motorists using Cleveland Street. This will enable Council to review the current
intersection of Cleveland Street and Logan Road and suggest any restrictions to traffic movements into
Cleveland Street from Logan Road. Additionally, Council will undertake further consultation of the
area, including consulting with local businesses and schools, to ascertain if there will be any impacts if
restrictions to traffic movements are proposed.
Funding
30.
Funding to undertake this work is available in the current budget under Program 2 – Moving Brisbane,
Schedule 209 – Suburban Amenity.
Consultation
31.
Councillor Ian McKenzie, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, has been consulted and supports the
recommendation.
Customer impact
32.
Undertaking further traffic and pedestrian surveys as well as community consultation regarding the
traffic movements into Cleveland Street will address the petitioners’ concerns.
Preferred option
33.
It is the preferred option to undertake further traffic and pedestrian surveys, including origin and
destination analysis of motorists using Cleveland Street. This will enable Council to review the current
intersection of Cleveland Street and Logan Road and suggest any restrictions to traffic movements into
Cleveland Street from Logan Road;
undertake further consultation of the area, including consulting with local business and
schools, to ascertain if there will be any impacts if restrictions to traffic movements are
proposed
correspond with the head petitioner once this analysis has been completed.
34.
The Branch Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillor Victoria
Newton abstaining.
35.
RECOMMENDATION:
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 69 THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREFERRED
OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
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 of that Committee held on 2 June 2015, be adopted.
Deputy Chairman:
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. There was one Item and that is the
Committee presentation on the Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
CityCat Terminal Project. This, of course, is a continuation of our rolling
program in respect of flood resilience. It's moneys awarded under the National
Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) funding because of the
enormous amount of damage that was done in the 2011 flood. This is a key
project within the CBD area.
Of course, as QUT, Madam Deputy Chairman, has a large amount of patronage,
it was key for us to be able to get this project done as quickly as possible and
maintain that level of service. So I really want to acknowledge the officers in
their planning and rolling out of this terminal, for their workflow, retaining the
existing terminal, doing the work as promptly as they could on the brand new
site.
Of course, this particular terminal follows in the same suite as the others in
respect of our flood resilience. It also complies with our
Disability Discrimination Act 2009 (DDA) requirements, making sure that it has
a 500 year flood resilience. It's DDA compliant, meeting all of our statutory
requirements and making sure that we're investing in the future in public
transport within our terminals as well.
The terminal was opened to the public on 14 April. I also want to thank QUT for
their support during the project, their consent of course for the use of the land,
and also their contribution in the parts and their investment in pathways leading
up to the terminal to provide an even greater level of accessibility.
Lastly, Madam Chairman, I note with interest the debate we had before around
the quarterly report, and there were Items within that report that related to this
terminal, for example, at QUT and the changes of variances and expenditure.
Of course, we spoke about the fact that the quarterly report is simply a snapshot
in time. We had a debate around that space and of course the ALP, although
knowing that it is a snapshot in time, choosing not to understand that, because if
they did they'd have nothing to complain about.
But when you look at this terminal, for example, the variance itself stated within
the quarterly report that there was expenditure variations. Looking at that in
isolation you would think that there was some issue with the terminal. In fact
there wasn't. It was delivered on time and on budget, Madam Chairman, and in
accordance with what was supposed to be delivered.
Bulimba for example, Madam Chairman, as well in the quarterly Budget report
also had a variance in there, but that is an under-spend. If the ALP had their you
way would think that we were not delivering but of course we did deliver it on
time and under budget. The variance, of course, was a saving.
So at the end of the day this Administration, as the ALP well knows but chooses
to deny because it doesn't suit them otherwise, is delivering in all areas and
making sure in the area of public transport that we are delivering brand new
facilities, modern facilities, accessible facilities and meeting the needs of a
growing population throughout our city. Thank you.
Deputy Chairman:
Further debate?
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 70 Deputy Chairman:
Councillor MATIC, anything further?
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active
Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve
Griffiths, Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ryan Murphy.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – QUT CITYCAT TERMINAL PROJECT
650/2014-15
1.
Lee Marshal, Ferry Terminal Upgrade Program Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure
Division, attended the meeting to provide information about the Queensland University of Technology
(QUT) CityCat Terminal Project. He provided the information below.
2.
The QUT CityCat terminal features:
a robust pier
a flood resilient dual-berthing pontoon
a gangway with intermediate level landings
connections to the terminal entrance to improve accessibility.
3.
QUT funded works underneath the Riverside Expressway. They also delivered works including a new
lift to connect into the campus.
4.
An animated video was shown to simulate how the terminal has been engineered to rise with flood
waters and can be reconfigured to reduce the impact of debris. The gangway and pontoon can rise with
flood waters. The gangway also has the capability to detach from the riverbank and move into position
behind the pontoon, reducing the potential for damage caused by flotsam and jetsam.
5.
The QUT CityCat terminal was positioned to allow a sufficient depth for vessels to berth. The gangway
was constructed using steel and reinforced concrete to maximise its strength. Photographs were shown
of the terminal being constructed, and after its completion in April 2015.
6.
Important project milestones included:
the construction contract being awarded on 26 March 2014
on-site construction commencing on 9 June 2014
delivery of the pontoon and gangway to the site on 20 March 2015
the terminal being opened to the public on 14 April 2015.
7.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Lee for his
informative presentation.
8.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE
Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee
held on 2 June 2015, be adopted.
Deputy Chairman:
Councillor COOPER.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 71 Councillor COOPER:
Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. I rise to speak to this Item that came to
Committee last week and it, I believe, so I'm advised, broke the record for the
longest presentation to Committee ever. So I was really disappointed that
Councillor KNAPP missed that opportunity to spend time with us.
So this is an application for 600 Coronation Drive at Toowong and was deemed
to be properly made on 16 September 2014. It's an application for three
residential towers, the reuse and extension of an existing heritage listed building
and centre activities, including community use, food and drink outlet, office and
shop.
A development application was lodged on behalf of the owner who purchased
the site, I believe, in 2013, on 16 September last year for the former
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) site at Coronation Drive, Toowong.
So, the site contains the state heritage listed Middenbury House, which is a
single storey brick building. It was constructed in 1865 on land owned by
Mrs Eliza Mary Rogers as a riverfront villa residence. It remained a residence
up until 1956 when the property was acquired by the Australian
Broadcasting Company which then vacated it in late 2006.
The site is approximately 1.5 hectares so a very substantial site in the
Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan, and is located within a 10 minute
walk of the $50 million newly refurbished Toowong Village. A 3.8 kilometre
walk and a 5.4 kilometre drive from the CBD.
The application was lodged under City Plan 2014 and, as I said earlier, is in the
Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan which was adopted in 2012.
Disappointingly, this neighbourhood plan was initially supported by the
Australian Labor Party but then they changed their minds and did not support
the final plan.
The site's often referred to as the former ABC site. In fact, I believe
Spencer Howson was talking about it last week saying it should be renamed the
ABC after the three different towers; the ABC of the proposal. The site itself is a
significant site on a very unusual location. It's very rare to get riverfront land in
this location.
So it's just one square metre under 15,000 square metres. 14,999 square metres,
which is nearly 1.5 hectares. Under the neighbourhood plan, the site is a
landmarked significant site as well as a catalyst site and is in the Toowong
centre precinct. It is zoned major centre, which as discussed at Committee,
allows an acceptable outcome of 15 storeys for height on a site of 1500 square
metres or greater. The Australian Labor Party forget, as we discussed earlier,
that they not only support performance solutions for height, but their own state
planning legislation requires Council to have a city plan to be performance
based.
Indeed, some of those on the other side of the Chamber have actually taken
advantage of performance based outcomes in their own personal history. This
application proposed three towers on the site. Tower C, which is closest to
Coronation Drive, is 27 storeys, while Tower B and A, which are closest to the
river, are 24 storeys. Council officers assessed the application and issued an
information request on 13 October 2014. Applicant responded on 26 November
that year and went - the application went out for its formal notification period, as
required under the Sustainable Planning Act.
Nineteen formal submissions were received, 18 with concerns and one in
support. There were then further submissions received. So there were 482
informal submissions that were received, with the majority of those being pro
formas received by Council after February of this year. Despite the
disappointing politicking played by the Australian Labor Party last week at
Committee, Council officers considered all of the submissions received in their
assessment of this application.
Some of the concerns raised were height, access on to Coronation Drive, public
space, access to the river front, impact on the Bicentennial Bikeway, the impact
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 72 on Middenbury House and the two fig trees that were also state heritage listed
on Coronation Drive. There has been, of course, a lot of discussion about the
architecture, which was designed by award winning Dame Zaha Hadid. Great to
see women being so tremendously successful.
So she, I believe, has received a number of architecture awards, including being
the first woman to be awarded the Pritzker Architecture prize in 2004, which I
understand, I am reliably informed, is often referred to as the Nobel Prize of
Architecture. So congratulations. Great to see women achieving so fantastically
well on the international stage. In response to the concerns of submitters, this
development will deliver nearly 9,000 square metres of publicly accessible
space, so precisely 8,868 square metres of publicly accessible space.
Council issued the applicant with two further information requests after public
notification closed; one in January and then again in April. The neighbourhood
plan requires 3,000 square metres to be accommodated on this site and this is
almost three times that amount will be delivered as a consequence of this
application. The community will also have access through to the river, including
providing access for people with disabilities, with lift access and ramps to allow
people to access the river's edge. So this is an almost tripling of the public space
for the community.
Apparently it is not enough for the Australian Labor Party. Last week
Councillor SUTTON demanded that ratepayers pay for the land, when we know
their own Federal colleagues would not sell the land to Council in 2009 for this
very purpose. This application also includes a deceleration lane of
approximately 27 metres along the front of the site with left-in/left-out access
only. There will another 90 metres following on, allowing left-in/left-out access
into the site via Archer Street. Council had a number of issues that they did not
support that were proposed by the applicant.
There was a request for a right-hand turn access onto Coronation Drive, which
Council absolutely did not support. We didn’t support this as an additional set of
intersection traffic signals close to High Street intersection would have
unacceptable impacts to traffic along Coronation Drive, including conflict issues
between cyclists, pedestrians and cars. As a local Councillor, Councillor
MATIC, is keenly aware, the Bicentennial Bikeway currently sees more than
6,500 pedestrians along it using it each day.
As part of this development, Council has conditioned the extension of the
existing bikeway along the full extent of the site, as well as a new link from
Coronation Drive to Archer Street. So there's now two options for cyclists;
continuing using the bikeway along the full frontage of Coronation Drive or use
the new bike path through the site to Archer Street. The bikeway and pedestrian
access paths within the site are separated. This is to ensure the safety of
pedestrians and cyclists.
There will be two cafes on the site, which I think we had a bit of a discussion—
thank you very much, Councillor WINES, through you, Madam Chair, for
clarifying—there is no invisible cafe, but certainly the cafes that are proposed
will not impact on any vistas or views to Middenbury House. The site did flood
up to the banks of the site in the January 2011 floods, so certainly not the site
itself, but it did impact on the edge of the site. Council, of course, has
accordingly conditioned, setting the minimum habitable floor level to be
7.2 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). The minimum non-habitable floor
level at seven metres AHD.
Council has conditioned this development to meet flood immunity levels and a
condition has been set to ensure the site operates to flood immunity into the
future. The development complies with the acceptable outcomes with 800 car
spaces, 714 for residents and 86 for visitor, temporary car spaces across four
levels of basement car parking. Council has also conditioned this development
to provide 680 bicycle parking bays, with 555 of those secured for residential
and 125 for visitors.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 73 This is a site very well placed for public transport, located within walking
distance to the Toowong Railway Station, 120 metres, high frequency buses as
well as the Regatta ferry terminal approximately 160 metres north of the site,
with ferries departing every 20 minutes for the CBD, UQ and Hamilton in peak
periods. The proposal will not only allow Middenbury House to be open to the
public for the very first time, but will activate the river's edge, which is very
much in line with the River's Edge Strategy. Council has also conditioned this
proposal to ensure that the two state heritage listed fig trees on Coronation Drive
are protected.
This is a $430 million investment in our city and I’m greatly encouraged to see
our city, our New World City, is seeing these kinds of extraordinary designs on
a site that has been closed and inaccessible for so many years, opening it up to
the public and delivering a great asset for our city, not only for the local area,
but indeed for the whole of the city. Thank you, Madam Chair.
At that time, 5.55pm, the Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, resumed the Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Labor Councillors will not be
supporting this proposal and, Madam Chair; we do so because 501 submissions
from the local residents is a very clear indication of what they think of this
proposal. I would like to acknowledge that at least three, four, five, who have sat
through the rest of our debate, edifying as it must be, just to hear this debate.
Now, Madam Chair, I think it's really interesting to reflect what we've heard.
There were 19 submissions, but then when the community knew what was
proposed, we had 482 submissions where residents were asked what do you
think of this proposal and that generated their objections. Irrespective of whether
they were formal or informal, they give an indication of what residents think of
this development. Madam Chair, we were told very clearly that this proposal
complied, except for height, with the neighbourhood plan for this site.
I would suggest, Madam Chair, consistent with what many of us know, the
number of submissions against it would then indicate that the process of
neighbourhood planning is flawed, because residents aren’t aware of what is
given or indicated for the land until a development application comes in. Now,
I’m not pointing any finger, because—at anyone on this, whether it be the
Councillors on the other side or Labor Councillors, but I think it behoves us
when you see a site like this and the response to say it's—the process is broken
and we must do better.
Having said that, Madam Chair, we are now faced with an application that the
community has learnt belatedly has a 15-storey height limit. They understand
that. They understand what that height means in terms of impact on their
properties, in terms of overshadowing, wind that comes between high-rise builds
and the visual amenity that building or those buildings would present.
Madam Chair, that is completely different than a 27-storey building and a 24storey building and the 24-storey building. That is what Councillor COOPER
and the LNP just don’t get.
They don’t get that the community doesn’t say, well, 15 is fine and because we
get a little bit more space on the ground, we will wear 27 and 24. The
community says clearly, we don’t want 27 storey. We don’t want that height and
the density and the impact that comes from it. Madam Chair, it's very interesting
in Committee that we didn’t have access to the shadow diagrams, which is
probably the best way to indicate the impact on residents. In winter, it comes
right through the site from that tallest building and down to five buildings in a
row on the southern side.
That is a huge impact. In our climate, if you’re living in a tin and timber
building, to have no shade at the—to be completely shaded over when you need
the sun to warm us up, that is one of the reasons why the residents uniformly
across our city do not wear this argument—it's okay, because if you go up, you
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 74 get more land to do good things with on the ground. Madam Chair, then let's
look at what happens to the area on the ground.
The majority is taken up by pathways, bikeways, roadways, access roads, a
riverside cafe that wasn't actually shown on the master plan until you asked for
it. We were told that it was in that location. On more information we found that
it was wedged between a number of different levels, as you had terraces going
down to the river. Now, Madam Chair, I’m sure in Italy we love terraces, but it's
not making a green space that is welcoming and enjoying. Terraces reflect a
private space, a hard space and that is the majority of what the green space in
this development is.
It may be approximately 50 per cent of the site. But how much is it that I can
take my grandkids and a frisbee and play frisbee with them? Not one bit of
space. That's the issue if you’re actually saying to the community, that they don't
wear anyway, the height will give a benefit back to you. It doesn’t, if it's a
terrace, where we can all sit and drink cups of tea and have not much other
activity at all. But the real issue, Madam Chair, is the traffic.
Eight hundred vehicles on this site and they—and neither should they be able to
turn right into Coronation Drive, but as a result of that, Madam Chair, it's either
out directly on to Coronation Drive doing a left-hand turn or into Archer Street
to do a left-hand turn once you get back to Coronation Drive. Now, Madam
Chair, I’m sure many people want to travel to your ward, but I'll put money on
it, Madam Chair, there's a lot more that want to go north into the city and to all
the activity of our metropolis. Where do you think they're going to be able to
turn around?
Well, they go a very long way heading out to the university before they get a
right-hand turn, and knowing that, it will be into High Street, over the bridge on
the railway line, which is probably the worst little point of congestion that I
know of in our city. It's one that you avoid at all cost. But never mind,
Madam Chair, because in direct asking, we were told, no, no, no, you can turn
left into Archer Street, then continue down Glen Street and get to Brisbane
Street, which is actually a continuation of Coronation Drive. Madam Chair,
that's when vehicles come incredibly fast down that street.
It's one of those areas that you really have to know where you are, how you’re
driving, to cross two lanes of traffic to get into another two lanes of traffic to go
right back into the city. Are there traffic lights as part of this proposal? No. Are
there traffic lights in the PIP so that we actually know moneys have been taken
from the development to put the traffic lights at that intersection of Glen Street
and Brisbane Street? No. But never mind, on faith the residents of Toowong, the
residents in this new building are told, don’t worry, traffic lights will go in.
Well, Madam Chair, I can only think of the residents of South Brisbane and
West End who have been waiting a very long time for any infrastructure to go in
there to help them with their transport, as there has been no effective widening
for their areas. So that is our concern, Madam Chair. You've got 800 vehicles
that are going into probably one of the worst networks in our city, and there is
no solution with it.
Why couldn’t they have just said in the development, as I recall so well, we did
so often in the former Lord Mayor Soorley's lord mayorship, they actually had
the traffic lights put in and work conditioned to be put in as part of the
development and the stages of the development. So it is not unreasonable to ask
that. Now, I know Councillor COOPER will get up and say, oh,
Councillor ABRAHAMS doesn’t understand, because if you understood, she
would know it's in the PIP. Well, that's not an argument in this case, because it
ain't in the PIP.
The other one is this is a negotiated outcome, so we very clearly can negotiate
that with the developers. That is the issue, Madam Chair. Finally, I would like to
finish. It is not an issue that the Labor Councillors don’t understand performance
assessment. We do. Performance assessment is when there is specific site that
has specific benefits that the more prescriptive, acceptable solutions can be
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 75 varied, can be relaxed, can be increased, so that there can be additional size or
additional width of a building and even additional density.
The issue, Madam Chair, that we understand full well is that the
LNP Councillors are using it to justify an increase from 15 storeys to 27 storeys
and 24 storeys and the community doesn’t wear it. That is not performance
assessment. That is a green light to the developers.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak in respect of Item A. There was a
lot just said by Councillor ABRAHAMS and in speaking to this item, I would
like to actually provide some clarity and some—I won't say truth, but let's say a
clearer perspective of reality, Madam Chairman. The application that we're
looking at today is on the old ABC site. Everyone knows where that site is,
Madam Chairman. It has a very long history, as Councillor COOPER has set
out. That was privately owned land until 1956, when the ABC bought the site
and turned it into the ABC studios.
They effectively turned Middenbury House into office space and studio space.
They built their buildings and resided there up until 2007-08, Madam Chairman.
What had happened, Madam Chairman, was that that site that was open to the
community, accessible by the community for decades when the ABC took over
the site, it no longer was. No one was able to access the house. No one was able
to access the water. No one was able to access any of the facilities that existed
there previously.
Then, Madam Chairman, when the ABC finally moved out of that site, I and a
number of residents had a conversation about open space and parkland. Why?
Because this Administration, Madam Chairman, has always prioritised the
opportunities for open space and parkland in our wards across our city.
Madam Chairman, what we did in conjunction with the then Federal Member
was we started a petition and we went to the people within our areas, within not
only the ward of Toowong, but the Federal seat of Ryan, and got a huge amount
of support for the Federal Government to sell or grant the land to Council. On
top of that petition, Madam Chairman, our then LORD MAYOR,
Campbell Newman, personally wrote to the minister asking for the same
response. The petition was lodged, the letter was sent. The response to the
petition was no. The response to the LORD MAYOR was no.
They wanted to sell the land, Madam Chairman. They wanted $44 million at the
time and that was what they wanted and they wouldn’t take anything less. So,
Madam Chairman, we then had to unfortunately forego that opportunity because
the Federal Government didn’t give us the opportunity. I hear
Councillor ABRAHAMS say, of course. She's repeating the words, of course.
It's interesting, Madam Chairman, to hear from Councillor ABRAHAMS the
words of course.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, you don’t have the floor.
Councillor MATIC:
It's interesting to hear from Councillor ABRAHAMS, Madam Chairman, the
issue of open space and parkland and how—leaving the Chamber. Fair enough
then. Doesn’t want to hear the discussion. Mentions the Soorley years,
Madam Chairman, but fails to mention that the Soorley Administration and
Quinn Administration of which she was a member, Madam Chairman, actually
voted to sell the old Milton Tennis Centre.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
A point of order, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chair:
Point of order against you, Councillor MATIC. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes. Madam Chairman, this is a very serious issue. It has got nothing to do with
the Soorley Administration. I would ask you to draw the local Councillor back
to the matter before us for debate.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 76 Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I noticed that you didn’t call a point of order when
Councillor ABRAHAMS raised those topics. I don’t uphold your point of order.
Thank you, Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Madam Chairman, quite clearly the discussion is also around the priority of
parkland and open space for Brisbane residents and in reference to the ward of
Toowong. Councillor ABRAHAMS made the comment about the Soorley years.
I am simply clarifying for this Chamber that it was the Soorley Administration,
the Quinn Administration that actually sold the old Milton Tennis Centre. Three
and a half hectares of land that is specifically zoned sport and recreation was
sold to developers.
There are people upstairs in the gallery, Madam Chairman, as residents who
fought that, who were opposed to that, who wanted to see the land retained.
There are residents up there right now, Madam Chairman, that I stood with
shoulder to shoulder on the old Milton Tennis Centre development site and
converted into parkland. Why, Madam Chairman? Why? Because this side of
the Chamber, Madam Chairman, supports public space opportunities when they
are made available to us. When we lobbied the Federal Government to grant that
land, they said no.
So, Madam Chairman, my focus then went on other opportunities and from that
we got Milton. From that we got a signature park for our ward,
Madam Chairman, that everyone in the western suburbs goes to and the
residents of Toowong can be proud of. So, Madam Chairman, when we look at
this location, what the ALP chooses to forget is that we have a neighbourhood
plan. The Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan, Madam Chairman, was
undertaken in the last term and was done widespread throughout the community.
It was done as broadly as possible. It engages all the residents of the ward. It set
up a consultative committee made up of stakeholders within the community of
both residents, business owners, community members, historical society
members. You name it, they were there. Why, Madam Chairman? To get the
broadest amount of feedback as the process was undertaken. Throughout that
whole process we undertook the process of consultation to provide feedback.
Now, at the end of the day of that process, Madam Chairman, when this plan
was ratified in 2012, in the old Roy Harvey House which was our Chamber
then, it was supported by both sides of this Chamber. Yet now we have
Councillor ABRAHAMS daring to stand in this place and say that the system
was flawed and the ALP do not support this site. That somehow magically that
we are supposed to foresee what goes on a site well in advanced of whenever it
is to be lodged by an applicant.
Now, Madam Chairman, this site is of significant importance in the local area as
a development location. The plan actually allows for five 15-storey
developments. 75 storeys cumulatively. Madam Chairman, there is only a 3,000
square metre allocation under that plan for open space. That is literally, Madam
Chairman, laneways, walkways, Madam Chairman, and nothing more than that.
The development that we have now under the performance solution, Madam
Chairman, provides an outcome that gives us just over 8,800 square metres of
open space.
It provides bikeways, walkways, open space, park areas, Madam Chairman. It
provides an open opportunity to Middenbury House once again to the people of
Brisbane for use as either cafe, restaurant. There's even discussion about
opening it up for community space as well, Madam Chairman. It provides
access to the river, Madam Chairman, which we have never had before since
1956.
We have a plan in place that has gone through a consultative process, voted and
supported by both sides of this Chamber, and now we are looking at an outcome
that is—that we try to do the best for with the solution based outcome that we
need to achieve under the plan. At the end of the day, Madam Chairman, there
are open space opportunities here that did not exist before and,
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 77 Madam Chairman, under the existing plan, would have been less than they are
now.
Now, in going through the issues, Madam Chairman, I have met with residents
on this issue for some time, both individually and collectively at a community
meeting. I have taken submissions from residents. I have referred them to the
relevant offices. I have referred them to the chair's office. I have raised the
issues that—all the issues that residents have raised with me around traffic,
around the bikeway, around the height and all these other issues as well, and
about open space, Madam Chairman, and parkland opportunities as well.
All of these issues have been provided to the officers and the officers have,
through the ordinary process, gone through and evaluated all of these under the
planning process. That's what we have before us today. Now
Councillor ABRAHAMS was talking about some road network at—from Archer
Street down to Glen Road down to Coronation Drive. She doesn’t live in the
ward. She doesn’t—her ward is West End and so she's not familiar,
Madam Chairman, with the actual traffic conditions.
Nor, Madam Chairman, when she spoke in the Chamber was she aware of the
fact that the LORD MAYOR last Monday in his announcement about this
particular site also announced publicly to the media and to the people of
Toowong Ward that intersection light upgrades would be provided at the bottom
of Glen Road onto Brisbane Street and make that turn possible into
Coronation Drive. Madam Chairman, why? Because at the end of the day, we
need to provide a practical solution to all of the residents that are currently there
and to be able to meet the needs of those residents that are coming.
Madam Chairman, what the ALP always chooses to forget is that when we
started this planning process in the last term, it was done so under the
Queensland regional plan. A regional plan established by the previous state
government. Madam Chairman, they set the targets around what we needed to
achieve. ALP Councillors are sniggering right now, Madam Chairman, because
they choose to ignore the simple fact of the region plan applied not only to
Brisbane, but all other councils, Madam Chairman, in SEQ. All of us had targets
to meet.
All of us had the challenges of growth to deal with. What this neighbourhood
plan is doing is meeting those growth challenges, trying to find the balance,
Madam Chairman, between looking after the amenity of local residents, but at
the same time meeting the growth challenges that we meet under that regional
plan. Madam Chairman, that regional plan is still there. Nothing has changed,
the targets are still there. The challenges are still there, but as a council we need
to meet them.
If we choose to ignore them like the ALP does and just—and plan ad hoc like
they do, we will get the dysfunctionality that we had in the previous ALP years,
where we had a lack of infrastructure, where we had a lack of public transport
infrastructure, where we had a lack of planning, where there was uncertainty for
residents, where there was an ad hoc approach to planning approvals and
neighbourhood plans, Madam Chairman, because there was no certainty. That's
what we got with them.
That's not where we need to go now. This is a key area within the ward and this
is something under the performance solution we need to address and we need to
meet. For us, it's about finding that balance of open space and making sure that
we deal with the growth in the future.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam—Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this development
application and the approval that the LNP are going to give—the formal
approval that the LNP are going to give to it tonight. In doing so, I want to
respond to some of the arguments that Councillor COOPER and
Councillor MATIC have put. I'll start with Councillor MATIC, because quite
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 78 frankly I’m quite surprised that he would go to such lengths to reinforce the
neighbourhood planning process for the area that this site relates to.
I am surprised that he would reiterate how consultative the process was and how
much residents' views were listened to and how much resident input there was in
terms of developing that plan, because it is that plan after consulting with
residents, after letting residents have their say implemented, a 15 storey height
limit was set on this site. That is the very request, that is the very position, the
position of residents that this LNP Council here tonight are roundly ignoring.
They are tearing up the recommendations of the residents. They are dismissing
them.
They are kicking them to the curb. They are saying, including the local
Councillor, Councillor MATIC, we don’t care what residents say about what
type of development they want to see in their local area. We all remember the
planning utopia that LORD MAYOR Campbell Newman and
Councillor COOPER sold to the residents of Brisbane about what
neighbourhood planning would be and that was that neighbourhood plans would
allow residents to determine the type of development that they could expect to
see in their neighbourhoods.
Tonight is absolutely symbolic of just how far away this LNP Council is in
terms of listening to the concerns of residents when it comes to development in
their neighbourhood. 500 residents said to Council they did not accept the
heights that this development application was proposing. 500. I don’t know how
many more people this LNP Council, this LNP LORD MAYOR, this
LNP Councillor for Toowong and this LNP Councillor for neighbourhood
planning need to hear from for them to get that this is not what Brisbane
residents want for their neighbourhoods.
It’s falling on deaf ears. You know, they say it's a performance based planning
scheme they could have had five towers of 15 storeys. Well, you know what I
say to that? That just proves how bogus the neighbourhood planning process and
how bad and wrong the City Plan is in this city where you are asking residents
to accept a bad development or an even worse one. Residents expect better than
this when it comes to planning in this city.
This is an absolute symbolic moment for that very debate in this city. For this
Council to thumb their nose at 500 residents regarding what this particular DA
wanted, but what the entire, you know, ward of Toowong through the
consultative neighbourhood planning process—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, to the chair. Not to the back of the Chamber, thank you.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam—whatever. Whatever I do, it's never right, Madam Chair, as far
as you’re concerned.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I’m trying to—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—participate in this debate.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, listen to me. You address the Chair. Every week we go
through this. You stand there, you turn around, you talk to the people behind
you. That is not—and a few others who do it. You go through the Chair. Yes. I
pulled Councillor WINES up as well. Thank you.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, the bottom line is, wherever I’m looking in the room, residents in
the Toowong Ward clearly said to Council they were prepared to accept
15 storeys in this area, but they did not—ever did they say were they prepared to
accept 27 storeys, 26 storeys, 24 storeys or whatever the case may be.
And I don’t wear this whole five towers of 15 storeys argument, because a
development approval that would have come in like that would have had to
completely block out Middenbury House, which Councillor COOPER is selling
as such a benefit of this development application.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 79 If she's really going to stand up here and argue the argument about how great it
is about Middenbury House and about everything this application says, is she
honestly then expecting us to accept that this Council would have alternatively
approved five towers of 15 storeys that completely and utterly crowded out that
house? It is a bogus argument. You know what's even more bogus about it? The
fact that this Council has gone to such lengths and put such resources into
justifying giving these developers what they want.
We have known for a long time when it comes to this LNP in this Council that
they are prepared to give developers whatever they want. This application
absolutely proves it. After the planning committee, I accepted
Councillor COOPER's challenge to get on and look at the traffic report, because
I had to ask six times, six times I had to ask for the traffic generation figures for
this development application during the Committee and they refused to give me
the answer.
(A) that's not acceptable from a governance point of view, but secondly, I now
understand why, why they wouldn’t give it, because the information contained
in the traffic reports is shoddy at best. This applicant, this Council has no answer
for the traffic gridlock that this development is going to cause.
I am absolutely concerned about the fact that they said, well, traffic gridlock is
going to be fixed, because Council is then going to fund a set of traffic lights,
so—to enable the developer to put all of these densities. Not only are we
actually coming up with planning arguments to let the developer get away with
what they want, we are then also going to put Council ratepayers' money into
funding a set of traffic lights so that the developer can actually achieve what he
wants to achieve on the site.
Again, that is not appropriate. What is appropriate is for Council to stick to its
own plan. That is what the residents want. That is not just what the residents of
Toowong Ward want. It is what residents across the city want from this Council.
We have a plan, but time and time again this LNP Administration refuses to
stick to it. It is not good enough.
Their arguments are bogus and quite frankly local residents sitting up here
tonight and who are concerned about this application and all of those people
who participated in the development of the neighbourhood plan should be really
concerned about this decision and quite frankly they should be demanding better
from their local elected representative and this Council more generally.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak in support of Item A, the development
application for 600 Coronation Drive. This development application was an
interesting case for the city. We've heard various comments made from both
sides about the pros and cons of this particular development. It's quite clear that
there are a number of people in the area surrounding this development who
would prefer not to see the site developed or would prefer to see another type of
development. It is quite clear that that is the case.
That is the case with many of the developments that we assess in this place. But
development has to be assessed according to both the City Plan, the local plan
and also the State planning provisions. One of the things that is being missed in
this whole debate is that what is being proposed here, what this development
application will do is will provide smart growth and a positive outcome both for
the local area and for the City of Brisbane. Now, obviously I’m not from the
Toowong area.
So I can look at this application objectively. Not as someone—not as someone
who lives locally, not as someone who represents the local area, but objectively
as someone who see development occurring across the city, who sees hundreds,
if not thousands, of development applications come through and in the almost 10
years as a Councillor I have seen thousands come through. I have to say my
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 80 assessment of this is that this will be a fantastic development for the City of
Brisbane and for the local area.
What is more, my prediction is that once this development is constructed and is
in place, even many of the opponents of this development will agree that it is a
positive outcome for the city and for the local area. Now, our CityShape, which
is the fundamental basis for the City Plan specifies that we should put new
development and density within areas that are close to public transport, within
areas that are relatively close to the city and we do this specifically so that we
can prevent further urban sprawl. Brisbane could keep growing further and
further out.
We could keep chewing up more and more bushland, but we have chosen not to
do that. We have chosen a sustainable form of development, a sustainable path
forward which puts development close to public transport infrastructure and
facilities. This development site is located across the road from high capacity
public transport, a railway station. This development is located within walking
distance of a CityCat terminal. This development is located next to Brisbane's
most popular cycleway, the Bicentennial Bikeway along Coronation Drive.
This development provides more public and active transport opportunities than
almost any development I have seen. The arguments about traffic, I know they
always concern people when it comes to development. But I fundamentally
believe that people living in this location when it is constructed will take the
opportunity to catch public transport, will take the opportunity to catch the train
or the CityCat or to ride or even to walk to where they need to go. There's a
shopping centre right across the road. They don’t need to get into their car to go
to Woolworths or Coles.
They can shop on foot. They can catch public transport by walking across the
road or down to the ferry terminal. It is a sustainable proposal and a smart
proposal and we know that contrary to what Labor tells the community, that
their opposition based only on political point scoring. To oppose this application
is to oppose smart growth and smart development. To oppose this application is
to simply say that if you don’t—if you want to do high quality smart growth in
Brisbane, forget about it. Go somewhere else. That's Labor's approach.
Now, there's been a lot of talk about neighbourhood plans and different height
limits. The reality is that-and Councillor SUTTON questioned the five buildings
at 15 storey discussion that we've had on this site. She suggested, no. Council
wouldn’t necessarily approve that either. That would be a code application. The
developer could have lodged a code application for five buildings at 15 storeys
and much more site coverage, much more density, much less open space. There
would have been no community right to provide feedback or lodge submissions.
Councillor interjecting
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
There would have been no community right to object or indeed to appeal this
application and if it was a code application consistent with what was in the
neighbourhood plan for code assessment, it would have been approved. So what
we have here is a different tact. The developer, instead of taking that tact, which
was a low risk tact, which meant that the community couldn’t have their say or
couldn’t object, because it was consistent with the plan, they have chosen a
performance based option. That was the right thing to do.
We have an option here which will deliver a better outcome for the local area
and a better outcome for the city. Now, Councillor ABRAHAMS made the
ridiculous claim that you can't throw a frisbee around below the buildings. If we
assess developments on whether you can throw a frisbee around, then I don’t
know where we would be. But we're assessing a development here. This site is
not a park.
Now, I know there are some people who would like it to be a park. I have to say,
we had no problem with the Federal Government giving this site to us to be used
as a park, but guess what? They didn’t. They didn’t. As a result, this site is in
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 81 private hands and we're assessing a development application. It is not a park, but
what we will see is a site that has been closed off for years and years and years
opened up to the public. You can't throw a frisbee around the Gasworks precinct
either. But you know what? People love to go there.
People love that development and love what it's done for that Newstead area. I
predict that this development will be even more iconic and loved by the people
of Brisbane than the Gasworks development and it will be a great outcome, not
only for Brisbane, but also for the local area. We will see, as I mentioned,
sustainable forms of transport being used as part of this development. It is very
accessible. Councillor SUTTON claimed that Council shouldn’t be funding
traffic signals to accommodate development access in and out of this site.
I reject that claim. Council is doing what it should be doing to provide safe
access in and out of this precinct. If Councillor SUTTON is saying that
somehow we shouldn’t be putting traffic signals in this location, then I would
very much be concerned. The reality is the traffic signals that are being
proposed, they can't be funded by the developer, because we have no legal
ability to ask them to fund those traffic signals. You can be absolutely sure that
if we could, we would. If we could, we would. But we can't, so we're not going
to let that stand in the way of safe and convenient access and Council will do—
Chairman:
Order!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—what needs to be done to provide that access.
Councillor interjecting
Chairman:
Order!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Labor Councillors criticise performance based planning. They want to
crystallise this whole complex debate down into some simply throwaway
political lines about whether Council sticks to its plan or not. Well, I can say
absolutely that Council does not approve developments that do not comply with
our plan. We do not approve developments that do not comply with our plan.
Councillor interjecting
Chairman:
Order! Councillor JOHNSTON!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Guess what? That claim I just made is regularly tested. It is tested in the
ultimate—
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes.
Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A, the neighbourhood planning
report for the proposed development at 600 Coronation Drive, Toowong by
Sunland Developments. Madam Chairman, I’m really disappointed by what
we've heard tonight, which has been a combination of fear and hubris from the
LNP Administration. Fear in the sense they say we-you know, we could have
had a worse development on this site and hubris, because, Madam Chairman,
they believe this is a smart growth development.
They believe this will be good for our city, good for the local area. Madam
Chairman, I am just so disappointed by what they have said. Now, I have had
some contact with some of the residents with respect to this development and I
know they are very concerned about the scale of the development that is
proposed. I want to take a step back and look at what the neighbourhood plan
actually says and then what is actually happening.
This is where I think the deceptiveness of what has been said by the LNP
speakers is truly astonishing, particularly from the local Councillor for the area,
who claims that the local plan, the neighbourhood plan, is this wonderful
community document, but one that he's prepared to see trashed for the sake of
development and development at any cost. That is not what this city needs.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 82 That is not what this precinct needs and it is really disappointing that he has
stood up and supported this development today and that the DEPUTY MAYOR
has stood up and claimed it also to be a good outcome. So let me say this. The
neighbourhood plan says that there should be a maximum height of 15 storeys
on this site. Councillor MATIC says that's a good thing, because that's what the
neighbourhood plan says, that's what the residents supported and we consulted
on that.
Madam Chairman, the key thing here is—and we've heard it all day today from
Councillor COOPER as well—is that there are performance solutions. Where—
we've had these performance solutions foisted on us by the big, bad state
government and we really can't do anything about those big, bad performance
solutions. It's really their fault. But, Madam Chairman, let's look at what the
performance solutions actually say. The acceptable solutions say a maximum of
15 storeys. The performance solutions say the following things.
That there should be a cohesive streetscape and built form taking into account
the surrounding neighbourhood. Now, no tick on that performance solution,
Madam Chairman. It's certainly not providing a cohesive streetscape. It's highly
unusual in terms of its appearance and fails to integrate with the existing
streetscape. Secondly, and this is the most important performance solution that
is listed, that the outcome should be aligned to community expectations about
the number of storeys.
Now, these are the performance solutions that Councillor COOPER, Councillor
MATIC and Councillor SCHRINNER say that this development meets. Now, let
me state the second one again. That the performance solution for height is that it
should be aligned to community expectations about the number of storeys. Now,
Madam Chairman, that's not what's happening on this site. Neither the
acceptable solutions nor the performance solutions are being met. There is huge
community concern about the 27 storey towers that have been proposed on this
site. That is excessive.
It's not like it's one or two storeys over the height limit. It is 12 storeys over the
height limit. It is a particularly disappointing argument when you have to turn to
fear to try and scare a community into accepting a less worse solution and that is
what Councillor SCHRINNER particularly did here today. That is extremely
disappointing from someone who is the DEPUTY MAYOR of this city. It just
shows that the LNP Administration isn't prepared to have a rational debate that
takes into account community expectations and community concerns.
Instead, they will use their power and their might to force an outcome on a
community where it is not supported. So let me be clear. There are 500 plus
submissions on this development and they don’t support it. They don’t support
it. The performance solutions of the neighbourhood plan itself don’t support the
outcome that is being proposed here today by the LNP. So height is a serious
issue. Traffic. I’m quite astonished by Councillor SCHRINNER argument today
that we can't force a developer to do particular traffic outcomes.
We do that all the time when we condition outcomes for development
applications. I’m shocked. I'm shocked that he thinks that's not possible, because
I’ve seen it over and over again in developments and I don’t know that changed
in the City Plan it got past me, but certainly we could be conditioning outcomes
with respect to this development and it's clear that this LNP Administration
didn’t even try. It didn’t even consider it. That is a shame, because there is no
way that ratepayers should be subsidising a developer who is going to make a
huge profit.
That is what we are talking about here. I heard $44 million for the site, 500 odd
units, a million dollars each. We're probably talking about a half a billion dollars
of revenue that's going to be derived from this site and this Council can't ask
them to pay for a $100,000 worth of traffic lights? What is going on? Instead,
the ratepayers of other parts of this city, who can't get their safety and their
traffic issues done, they cannot—they cannot get them fixed up. Meanwhile,
we're going to be subsidising a multi-million dollar development that is going to
lead to huge profits for a private developer.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 83 That's not on either. We have seen the statements today by the report before us
and we heard actually Councillor SCHRINNER say it too. This is not a park. I
agree. It's not a park and it's been really, I think, trickly worded, which I think is
quite disappointing. What it actually says in the report is that there's 8800 square
metres to be provided for and it's in inverted commas, publicly accessible urban
common areas over the site, which are privately owned, but maintained to be
accessible for 24 hours to the public. Now, that's not a good outcome as far as
I’m concerned.
Again, we should have conditioned part of this site to be handed back over to
Council as part of the development conditions so that this is truly public land. It
is clear it is not public land. What are we going to do when it comes down to the
fact that down the track this body corporate may make a decision not to have it
open 24 hours? It may make a decision not to maintain the land? It may make a
decision to do something else?
This Council will have to go to court, if they’ve got the guts to do it, to try and
enforce the development approval conditions, which now they refuse to do on
almost every single development around this city. This is leading to some of the
poorest outcomes we have seen for such a significant site. So far they’ve got the
height levels wrong, they’ve got the community expectations wrong. They've
got the traffic wrong. They have not dealt with the public space issues in a way
that will actually ensure and maintain that this is used for public purposes.
We have to take it on trust that in five years the body corporate might not decide
to do something else. That's not good enough. That is not good enough. Finallyfinally, we have the complete sell-out that is Councillor MATIC that ignores
500 residents coming to him to say there's a problem. I feel really sad for
Toowong Ward residents, because I can tell you now, it is a hard thing to do to
stand up and say, I won't support something that my colleagues say needs to be
done.
But if you have 500 residents telling you that there is a problem with something
in your local ward, I would expect that Councillors would be on the residents'
side every single time, no matter what it is, you know, from a—from a team
point of view. This to me is such a sell-out. It is-it is so sad to me that the local
Councillor isn't going to stand up and do the right thing here and not support this
development. I—it's very, very sad. I don’t support this development. You
know, the other issue is public transport.
Let me tell you now, the Ipswich rail line is one of the most overcrowded in the
city. Every single bus just about that runs up Coronation Drive is chock-a-block.
All those buses going out to University of Queensland (UQ) are the ones that are
just overcrowded constantly. We have Coronation Drive, the busiest Council
road in Brisbane and into that environment we're going to put a giant
development that puts further pressure both on traffic and on public transport.
That is not a good outcome. This is just—I agree with Councillor SUTTON.
This is completely symbolic of why the LNP have got development and
planning wrong in our city. It's absolutely the-an excellent indicator of why
they're not listening, they're not respecting the neighbourhood plan—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
It's not a good decision.
Chairman:
Thank you. Councillor MURPHY.
ADJOURNMENT:
651/2014-15
At that time, 6.53pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by
Councillor Kim MARX, that the meeting adjourn for a period of one hour, to commence only when all
Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.
Council stood adjourned at 6.55pm.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 84 UPON RESUMPTION:
Chairman:
Further debate on the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
Report?
Chairman:
Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So Madam Chair, we've heard some
debate this evening, unfortunately we've heard some debate that didn't actually
be followed up by facts. So let's look at the history of this particular site. So
Councillor MATIC was very clear about the history and let's just quietly have a
quick recap.
So in 2009 the former Lord Mayor wrote to the Prime Minister, the
Queenslander, Kevin Rudd and said, would the Federal Government be prepared
to set this land aside for park and open space. The response from the Federal
Government said, no. They would be proceeding and it would be going on the
open market and at full market value. Okay, well that was the Federal
Government's decision.
Interestingly, only a year later, when the then Lord Mayor moved to secure the
old Milton tennis court site for park and not to support 20-storey development,
that's high density residential development that was proposed for that site,
Councillor ABRAHAMS said and I quote: Why this park? Why now when
we've all known for years there were endeavours to make it a residential
development site, unquote. So she didn't support a park in the proximity, like
within Toowong Ward, a ward that certainly is a ward that's close in to the city
centre where we're seeing development occur. So there's real inconsistency
there.
Now, now we've seen Councillor ABRAHAMS, her planning policy unmasked,
her frisbee planning policy that she seems to have come up with, perhaps it's a
little like her roads diet, perhaps flimsy on detail. But certainly she was really
scrambling to not support 8,868 square metres of publically accessible riverfront
land, Madam Chair, which the public will have access to, they will have access
to the State Heritage listed Middenbury House for the first time, the first time in
its history. So pretty disappointing and really not much substantial in her debate
at all.
She also wanted lights at Glen Road and Brisbane Street. She wanted that
conditioned. But as she knows, we can only impose conditions that are
reasonable and relevant to that specific site and if we were to impose conditions
that were not reasonable and relevant, they would be struck out. So Councillor
would get nothing and in fact we wouldn't get the outcome at all that she seems
to think we could do. But, of course, Councillor ABRAHAMS neglects to say
that that the developers on this site will be paying infrastructure charges, in fact
all of the development in this area will be paying infrastructure charges. It's been
very clear, the LORD MAYOR has specifically stated, that council will be
installing lights in this location to service the entire precinct and I would suggest
that infrastructure charges go towards that and certainly is an appropriate way
for us to make sure that any traffic impact is managed.
I also note that there are significant road widenings that are proposed along
Coronation Drive and Archer Street to accommodate this additional traffic
impact and council officers are absolutely confident that the traffic impact that
will be generated from this site will be managed through those and of course the
excellent public transport in this location. Madam Chair, is there anywhere in
this city that has better public transport access? Not only do they have a CityCat
right there, they've got trains, they've got high frequency bus services, they've
got the Bicentennial Bikeway right through their site. It is extraordinary the
richness of the public transport options that these residents will have.
Then we saw Councillor SUTTON saying that we ignore neighbourhood plans,
but she ignores performance outcomes which allow an argument to be put
forward. In this case, there's been modelling, there has been a whole series of
work performed by Council officers to review five 15-storey proposal which
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 85 will be fully compliant with the Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan
and would yield less than 33 per cent of that site cover, so there's a site cover of
50 per cent established under the Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan.
So there could be and Council officers are 100 per cent confident that there
could be 795 residential units on this site, 994 cars also on this site. However
this proposal is for 555 units and 800 cars and 680 bikes proposed, with a 28 per
cent site cover. So in fact if you compare the two schemes, this is five per cent
less site cover, 240 less units and 194 less cars that would be accommodated
under this proposal, as opposed to a fully compliant, acceptable outcome
application on this site, Madam Chair.
So I think it's absolutely clear that the residents' feedback is taken on board
because the residents will see a lot less impact under this proposal than they
would under a fully compliant scheme, Madam Chair. So Councillor SUTTON
rejects performance based planning, but performance based planning is nothing
new. It's been around for many years, Madam Chair. It was around actually in
fact in February 2010 when full Council unanimously supported an application
at Railway Terrace, Milton, not very far away at all. This was an application that
was 30-plus storeys. It was a development on a site zoned for light industry and
zoned for three storeys 10.5 metres. This was supported by full Council, 10
times what the neighbourhood plan foresaw, 10 times on that site and it was
supported by the LNP Councillors and it was supported by Councillor
SUTTON, Councillor ABRAHAMS, Councillor DICK, Councillor NEWTON,
Councillor FLESSER, Councillor GRIFFITHS and Councillor CUMMING.
That was okay in 2010 to support performance based planning, Madam Chair.
Then, in April of that same year, Minister Hinchliffe hauled that application in
and he approved it, Madam Chair. He approved it; he approved performance
based planning and he also removed 100 car spaces at the same time. I note he
actually put out a media release and he talked about what a great outcome it was
and how in line it was with the regional plan and he said that this is the kind of
thing we want to see in our city, Madam Chair.
Well, Madam Chair, the same holds true for this site. It has excellent public
transport, it delivers an even better outcome for local residents with less units,
less cars, improved traffic outcomes and an urban or publically accessible open
space nearly three times what is prescribed under the neighbourhood plan;
8,868 square metres and that's not just of open space, that is riverfront,
accessible space, also allowing access to Middenbury House.
So the nonsense we've heard from those on the other side of the Chamber is
exactly that. They choose to ignore the facts before them and the facts are
absolutely without question. Council officers have very carefully assessed this
application; it complies with City Plan, Madam Chair, as you know it must and
this is a great outcome for our city. This is an outcome that will see growth
located appropriately, this will see growth located in an area where there's
excellent public transport and these issues have been carefully considered and
we think that this is a good outcome and we strongly support this kind of
outcome for our city. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division, which
resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors
Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP,
Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN,
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 86 Ryan MURPHY,
Angela
OWEN-TAYLOR,
Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 6 -
Julian
SIMMONDS,
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON, and
Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Helen
Abrahams, Shayne Sutton and Andrew Wines.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Councillor Geraldine Knapp.
A
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT
2009: MULTIPLE DWELLING (555 UNITS), CENTRE ACTIVITIES
(COMMUNITY USE, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OFFICE AND/OR
SHOP) AND BUILDING WORK ON QUEENSLAND HERITAGE PLACE
(MIDDENBURY HOUSE) (2 STAGES) ON LAND AT 600 CORONATION
DRIVE, TOOWONG - SUNLAND DEVELOPMENTS NO. 8 PTY LTD
A003953028
652/2014-15
1.
The Acting Team Manager, Development Assessment CityWest reports that a properly made
development application has been submitted by Wolter Consulting Group Pty Ltd on 16 September
2014:
Development Aspects:
General description of proposal:
Land in the ownership of:
Address of the site:
Described as:
Containing an area of:
Carrying out building work (preliminary approval)
Carrying out operational work (preliminary approval)
Material Change of Use (development permit)
Multiple-dwelling (555 units), centre activities (community use,
food and drink outlet, office and/or shop) and building work on
Queensland Heritage Place (Middenbury House) – two stages
Sunland Developments No. 8 Pty Ltd
600 Coronation Drive, Toowong
Lot 13 on RP 104400
14,999 square metres
2.
The application is over land currently zoned MC – Major Centre under the Brisbane City Plan 2014
(City Plan) and is within the Toowong Centre Precinct (1C sub-precinct) of the Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan (TANP).
3.
The site has frontages to Coronation Drive, Archer Street and the Brisbane River. The site is positioned
on Coronation Drive, an arterial route (a Major road defined in City Plan), immediately adjacent to a
shared pedestrian/cycle pathway, the Bicentennial Bikeway which is an important link connecting the
Brisbane Central Business District (CBD) to the University of Queensland (UQ) through Toowong.
The site is also located within walking distance of the Toowong Village, Toowong railway station and
Regatta ferry terminal.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 87 4.
The site is a former Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Studio site. The site has important
heritage values of both State and local significance, including a single storey heritage listed
‘Middenbury House’ which was built in the 1860s, the two fig trees on the Coronation Drive frontage
of the site and the vista from Middenbury House to the Brisbane River.
5.
This Impact Assessable application was properly made on 16 September 2014 and is for a development
named ‘Grace on Coronation’. The proposal is for three residential towers, the reuse and extension of
an existing Heritage listed building and centre activities (community use, food and drink outlet, office
and/or shop).
6.
According to the TANP, the site is within Toowong Centre Precinct (1C sub-precinct). The acceptable
outcome of the TANP envisages a building height of 15 storeys on a site with 1,500 square metres or
greater.
7.
The development is proposed in two stages. The first stage will include tower C (multiple-dwelling 265
Units), tower B (multiple-dwelling 130 units and four villa units), the extension and the reuse of
Middenbury House and the street café at the north-eastern corner of the site. The second stage will
include tower A (multiple-dwelling 152 units and four villa units) and a riverfront cafe.
8.
Tower C is 27 storeys located closer to Coronation Drive roadside and towers B and A are of 24
storeys located closer to the riverside.
9.
The multiple-dwelling (555 units) has a total gross floor area (GFA) of 49,231.6 square metres (plot
ratio of 3.28) (break down of towers residential (47,122.8 square metres) and eight riverfront villas
residential (2,108.8 square metres)).
10.
The centre activities (community use, food and drink outlet, office and/or shop) has a total GFA of
537.9 square metres (Middenbury House (351.8 square metres plus extension of 24 square metres)
(forms part of stage 1), street cafe (95.5 square metres) (forms part of stage one) and a riverfront cafe
(66.6 square metres) (forms part of stage two)).
11.
The site was affected in the Brisbane River 2011 flood event. The minimum habitable floor level is 7.2
metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) and the minimum non-habitable floor level is 7.0 metres
AHD. The proposal meets flood immunity levels and a condition has been set to ensure the site
operates to flood immunity into the future.
12.
A total of 8,868 square metres is provided for ‘publicly accessible’ urban common areas over the site,
which are privately owned and maintained but accessible 24 hours to the public. A further 3,801 square
metres is provided over the site as private open space for residents.
13.
A total of 714 resident car parks and 86 visitor/temporary car parks are proposed across four levels of
basement car parking. Basement one (B1) contains 86 visitor/public car parks and 89 bicycle spaces.
Basement two (B2) contains 120 resident car parks and 36 bicycle/storage spaces. Basement three (B3)
contains 295 resident car parks and 278 bicycle/storage spaces. Basement four (B4) contains 299
resident car parks and 277 bicycle/storage spaces.
14.
A total of 680 bicycle parking spaces have been provided on-site, in that 555 are secured residential
bicycle parking spaces and 125 are visitor bicycle parking spaces. Within the 125 visitor bicycle
parking spaces, 89 spaces are located within B1 and 36 spaces are distributed across street-level for
external cyclists.
15.
Vehicular access to the site is via a non-signalised, left-in left-out driveway crossover at Coronation
Drive and Archer Street (a two-lane suburban road). The Archer Street and Coronation Drive
intersection currently functions as a left-in left-out only intersection.
16.
The application was subject to Impact Assessment and therefore was required to be publicly notified.
501 submissions were received. Within these submissions, 19 are valid and 482 are invalid (500 are
objections and one is supportive).
17.
The application triggered referral to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
through the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) as a concurrence agency for the
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) and the Department of Transport and
Main Roads (DTMR) under Schedule 7 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) – Queensland
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 88 heritage place (Table 2, Item 19) and Development impacting on State transport infrastructure (Table 3,
Item 2). On 10 December 2014, SARA provided a concurrence agency response with conditions
(SARA REF: SDA-0914-014662) for its approval.
18.
Councillor Peter Matic, the Councillor for the Toowong Ward, provided comments on 28 April 2015
and 28 May 2015. The Councillor is in support of the proposal.
19.
The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant provisions of the City Plan, including the centre
or mixed-use code, multiple-dwelling code and Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan Code
with the exception of height. However, the application is supported given the site’s riverside amenity,
accessibility to public transport, provision of publicly accessible urban common areas, additional
connections to and the upgrade of the Bicentennial Bikeway, and as the proposal on this catalyst site
fulfils the definition of a landmark site as identified in City Plan.
20.
The Acting Team Manager, Development Assessment City West, advised that relevant reports have
been obtained to address the assessment criteria and decision process prescribed by the SPA outlining
appropriate developmental requirements.
Amendment motion
21.
During consideration of the development application Councillor Shayne Sutton moved an amendment
that all of the aspects of public space conditioned for 24-hour access be amended to make the public
space formally dedicated to Council.
22.
After debate, the Chairman put the vote to the Committee and it was declared lost, with Councillors
Shayne Sutton and Helen Abrahams voting in favour.
23.
It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the approved plans and conditions
included in the Development Approval Package submitted on file and marked Attachment A. The
Committee agrees, with Councillor Helen Abrahams and Shayne Sutton dissenting.
24.
RECOMMENDATION:
(i)
That it be and is hereby resolved that whereas –
(a)
A development application was properly made on 16 September 2014 to the Council
pursuant to Section 260 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as follows:
Development Aspects:
General description of
proposal:
Land in the ownership of:
Address of the site:
Described as:
Containing an area of:
(b)
Carrying out building work (preliminary approval)
Carrying out operational work (preliminary approval)
Material Change of Use (development permit)
Multiple-dwelling (555 units), centre activities (community use,
food and drink outlet, office and/or shop) and building work on
Queensland Heritage Place (Middenbury House) – two Stages
Sunland Developments No. 8 Pty Ltd
600 Coronation Drive, Toowong
Lot 13 on RP 104400
14,999 square metres
Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 9 Part 7A and Section 314 of
the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and decide the application under Sections 324 of the Act;
The Council –
(c)
Upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in Sections 314 and 324 of
the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 relevant to the application considers that:
(i)
the site is within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland
Regional Plan 2009-2031, and the use is consistent with an Urban Activity;
the proposal is consistent with the Brisbane City Plan 2014;
(ii)
the proposal meets the purposes and overall outcomes of the Toowong Auchenflower Neighbourhood Plan, in particular the Toowong Centre
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 89 -
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ii)
Precinct;
the proposal has protected and enhanced the heritage values through the
retention and reuse of Middenbury House and retention of the heritage listed
fig trees;
the proposal has retained the important views and vistas to the Brisbane
River from Middenbury House;
the proposal has enhanced the public realm and pedestrian and cycle
movement by providing a new arcade and extending the
Bicentennial Bikeway connecting Coronation Drive through the site to
Archer Street;
the proposal has encouraged activity on and occupation of the river’s edge
by providing an approximate 8,868 square metres ‘publicly accessible’
urban common areas, which are privately owned but accessible 24-hour to
public for leisure-use;
the proposal has provided extension of the Bicentennial Bikeway along
Coronation Drive frontage, road dedication and intersection treatment to
minimise external traffic impacts;
the development is consistent with the anticipated density and assumed
infrastructure demand.
(d)
Accordingly considers that were reasonable and relevant conditions imposed on the
development, it would be appropriate that the proposed development be carried out
on the subject land;
(e)
Issue Brisbane City Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges Notices for the
development pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Brisbane Adopted
Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.4) 2014, for the transport, community
purposes and stormwater trunk infrastructure networks;
Whereas Council determines as in 14(i) hereof, COUNCIL APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION referred to above and subject to the conditions in the attached Development Approval
Package:
(a)
notify the applicant of this decision and issue the applicant the Adopted Infrastructure
Charges Notices;
(b)
notify the Central SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority (the Authority) of the decision
and provide the Authority with a copy of the Infrastructure Charges Notices;
(c)
notify the Councillor for the Ward of Toowong, Councillor Peter Matic, of this
decision;
(d)
notify the Department of State Development of the decision; and
(e)
notify the submitters of the decision at the expiration of the applicant’s appeal period.
ADOPTED
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 2 June 2015, be
adopted.
Chairman;
Is there any debate?
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, just very quickly. We had a presentation
from Dale Arvidsson, who is the curator of the Brisbane Botanic Gardens, about
the gardens itself, the new extension, but most importantly about the seed bank
that Brisbane City Council has maintained at the Botanic Gardens in partnership
with many other international organisations helping to preserve and protect
many of the endangered plant species not just from Brisbane, but from right
across Queensland, Madam Chairman.
The presenter talked about the 13 distinct bioregions that are represented in the
new section, so that four hectare expansion of the Botanic Gardens that was
opened by the LORD MAYOR just a few weeks ago, as part of a road project, I
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 90 think is probably the first of its kind, where the Botanic Gardens has been
delivered as part of a road project, Madam Chairman.
The presenter spoke at length about how they went about planning and the
particular plant species were chosen to represent and tell the story of the
biodiversity not only of Brisbane, but also of Queensland as a whole,
Madam Chairman, and the work that our officers in our council does as part of a
bigger project to help and protect that biodiversity for future generations. It was
quite an informative presentation, Madam Chairman, and there were a number
of very good questions from the members on the Committee and I commend the
report to the Chamber.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Peter Cumming, Kim Flesser, and Ryan Murphy.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Councillor Geraldine Knapp.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BOTANIC GARDENS
653/2014-15
1.
Dale Arvidsson, Curator, Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mount Coot-tha, Asset Services, Field Services
Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on the
Brisbane Botanic Gardens. He provided the information below.
2.
The presenter showed a detailed map of the Botanic Gardens and explained the different rooms.
3.
Three detailed maps of the Botanic Garden were shown and the presenter spoke further about the
various plant species in each room, displaying images of these and where they are located throughout
the gardens.
4.
There are 202 species of plants listed as endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.
5.
Brisbane Botanic Gardens will house threatened flora from Queensland’s 13 distinct bioregions.
6.
Brisbane Botanic Gardens is participating in international research and conservation via the Australian
Seed Bank Project.
7.
Brisbane Botanic Gardens will be actively participating in conservation programmes of state and
national significance via the Queensland Conservation ‘Garden’ within the new extension of the
Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha.
8.
An image was shown from the naming of the Ross McKinnon Lagoon.
9.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Arvidsson for his
informative presentation.
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 91 -
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by
Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of that Committee held on 2 June 2015, be adopted.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. The items before us, two items, at A this was the
Committee presentation we had last week on the fire preparedness for this
season. We're up to that time of year well and truly, getting ready for the fire
season and the planned burns for this season as well. The officer took our
Committee through the process that they go through before making any
decisions about where planned burn activity will occur and it's very much based
on research information analysis, undertaking risk modification, readiness,
response, recovery and review. It's a cycle that the officers go through and the
planned burn activity does fall under that category of risk modification.
The officer did point to the fact that after an extremely wet, heavy summer, wet
season with lots of heavy rain, that planned burns have been difficult and to
date, when the presentation was made, there had been no planned burns
undertaken. This was based on a number of conditions that the Council requires
which were outlined and are here in the report.
There have been, I can update the Chamber, as of today, two planned burns that
were undertaken today, one at the White Hill Reserve at Camp Hill and the other
the Habitat Estate at Bridgeman Downs, so these were two that were in the
program. But conditions still remain difficult for this type of preparedness
activity, but there's plenty of other work that the fire teams get on with during
the course of the season. We do have approximately 120 firefighters and a range
of infrastructure to both prepare for the season and prepare the condition—
prepare the areas that could be subject to burns ahead of any planned activity
and also, regrettably, unplanned activity.
The team is well and truly ready and able to respond to any unplanned fires too
if they occur. But their principal activity is preparing for the season and to
undertake the pattern of burns in certain areas according to the outline of the
conditions that they have put here in this report.
Madam Chairman, also before us at Item B, the Committee had a petition that
was objecting to a proposed tree planting in the front of the River Gallery
apartments in Merthyr Road, New Farm. The petition was opposing a
replacement tree. That petition received the support of virtually everybody in the
building affected and as a consequence, that tree won’t be planted there, but
there will be an alternative planting for a tree elsewhere in the area and that's the
recommendation of the Committee.
Chairman:
Further debate? No further debate?
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Field Services Committee
was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Peter Cumming, Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ian McKenzie.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FIRE PREPAREDNESS – PLANNED
BURN SESSION BRIEFING 2015
654/2014-15
1.
Chandra Wood, Senior Coordinator Natural Environment, Business Delivery, Asset Services, Field
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 92 Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide information about
Council’s Fire Preparedness – Planned Burn Season Briefing 2015. She provided the information
below.
2.
The 5Rs of bushfire management were a product of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)
National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management in 2005. The Canberra fires of January 2003
were the catalyst for the COAG inquiry. The 5Rs provide a framework for considering all of the
different elements of bushfire risk management and have been adopted by agencies across Australia.
The review of Council’s bushfire procedures and guidelines will incorporate this framework.
3.
The 5Rs are:
research, information and analysis
risk modification
readiness
response
recovery and review.
4.
Planned burning activities fall under the category of risk modification. Historically, most organisations
pour significant resources into readiness and response. However, what happens in the phases before
this can heavily influence the outcome of a readiness, response and recovery effort.
5.
Although some burning was conducted in March 2015, heavy rain intervened around Easter and no
further burns have been possible. The following conditions are required for Council to carry out
effective burning:
a Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) between eight and 12
a Keech-Byram drought index between 70 and 100 (out of a possible 203)
a drought factor of seven to 10
very low fuel moisture, between 11 and 16 per cent.
6.
The FFDI is currently low, at seven. The drought index, which is determined by soil moisture, is also
below the level required, at 59. The drought factor is favourable, at eight, but fuel moisture levels are
above 50 per cent. Present conditions indicate that there will likely be a shortened window of
opportunity to complete planned burns.
7.
There are 33 burns listed for this season, covering 670 hectares of land. Although there will be a late
start to the burning season, planning and preparation is underway to make a number of sites available.
Different locations require slightly different conditions for burning to be possible. Therefore, the
availability of a number of sites allows flexibility in the burning schedule, saving time and money.
8.
The National Climate Centre has produced the seasonal rainfall outlook for the period from June to
August of this year. It indicates that there will be a 40 to 45 per cent chance of above-median rainfall
during that time. A map of Australia, supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology, was shown. The map
was colour coded to indicate the likelihood that the median level of rainfall will be exceeded from June
to August 2015.
9.
The National Climate Centre has also produced the seasonal outlook for temperature for the period
from June to August of this year. It indicates that there will be a 75 per cent chance of above-median
maximum temperatures for this period. A map of Australia, supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology,
was shown. The map was colour coded to indicate the likelihood that the median temperature will be
exceeded from June to August 2015.
10.
Council requires the following resources for burning season activities:
approximately 120 firefighters, working on a maximum 70 per cent staff availability
fourteen 500 litre fire units
four 1,200 to 1,500 litre fire units
nine forward control vehicles
a radio communications network.
11.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Wood for her
informative presentation.
12.
RECOMMENDATION:
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 93 THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED TREE PLANTING IN
FRONT
OF
THE
RIVER
GALLERY
APARTMENTS
AT
6 MERTHYR ROAD, NEW FARM
CA15/232198
655/2014-15
13.
A petition from residents of New Farm, opposing the proposed replacement tree planting on the river
frontage of The River Gallery Apartments at 6 Merthyr Road, was received during the Autumn Recess
2015.
14.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
15.
A petition with 32 signatures has been presented to Council, opposing the proposed replacement tree
planting on the river frontage of The River Gallery Apartments at 6 Merthyr Road, New Farm. This
petition represents 32 of the 36 residents of the unit complex.
16.
This petition was requested directly by the Lord Mayor, in a letter dated 10 March 2015 to The River
Gallery Apartments Body Corporate. The letter asked for a majority decision, indicated by a jointly
signed letter, from the residents of the unit complex.
17.
The matter originally arose when two poinciana trees were lawfully removed during the construction of
the new Brisbane Riverwalk, which terminates at The River Gallery Apartments adjacent to Merthyr
Road, New Farm.
18.
The two removed trees were to be replaced with multiple smaller tree stock around New Farm,
including on the river frontage of the unit complex. The Body Corporate formally objected to
replanting on the river frontage, and the Lord Mayor’s Office advised the Body Corporate that no
replanting on the riverfront would occur. However, one resident of the complex repeatedly opposed the
decision, demanding that trees be replaced where they were removed from. Trees were planted in
January 2015, including three on the river frontage, but when the Body Corporate again objected, these
were immediately transplanted elsewhere in New Farm.
19.
Finally, the Lord Mayor formally requested a majority decision, in writing, from the residents of the
unit complex. This decision has now been received in the form of this petition dated 26 March 2015. It
represents a majority decision from the residents of The River Gallery Apartments, opposing the
proposed tree planting on the river frontage.
Consultation
20.
Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the
recommendation.
21.
Accordingly, the Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
22.
RECOMMENDATION:
ADVISE THE PETITIONERS THAT NO REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PLANTED
ALONG THE RIVER FRONTAGE OF THE RIVER GALLERY APARTMENTS, NEW
FARM.
ADOPTED
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE
Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor
Andrew WINES, that the report of that Committee held on 2 June 2015, be adopted.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 94 Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I just get to the substantive Committee report
from last week, I'd just like to wish everybody a happy Queensland Day for last
Saturday. I know we had a lot of awards ceremonies and festivals in our local
area, I hope everybody else too had the pleasure of celebrating with their locals
and thanking them for the work that they do as well. Friday night was the
Luminous Lantern Festival which was an enormous success. It's been going for
many years now, but as Kerrin Benson, the CEO of Multicultural Development
Association (MDA) said on Thursday, last year they had 900 Facebook posts,
this year they had 6,000 Facebook posts and I think every one of those 6,000
people were there on Friday night. It was a very cool night to be at Southbank
for the lanterns, but it was extremely popular. So well done to the MDA on a
spectacular festival on Friday night and I'm sure they're going to just go strength
to strength for this Sunday when we have Welcome Fest at the Annerley Soccer
Club which will be another fantastic day from MDA as well.
To the report from last week, Madam Chair, we looked at the Youth
Development Team last week and in particular, our Youth Enterprise program.
We are very committed in this side of the Chamber to make sure that we have
young people that are healthy, resilient and confident young citizens and we are
really working hard for our youth strategy to make sure that we can get those
young citizens to contribute to a better Brisbane as well. We want to make sure
that young people live, work, play and study in Brisbane, are engaged,
empowered, included and celebrated and this presentation was really about
sharing the wonderful work that they've been doing in the Youth Development
Team around the Youth Enterprise program.
The majority of the Youth Enterprise program is actually delivered through
Visible Ink in the Valley which was first established in 2001. It's now in its
purpose built location in Maida Lilly Centre in Green Square since 2011, which
is great to see. We have over 13,000 visits a year from young people aged
between 12 and 25 to Visible Ink. It really is an entry point for young people's
engagement with council and I think that is a great outcome for Council to have
that open door for them to come through, but they know somewhere that they
can be comfortable as well to engage with us. We provide resources and support
for emerging young innovators, entrepreneurs, support the delivery of our
vision, but also their vision on what they want to do with their lives to make sure
we're all working towards that better Brisbane.
Some of the ways we've done that, the dance group Neko DC first held their-just
held their first performance in BrisAsia Festival and they're an example of a
group that was using our rehearsal space. It's a 50 square metre space, it can be
used for multiple reasons. They were using it as rehearsals, it's fully air
conditioned, access to projectors, screens, stereos and wi-fi, sits up to 65 people.
So they were using that as rehearsal and practise, gigs for them to actually
perform at BrisAsia, which is fantastic, we also have dance troupes, theatre
troupes, young comics, vocal choirs, movement artists; it's accessible seven days
a week from 8am to 10pm and it's a great space for those performers.
We also have the Youth Performing Arts Queensland which is a not for profit
theatre company which brings young people together to embrace their creativity
and they have a home and they perform there as well and they've also performed
with us at Youth Week in that place as well. Of course MARACCAS, our
Mobile Active Recreation and Creative Community Art Space, which is now
internationally and locally developed and they do a great job in developing our
Chill Out programs every school holiday.
So since 2005, our Youth Enterprise program has supported more than 50
youth-run enterprises, not for profit groups and community initiatives. Free
office space, technology, meeting space, a collaborative hub for peers,
somewhere that young people can feel comfortable but engaged with others in
the community and with council as well. We had our actual Youth Enterprise
program which started in 2014 with 20 young people attending, they did
workshops, they built the basics of your own business, providing opportunities
for them to develop their ideas, a fantastic way for them to really get the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 95 mentoring and the support they need to take that step into the business world. So
we've got some fantastic outcomes from them, from people that are working
there now and also from previous tenants as well.
The Youth Enterprise program, Madam Chair, I have to say, is a proactive way
for us to see the youth strategy come to fruition, to make sure, as I said before,
they are engaged, empowered, included an celebrated. We are supporting them
with digital communication, developing healthy mind and body activities and of
course creative and vibrant community as well. It delivers on the Vision 2031
and I think that the Youth Enterprise program is definitely contributing to a
smart and prosperous city. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Brisbane Lifestyle Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve
Griffiths, Vicki Howard, Steven Huang and Victoria Newton.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – YOUTH DEVELOPMENT TEAM YOUTH ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
656/2014-15
1.
Shane Hackett, Branch Manager, Connected Communities, Brisbane Lifestyle Division attended the
meeting to provide an update on Youth Development Team – Youth Enterprise Program.
2.
Visible Ink Youth Space was first established in 2001, and has been at its current, purpose built
location at the Maida Lilly Centre in Green Square Close, Fortitude Valley, since 2011. The Visible Ink
Valley Youth Space caters for over 13,000 visits a year, from young people aged between 12 and 25.
The Visible Ink Valley Youth Space operates as an entry point for young peoples’ engagement with
Council. The team at Visible Ink work closely with other youth organisations and directly with young
people to provide support and to help young people access resources including cameras and recording
equipment, to art equipment and a badge-maker.
3.
The Visible Ink venue includes the following facilities:
meeting room - designed to seat 20 people around a boardroom-sized table or for smaller
workshops. This room has a whiteboard and access to Wi-Fi
rehearsal space – 50 square-metres of multi-purpose space with a timber floor and floor to
ceiling mirrors for rehearsals. The room is fully air-conditioned, with access to a projector,
screen, stereo and free Wi-Fi. Suitable to seat up to 65 people. Users include dance groups,
theatre troupes and young comics, through to vocal choirs and movement artists. The rehearsal
space is accessible seven days a week, from 8am to 10pm
arts hub - stocked with art supplies, the arts hub is open for use Wednesday to Friday, 12 noon
to 5pm, and is used in a variety of ways from drawing to painting and sewing.
4.
Young people developing their own work can access rehearsal and office space at Visible Ink and get
support from the Youth Development Team workers to plan events, fundraise, develop ideas, access
other resources and put on their own creative and cultural events. Visible Ink can also be used to
organise and run workshops, projects and events, facilitate a community group or to start a business.
5.
Many of the young people that use Visible Ink connect to Council in various ways, including:
the dance group Neko DC who recently held their first performance at the BrisAsia Festival
after hours of rehearsals at Visible Ink
Youth Performing Arts Queensland (YPAQ), a not-for-profit theatre company which aims to
bring young people together to embrace their creativity and help foster creative communities
in Brisbane. YPAQ has its home at Visible Ink and has performed at Youth Week
Mobile Active Recreation and Creative Community Art Space (MARACCAS) was a previous
user of Visible Ink and has now developed both internationally and locally, becoming a
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 96 provider for the Chill Out program.
6.
Since 2005, the Visible Ink Youth Enterprise Program has supported more than 50 youth-run
enterprises, not-for-profit groups and community initiatives by providing services and facilities such as
training, office space, networking and mentoring through the Visible Ink Youth Space. Visible Ink
provides access to free office space, technology, meeting space and a collaborative hub of peers that
keep people focused and accountable towards their goals. The program links with training workshops
to ensure young people have the skills to manage their enterprise and are able to connect with networks
that support their growth.
7.
Visible Ink provides resources and support for emerging young innovators and entrepreneurs and
supports the delivery of the Brisbane Vision 2031 for a smart and prosperous city, as well as providing
a wide range of opportunities for young people exploring ideas, from creating their own business to
starting not-for-profit groups.
8.
The Youth Enterprise Program consists of an initial workshop, where new up and coming young
businesses can apply for the opportunity to participate in the program. In 2014, 20 young people
attended the initial workshop, which included the basics of building your own business and provided
opportunities for them to develop ideas. 15 young businesses currently use the program, some through
regular use of the office space, resources and meeting rooms; others through the program workshops,
links to each other and other resources.
9.
Previous tenants of the Youth Enterprise Program include:
Madeline Price who is currently embarking on an ambitious program, the One Woman Project,
tackling a range of important issues relating to gender equity
Brittni Thomas who is the creative young woman behind ‘HellaBel’ – a brand and online shop
that sells prints, and original and custom alternative style water colour art
Ayesha Lutschini, who is currently in the process of a recruiting drive to expand a group of
young, passionate change makers that run Meri Toksave - a youth led, non-profit initiative
based in Australia, that aims to provide youth engagement and solutions towards combating
gender based violence in Papua New Guinea and encouraging women’s development.
10.
Pedal Brisbane is a not-for-profit, youth-led group, committed to a vision of a sustainable city where
cycling is the main mode of transport and is available to everybody as a safe, enjoyable, economical,
sustainable, and healthy mode of transport. Pedal Brisbane’s ethos is about promoting cycling as daily
transport in a positive, productive and progressive way. Ciara Denham and Mara Quinn, Pedal Brisbane
founders, recently featured on the cover of the evening tabloid MX, and have been supported by the
Visible Ink Youth Enterprise Program since September 2014. Pedal Brisbane receives support at
Visible Ink through the provision of free office space, access to professional mentoring, Wi-Fi,
telephone, printing, copying facilities and other equipment. The duo actively advocate for an
accessible, safe and well planned cycle culture in Brisbane. They achieve this with a fusion of
creativity and healthy lifestyle, delivering a citywide event that celebrates cycling, also called ‘Pedal’.
11.
Ciara and Mara’s drive and commitment to a better Brisbane is a perfect example of the importance of
the Youth Enterprise Program. Their achievements highlight that with some initial support and
guidance, the city’s young people can quickly become respected and recognised innovators. Pedal
Brisbane specifically uses photography, film, design, innovation, talks, debates, advocacy, and
inventions to promote their work.
12.
The Youth Enterprise Program supports Council’s Youth Strategy 2014-2019 by engaging with young
people in a proactive way to deliver a youth friendly city. The Youth Enterprise Program encourages
young people to contribute to a vibrant and creative, smart and prosperous and a friendly, safe city
through supporting the enterprising ideas of young people. The Youth Enterprise Program is proactive
in supporting or delivering ongoing programs and new initiatives of the Youth Strategy 2014-2019
through:
supporting young people to develop digital communications projects
developing healthy mind and body activities
contributing to Brisbane’s vibrant and creative community.
13.
Youth Strategy 2014-2019 is a vision for a city where young people are:
- engaged – young people are valued in their communities, they feel like they belong, and they
actively participate and connect with others in their community
- empowered – young people thrive, they feel safe, their needs are met, and they are able to access
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 97 -
-
support and services to ensure their physical, mental and emotional wellbeing They are empowered
to become our future leaders
included – young people’s needs and opinions inform planning, programming and delivery of
Council services. Young people are involved in making decisions that affect them
celebrated – young people’s culture, diversity, creativity and contributions are celebrated locally
and globally.
14.
The Youth Enterprise Program also delivers on the Brisbane Vision 2031 of a smart and prosperous
city, supporting young people to develop new businesses and contributes to the Creative Brisbane
Creative Economy 2013-2022 strategy by supporting innovative and creative enterprises.
15.
The Chairman thanked Mr Hackett for the informative presentation.
16.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, that the report of that Committee held
on 2 June 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? Any debate?
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance, Economic Development and
Administration Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors
Kim Flesser, Fiona King, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.
A
COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
–
UPDATE
ON
COUNCIL’S
657/2014-15
1.
Katrina Odgaard, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources, Organisational Services
Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s Employment Programs. She provided
the information below.
2.
Council has several employment programs offered to new and existing employees including:
Corporate Graduate program
Corporate Apprenticeship program
Divisional Traineeship program
DisABILITY ACTION at Work program
3.
The Corporate Graduate program delivers an opportunity for recently graduated students to build on
their knowledge and skills in real world work environments. The program offers 14 corporate graduate
participants opportunities across a variety of disciplines including civil engineers, environmental
health, town planning and marketing and communications.
4.
The corporate graduate program has had key successes which include awards at the Australian
Association of Graduate Employers:
Finalist - AAGE Best Graduate Development Program 2009, 2011, 2012
Finalist - AAGE Best Graduate Employer 2012
Winner – AAGE Best Graduate Development Program 2013
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 98 5.
The Corporate Apprenticeship Program provides the skills for new talent joining Council and addresses
skill shortages and ageing workforce issues within Council. It assists in the engagement and retention
of young people within the organisation. The program is coordinated corporately and is delivered in
partnership with Council divisions. The corporate apprenticeship program actively encourages
applicants from indigenous or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CaLD) backgrounds, and people
with disability. Successes include recipient of 2009 Ministers Award for Excellence.
6.
In recent years, Council has had 185 apprentices commence with 92 per cent under 21 years of age
addressing ageing workforce issues. Council has a high completion rate (approximately 75 per cent
compared to the National rate of 59 per cent) with many offered ongoing employment utilising their
trade qualification.
7.
The Divisional Traineeship program offers applicants the opportunity to obtain experience and skills in
various areas including civil construction, business administration, pest management and horticulture.
Council was the recipient of the 2009 Ministers Award for Excellence for the traineeship program.
8.
Since 2007, Council has commenced a total of 500 trainees; completing 26 different qualifications with
an average completion rate of 85 per cent. Council has partnered with the Local Government
Association of Queensland to deliver hundreds of employment outcomes over 11 years.
9.
Council has also facilitated the DisABILITY ACTION at Work program that aims to equip individuals
with disabilities with the work opportunities they need to compete effectively for jobs and increase
their confidence in self-managing their career. The program also aims to equip team leaders with the
capability to be disability confident in their workplace, feel supported themselves whilst supporting a
staff member with a disability, and have the capability to build a team environment that welcomes
diversity.
10.
Since the DisABILITY ACTION at Work pilot program in 2012, 60 per cent of participants are still
working. The current program has 14 participants of which 25 per cent have confirmed work after the
project. The program has participants with the following type of disabilities:
Developmental
Physical
Mobility
Mental health
Vision
Hearing
Learning
11.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Odgaard for her
informative presentation.
12.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE,
RATES,
INVENTORY,
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE,
PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD END MARCH 2015
134/695/317/460
658/2014-15
13.
The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided a detailed report (submitted on file) on
Council’s position relating to accounts receivable, rates, inventory, accounts payable, provisions and
malls for the period ended March 2015.
14.
The Chairman and the Committee noted the report. The financial report on Council’s position relating
to accounts receivable, rates, inventory, accounts payable, provisions and malls for the period ended
March 2015 is now presented to Council for noting.
15.
RECOMMENDATION:
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 99 -
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any petitions?
Chairman:
Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a petition from residents calling on Council
to do a flood planning study of Cannery Creek, Northgate.
Chairman:
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Yes, thanks, Madam Chair, I present this petition on behalf of
Councillor ABRAHAMS. It's a petition calling for tighter restrictions on unit
development and residential areas in Woolloongabba.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair, I've got a petition on behalf of residents regarding the
City Plan.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
I have a petition that I'm presenting on behalf of the LORD MAYOR regarding
the naming of the rebound wall at Villa Street, Yeronga.
Chairman:
Further petitions?
Chairman:
Councillor MURPHY.
659/2014-15
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.
CA15/418597
CA15/402027
Councillor
Kim Flesser
Steve Griffiths
CA15/429632
Milton Dick
CA15/430625
Adrian Schrinner
Topic
Requesting a flood study of Cannery Creek, Northgate.
Calling for tighter restrictions on unit developments in
residential areas of Woolloongabba.
Requesting that Council review the decision making
process around developments in residential areas.
Requesting that Council rename the rebound wall at Villa
Street, Yeronga.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chairman:
Councillors are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct
Review Panel order? Are there any matters of general business?
Chairman:
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to speak briefly on two Toowong
residents who unfortunately had passed away just recently, both substantial
within the community and both of them worth acknowledging. The first being
Elsie Miskin, who passed away last Friday night. Elsie was a stalwart of the
Toowong community, a long-time resident, married into the Miskin family on
which Miskin Street is named. She was a well-known identity within the ward
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 100 and president of the Toowong Senior Citizens Club for a period of about
17 years from July 1983 until 2000.
Elsie was born in Western Australia, joined the Army in 1942 and trained in
signals in Melbourne but then posted to Queensland and that's where she met her
husband, Alf Miskin, whom she married in 1946 and with whom they had one
child. Elsie always looked for the best in people and was a fierce and energetic
person who always managed to galvanise support for the senior citizens. The
death of Elsie is something that has struck within the local community and
particularly with the Toowong and District Historical Society, who she was a
member of and worked very closely with because of her vast knowledge of the
ward and the people in it.
The death of Elsie is about the end of an era. As a young member of a
community organisation which had over 200 members in the mid-'60s and '70s,
Elsie knew so many people locally extremely well and folk who are now long
gone and who had been associated with both the Senior Citizens and the
Toowong RSL Club. On behalf of the Toowong and District Historical Society,
we bid farewell to Elsie and will miss her as she regaled many of our members
with stories about the ward, about Toowong in the past and the people who lived
there.
Another person I'd like to speak to, Madam Chairman, is someone I think that
most of us would be familiar with and that was the passing on the weekend of
Professor Hamilton Russell Cowie. Professor Cowie was a teacher at Churchie
and then he went on to lecture at the University of Queensland and he was a
professor of history at the University of Queensland. Dr Cowie was an associate
professor of the UQ Department of Education from 1994 to 1996, coordinator
and senior lecturer History Curriculum Studies 1972 to 1994,
University Nominee History Syllabus Committee Queensland Studies Authority,
1976 to 1992 and a council member and chairman Grace College 1987 to 1998.
He won an Excellence in Teaching award in 1994.
He was also a member of National Seniors and he and his wife, Kay, lived in
Auchenflower since the 1970s. They had three children. He was a recipient of
the 2012 Australia Day Honours for his enormous influence on history
education in Queensland and was a founding member of both the Queensland
History Teachers Association and the History Teachers Association Australia.
I was privileged enough to meet Professor Cowie when I first started in 2007 at
a National Seniors meeting and I have to say that in this job of being a local
Councillor, it is an honour and a privilege to serve, but particularly so, Madam
Chairman, when you get to meet certain people within your ward who you've
heard of or know of but finally get to meet and speak to and Professor Cowie
was such a person for me. For everyone in this Chamber, Madam Chairman, or
for most of us can I say, who went through secondary school, Professor Cowie
was the coordinator and overseer of the Crossroads series of history books by
which all secondary school students studied.
I remember quite well the series of books that was written over time and
progressed over Years 11 and 12 covering the areas of ancient history, of
modern history, both through the history in evolution of Europe, through the
First and Second World Wars and then the separate volumes on Australian
history. Professor Cowie, through his coordination and senior lecturer in the
History Curriculum Studies was absolutely fundamental in formulating the
Crossroads series, for overseeing that series of books and for educating
Queensland students, Queensland secondary students on history, ancient and
modern.
The influence that he has had not only through this curriculum but in his life as a
lecturer at the University of Queensland is significant and he has touched so
many lives as a teacher. For me, as a great aficionado of history, to be able to
meet him, to be able to speak to him at National Seniors meetings but also just
privately and have the opportunity to listen to someone who was so
knowledgeable and be able to share that with me was both an honour and a
privilege.
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 101 When I was informed this morning of his passing over the weekend, I was
greatly saddened by that. He will be sorely missed, not only by his family, but
all of the people that he touched within the ward, by all the people within
National Seniors that he used to regale with stories and with anecdotes about
history, with the little quizzes that he used to run through those National Seniors
meetings, all of those things were something that is important.
For me, it was both an honour and a privilege to have met him, to have known
him and to be able to have shared moments with him and the extensive
knowledge that he had. Those are the things I guess when we pass away,
Madam Chairman, that go with us and we lose that aspect of that person within
our community. But, can I say, that for me, those moments will live on and I
will be able to express them, as I do in this Chamber and anywhere else about
the great person that Professor Cowie was and about the enormous contribution
that he made to his family, to his community and to our state. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further general business.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I rise to speak tonight in respect of the Parkinson Ward
Multicultural and Dragon Boat Festival which was held on Sunday 7 June.
Madam Chairman, this festival receives great support from Council and for that
I am truly grateful to have this great event in my ward. This is the sixth year that
the festival has taken place and it just continues to grow from strength to
strength. I actually had somebody tell me that the estimated attendance over the
whole day was about 12,000 people, so it really is getting up there in the
numbers, but most importantly, it was the massive turnout of people from so
many different multicultural backgrounds.
We had a fantastic day, the weather couldn't have been better and we had the
Lord Mayor's Dragon Boat Challenge for the professional teams and it was won
by the WAKA Warriors with our local crews, Lakers 1 and Lakers 2 bringing up
the second and third positions in that challenge. The WAKA Association
challenge for the amateur and cultural teams was actually won this year by the
WAKA Association Warriors and certainly there's been strong competition in
the last five years because the Vietnamese team has taken it out five years in a
row and this year they came second and the Malaysian Water Dragons came
third.
So it's very hotly contested, these dragon boat races and there's a lot of teams, a
lot of people that put in a lot of commitment through the training to make it a
fantastic day. I'd just like to extend a few thanks to a number of groups and
people who put in a lot of time and effort to make the day a very successful one.
Could I commence by acknowledging the Forest Lake Rotary Club, particularly
for their ongoing assistance with the citizenship ceremony that precedes the
festival. As usual, it is a very small Rotary Club, however it punches well above
its weight and all of the members there do a fantastic job in the local
community. I'd also like to acknowledge the Queensland Dragon Boat
Federation and the WAKA Association who coordinate the whole day and the
many different teams that certainly participated in the dragon boat races.
I'd also like to extend a very big thank you to our Girl Power team from my SES
South Western Group who manned the SES flood boat as a safety boat for the
whole day and they certainly did a fantastic job which is wonderful to see. Also
through the day there were many different multicultural groups that participated
in providing performances; to Frank Wu who is the current president of the
WAKA Association, I know he had a big load on his plate and he had a very
strong committee behind him and we certainly appreciate all the effort that they
do put in to make this local community even a very strong, multicultural event
for our Brisbane City Council calendar and we do appreciate all the work that
goes in.
So to everybody who was involved in the coordination on the day, who
participated in the many different ways, whether by performances or in the
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 102 dragon boat races or in a support role and to all the people who attended, thank
you for your support of this very important festival.
Chairman:
Further general business? I declare the meeting closed.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton on 3 June 2015
Q1.
Please advise the number of complaints received via the call centre regarding damaged footpaths in the
current financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14.
Q2.
Please advise the number of complaints received via the call centre where callers have requested repairs
to damaged equipment in parks in the current financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14.
Q3.
Please advise the number of complaints received via the call centre requesting graffiti removal in the
current financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14.
Q4.
Please advise the number of complaints received via the call centre that requested road resurfacing in
the current financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14.
Q5.
Please advise the number of complaints received via the call centre about grass cutting in the current
financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14.
Q6.
Please advise how many permit applications for Minor Street Tree Pruning in the current financial year
(to date) and in financial year 2013/14?
Q7.
Please advise how many permits have been approved for Minor Street Tree Pruning in the current
financial year (to date) and in financial year 2013/14?
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 Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 2 June 2015)
Q1.
Would Council please provide the number of number of a) original social media posts on Council’s
Facebook page regarding the IDAHOT Story Bridge rainbow lights story and b) the total number of
shares and likes from third party endorsements of the story?
A1.
The nature of social media means that this information is publicly available in real time by visiting
Council’s Facebook page. You do not need to have a Facebook account to access this information. To
obtain the most up to date figures for any Council post you can access Facebook via the internet. If you
do not have access to the internet you can visit a Council library. Council also offers free Wi-Fi via
mobile phones, tablets or laptop computers for a range of locations across the city, including many
parks.
Q2.
Would Council please advise a) the total number of comments posted on Council’s Facebook page
about the IDAHOT Story Bridge rainbow lights story and b) the number and or percentage of
supportive comments about the story?
A2.
The nature of social media means that this information is publicly available in real time by visiting
Council’s Facebook page. You do not need to have a Facebook account to access this information. To
obtain the most up to date figures for any Council post you can access Facebook via the internet. If you
do not have access to the internet you can visit a Council library. Council also offers free Wi-Fi via
mobile phones, tablets or laptop computers for a range of locations across the city, including many
parks.
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 2 June 2015)
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 103 Q1.
Would Council please advise a) the total number of people reached by Council's Facebook page about
the IDAHOT Story Bridge rainbow lights story and b) was this the most popular Facebook post ever by
Council, or did it reach the highest number of people ever, compared to all other Council Facebook
posts?
A1.
Council’s Facebook page is a publicly accessible page and likes, comments and shares can be seen by
looking at the relevant post. You can also compare the number of likes, comments and shares to other
posts on the page. You do not need to have a Facebook account to access this information. To obtain
the most up to date figures for any Council post you can access Facebook via the internet. If you do not
have access to the internet you can visit a Council library. Council also offers free Wi-Fi via mobile
phones, tablets or laptop computers for a range of locations across the city, including many parks.
Q2.
Would Council please provide a list by name and purpose of all Council boards, committees (not
Councillor Committees), roundtables and advisory groups created by Brisbane City Council whether
paid or voluntary?
A2.
A question on notice about Council boards has been previously answered. Information on a range of
boards, advisory groups and roundtables is available on Council’s website along with information on
the purpose of each group. If you do not have access to the internet you can visit a Council Library.
Council also offers free Wi-Fi via mobile phones, tablets or laptop computers at a range of locations
across the City, including many parks.
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from meeting on 2 June 2015)
Q1.
Please provide the total cost of the Brisbane 2022 Report project?
A1.
Brisbane 2022 is the product of feedback volunteered from over 1,000 participants from 500 local,
national and international organisations. The value of their expertise and the opportunity cost to those
individuals is incalculable.
The report was prepared under the direction of the Lord Mayor’s Economic Development Steering
Committee. A committee of fourteen of Brisbane’s industry and business experts who also donated their
time to the city.
The total cost to facilitate the numerous consultation meetings and sessions it took to complete the
report was $55,000.
Q2.
Please advise the cost to design and print the hardcopies of the Brisbane 2022 report (either directly to
Council or as a cost to Brisbane Marketing)?
A2.
$2,341.50.
Q3.
Please advise how many copies of the Brisbane 2022 report were printed?
A3.
1,175.
RISING OF COUNCIL:
PRESENTED:
8.27pm.
and CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]
- 104 Council officers in attendance:
James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer)
Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer)
Robert Southwood (Acting Council and Committee Officer)
Jahnee Cannings (Acting Council and Committee Officer and Acting Council Orderly)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
[4470 (Ordinary) meeting – 9 June 2015]